Hasn’t the USSC already ruled that MSRs were protected under the 2A?

SilentStalker said:

Any legal scholars want to chime in here? I thought the USSC already ruled protecting MSRs or what the Dems like to call “assault weapons”? And once a ruling is made then why is it allowed to constantly be brought back up every time a mob pushes for it? I mean it seems like if we sway this way or that under mob rule then we have no real order and the point of the courts is kind of moot.

Click to expand...

I think that is a feature to anti-gunners and not a bug. The rule of law and democracies require that a winner is gracious in victory and losers accept the loss in good grace. When trust breaks down or one side decides no victory no peace in a famous phrase, then both the rule of law and the republic's political institutions decline in tandem. If the ends justifies the means becomes the default for one side, it will soon do so for the other as well if nothing else than self defense.

I've been reading recently, Wood's Creating the American Republic and last year numerous accounts of the tumultuous 1850-1860 political period before the Civil War. It is pretty sobering stuff where the institutions crumble and what was previously accepted becomes intolerable. Friends become enemies, people on both sides are dehumanized, those who are reasonable get ignored or silenced, and you get something like the beginning of 2001 Space Odyssey with the ape scene (aka human forebearers)--taunts and posturing become murderous action. I believe Rory Miller has termed it as the "monkey dance" before violence occurs.

A number of folks, and this was chillingly portrayed in the beginning of Gone with the Wind, felt tired of waiting for resolution of the conflicts and actually cheered them on because they thought their cause was just and they would win. History is not kind to such people.

Oh, and Scalia's opinion in Heller argues that weapons in common use among the citizenry (derived from the older Miller case) should be protected which the gun controllers claim that military semi automatics are not in common use and have no protected use such as self defense, hunting, or sport.

No The Supreme Court has not ruled that MSR’s are protected. Quite to the contrary. In Heller The Court left the door open that it may be legal to ban certain types of firearms. Since then The Supreme Court has not taken a case to clarify it’s meaning.

This is one of the reasons that Heller is not as great of victory as Pro-2A folks claim.

SilentStalker said:

I thought the USSC already ruled protecting MSRs or what the Dems like to call “assault weapons”?

Click to expand...

No!!!

Whenever the issue has been raised (in regard to the NY SAFE act, or the Maryland legislation), the Supreme Court has declined to take the case. Reading the tea leaves, there is nothing to say that the Court would strike down a federal AWB, even with a "conservative" majority. There is plenty in the landmark Heller case that would support such a ban.

Now, that would be on 2nd Amendment grounds. A challenge on 5th Amendment "taking" grounds would be on stronger footing. That's why all the introduced AWB bills, such as H.R. 1263 and H.R. 1296, allow for some form of grandfathering.

I don't recall hearing of such a ruling. What I have heard is the argument for the protection of the right to own firearms "in common use." This stems, at least in part, from an early-20th-century case in which a man had been convicted of possession of a short-barreled shotgun. His appeals failed because the courts considered such a shotgun to not be "in common use", and that the Constitution affirmed protection only of the RTKBA that were "in common use."

Proponents of the right to own so-called "assault weapons" believe (and quite correctly!) that these firearms are indeed "in common use." Though they make the argument that this should mean they should not be banned or sold under restriction, I know of no court ruling that has agreed with this stance on the federal level.

MedWheeler said:

I don't recall hearing of such a ruling. What I have heard is the argument for the protection of the right to own firearms "in common use." This stems, at least in part, from an early-20th-century case in which a man had been convicted of possession of a short-barreled shotgun. His appeals failed because the courts considered such a shotgun to not be "in common use", and that the Constitution affirmed protection only of the RTKBA that were "in common use."

Proponents of the right to own so-called "assault weapons" believe (and quite correctly!) that these firearms are indeed "in common use." Though they make the argument that this should mean they should not be banned or sold under restriction, I know of no court ruling that has agreed with this stance on the federal level.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, several U.S. Courts of Appeals have specifically rejected protecting "assault weapons" using Heller as precedent, namely the 2nd and 4th for example but there may be more.

