411man
03-20-2007, 04:08 PM
In US vs Miller the US Supreme Court took note of the following:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches
in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear
such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or
that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v.
State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
and
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of
Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A
body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time."
Now the question is, Do full-automatic Assault Weapons and / or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons qualifiy as "....And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time." or if one prefers Militia Weapons? If so, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and any other ban or constriction to the availability of Militia Weapons would be Un-Constitutional per US vs Miller ( see quotes above).
So if any type of weapon could be considered Exempt from Second Amendment protection it would be "Sporting Weapons".
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Here is the liknk to this case: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches
in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot
say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear
such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or
that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v.
State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
and
"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of
Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A
body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time."
Now the question is, Do full-automatic Assault Weapons and / or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons qualifiy as "....And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time." or if one prefers Militia Weapons? If so, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and any other ban or constriction to the availability of Militia Weapons would be Un-Constitutional per US vs Miller ( see quotes above).
So if any type of weapon could be considered Exempt from Second Amendment protection it would be "Sporting Weapons".
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Here is the liknk to this case: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt