Government Admits AR-15s Are Not Weapons of War

Please post this in the Legal section and let the attorneys explain the actual significance of the ruling.

Aim1 said:

This is good. Although under the 2nd Amendment, weapons of war should be allowed under the militia part. .....

Click to expand...

Actually, "weapons of war" should be allowed under the "shall not be infringed" part. The first clause is an exemplar expressing the opinion of the authors that a "well regulated militia" (meaning well trained and organized) is necessary to secure the "free state," meaning free condition. "Infringe" means "to intrude into or onto," or, "to diminish."
Just FYI.

And, yes, to respond to the OP's post, this is a good thing!

4v50 Gary said:

I think small arms are weapons of last resort. Nowadays insurgents used IEDs and avoid direct confrontation against superior forces.

Click to expand...

I think in any war to regain freedom, participants fighting against a government force will, if smart, engage a concept called "asymmetric warfare."
Just a bitter fact of survival, IMHO.

Aim1 said:

Although under the 2nd Amendment, weapons of war should be allowed under the militia part.

Click to expand...

"Weapons of war" are the crux of the 2nd Amendment. Under the philosophy of the Founders, the civilian population should be as well armed as the standing army.

I'm not sure that arguing that AR-15's are not "weapons of war" serves us well in the long run. It concedes the antigunners' argument that guns can be divided into those that have legitimate civilian uses (hunting, etc.), and those that do not. The idea, then, is that guns that don't have "legitimate civilian uses" can be banned.

Besides that, the statement that AR's are not "weapons of war" is just lame. AR's in all respects are equivalent to military M16's, except for lacking the full-auto switch, something that is rarely used in combat anyway. Put the two guns side by side and you can see clearly that they are functionally and cosmetically almost the same.

The Dick Act of 1902 - Gun Control FORBIDDEN!
Were you aware of this law?
DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don't know this, their rights and the constitution. Don't prove them right.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.
It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
**SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Sources:
http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/gun_control_forbidden.htm
http://rosieontheright.com/what-is-the-militia-bill-h-r-11654/
Get this message out to all your email contacts. It's time to learn about your rights. Our current President and the Democrats don't seem to worry about breaking laws or the U.S. Constitution. They do things regardless even if it goes against the Constitution which they swore to abide by when each one of them took office. That itself is an impeachable offense!!!

You can do a 'search' on the bill and read the entire thing. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The conclusions in the above commentary on the Dick Act of 1902 are simply not true.

Like all acts of Congress, it can, in fact, be repealed.
It does not invalidate all gun control laws.
The members of the unorganized militia do not, by virtue of the Dick Act, have the "absolute personal right to... arms of any type."
The repeal of the Dick Act would not be a bill of attainder or ex post facto law.
The National Guard can in fact be called up to serve outside their state and even outside the country. This is done all the time.

The issues have been litigated in the courts and gotten nowhere.

This nonsense rises to the level of the "sovereign citizen" claptrap. The High Road is not the place to disseminate such things.

The National Guard served in Vietnam, and in other wars. Eisenhower nationalized the NG when a certain governor tried to use state police to keep schools from being desegregated....
....I have to believe AlexanderA is correct....

Tommygunn said:

The National Guard served in Vietnam, and in other wars.

Click to expand...

The National Guard provided the 26th through the 42nd Divisions in WW1. (Numbered Divisions below those were Regular Army and numbered Divisions above those were National Army, or draftees. Of course, the character of the units became watered down as the war progressed, because of replacements.) Keep in mind that this was only a few years after the Dick Act.

The 26th (Yankee Division) was made up of National Guard units from New England, the 27th (Empire) from New York, the 28th (Keystone) from Pennsylvania, the 29th (Blue and Gray) from Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, and so on all across the country. The 42nd (Rainbow Division) was made up of leftover National Guard units from all over. These were big "square" divisions with 4 regiments each. After WW1, they evolved into "triangular" divisions with 3 regiments each. The 29th Division which landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day was made up of 3 regiments -- two from Maryland (the 115th and the 175th) and one from Virginia (the 116th). All National Guard units.

Actually, Lyndon Johnson generally kept the National Guard out of Vietnam, for political reasons. (Draft-eligible people my age were vying to get into the National Guard, so as to avoid being sent to Vietnam.) Of course, more recently, the National Guard has been a mainstay in the Global War on Terror. Deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have been common.

Possibly Air National Guard? I recall photos of ANG jets in 'Nam.

My Grandfather went to France with the Keystone 28th Div. The huns called them the 'Bloody Buckets'.

We already knew this about the government. But, as other people have already posted, this still has no bearing on the Second Amendment. None whatsoever.

I believe U.S. v. Miller ruled that short-barreled shotguns could be banned because they were not weapons of war.

In other words, the Second Amendment's purpose is indeed a military one so military weapons should be not be the ones restricted. This is the exact opposite of the arguments you hear from anti-gunners: weapons of war should be banned and "sporting purpose" guns allowed (until they get around to banning them too).

1. If they were weapons of war that would be fine. Weapons of war is the whole point. Tell them fools to read a book about how our country was formed.

2. They aren’t though. Tools of the Police is a more accurate description. There are AR-15s in the armory of *every* police station in the entire country. They are responding to the situations that Americans are facing so if they need them, we need them.

I'm not aware of any firearm that hasn't been used by someone in DOD. Including short barrel shotguns. Let's not stray off topic. The 2A calls for the right to keep and bear arms, "arms" are in fact ALL weapons, INCLUDING edged weapons. We've been particularly wrong about trying to set those aside with gravity, dirk, dagger, and switchblade laws imposed to disarm certain people due to cultural differences. They have been arms of war longer than the Constitution has existed.

In point of fact, the most common "arms" carried when men wrote the Constitution were edged weapons, which were frequently carried every day. Not a flintlock or musket. I seriously doubt the streets of Boston were teeming with workmen and passersby toting Pennsylvania rifles, either. But a dirk, hanger, sword cane, or simple clasp knife was a necessary and frequent companion.

Don't limit how you define arms because all you do is give aid and comfort to our enemies. As the ridiculous pattern in Great Britain has shown, first firearms, now kitchen knives. it's proven that limiting one then causes citizens to fall back on the next, and those who attempt to disarm us will go down whatever rabbit hole politically to enslave us. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...expected-at-London-rally-against-weapons.html

This is their end game, to make us helpless in any way they can. Either you stand to protect all arms, or, they will chip away until you have nothing to open that plastic ration of Soylent except your teeth. If we survive so long - don't forget both NK and Iran were being given nukes financed by our own government.

The right to keep and bear arms - which the ATF has recently interpreted to include the Mossberg Shockwave as being legal for public sale . . .

I’m with Tirod, while rocks have been used as weapons of war, I don’t call the ones in my yard that.

Same as my full auto or belt fed stuff, they would be more accurately called “toys” than “weapons of war”.

It sounds like this is part of the pending delisting of most firearms from the ITAR Munitions List.

Mike