SilentStalker said:

Federal gun control is treason. Displacing the legitimate government created by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which they swore to) & replacing it with something else, is the Article 3 definition of treason. "Levying war against them".

The 2A is a clear, blanket prohibition on the federal government. It's a state issue. Even article 3's definition of treason shows that the sovereignty is supposed to be with the states, "levying war against THEM".

Click to expand...

Let's not bandy about the word "treason" loosely. The Framers deliberately provided a very narrow definition of treason:


"War" is not metaphorical. They meant actual, physical war. Political disputes are specifically not included in treason. That is exactly what the Founders were trying to avoid, as it had been abused in Britain in the past.

MedWheeler said:

What I have heard is the argument for the protection of the right to own firearms "in common use." This stems, at least in part, from an early-20th-century case in which a man had been convicted of possession of a short-barreled shotgun. His appeals failed because the courts considered such a shotgun to not be "in common use", and that the Constitution affirmed protection only of the RTKBA that were "in common use."

Click to expand...

You're confusing Miller (1939) with Heller (2008).

The Miller ruling was that a short barreled shotgun was not protected by the second amendment because it served no militia (military) purpose. This infers that if a weapon is useful to the military, it is protected by the second amendment. This case has some weirdness to it, like the original case was thrown out and when the gov appealed to the Supreme Court the defense never even showed up to argue their position.

The Heller ruling is where we get the idea that only weapons in common use are protected by the second amendment.

While these cases can be used to argue that MSRs are protected by the second amendment, neither clearly define what that protection actually means. Theoretically registration is acceptable under these rulings, which is obviously something that is not acceptable to us.

Heller helped (individual vs collective right), and Heller hurt (can be regulated & Common Use)

"Common Use," however, might come to be viewed as very problematic in its own right,
. . . as it freezes a long history of arms modernization in its tracks.

SilentStalker said:

Federal gun control is treason. Displacing the legitimate government created by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which they swore to) & replacing it with something else, is the Article 3 definition of treason. "Levying war against them".

The 2A is a clear, blanket prohibition on the federal government. It's a state issue. Even article 3's definition of treason shows that the sovereignty is supposed to be with the states, "levying war against THEM".

Click to expand...

We are dealing with a political entity that does not fear treason or the penalties of such. The FBI has deliberately dropped investigations against high ranking Democrats and gun grabbers. They believe themselves Teflon, and cannot be touched. An all out Civil war should remind them of their frailties. Except most Americans are too socially pacified to do anything about it.

SilentStalker said:

So, would you consider someone confiscating arms, like Beto says he wants, an act of war against the people?

Click to expand...

I would consider it a civil rights violation.

boom boom said:

I've been reading recently, Wood's Creating the American Republic and last year numerous accounts of the tumultuous 1850-1860 political period before the Civil War. It is pretty sobering stuff where the institutions crumble and what was previously accepted becomes intolerable. Friends become enemies, people on both sides are dehumanized, those who are reasonable get ignored or silenced, and you get something

Click to expand...

Stronger times IMO. More moral character and grit. Gentlemen tipped their hats to ladies all. Etc. I wouldn't want to arm wrestle any of them, and I M 5'10'' middle aged and in shape.

And with those listed exceptions, and the date range...sounds similar to some of these days, unfortunately...

The anti gun nuts have proven they don't know anything about gun laws, case law and don't care about due process.

Remember these people are a tiny noisy minority. Gallup has a long term poll of likely voters where they ask what the most important problem to the country is. "Gun control" consistently has less than 1% of people saying it's the top problem.

748 said:

"Gun control" consistently has less than 1% of people saying it's the top problem.

Click to expand...

And yet that is the entire campaign for one of the political parties...

badkarmamib said:

And yet that is the entire campaign for one of the political parties...

Click to expand...

And that party and most of the media is trying to turn gun control into the deciding factor in the upcoming election.