The supreme court remanded the Miller case back to the lower court for further evidentiary development, despite the fact that no one appeared for the defendants. No evidence was presented on behalf of the defendants at the supreme court hearing. The Court essentially gave the defendants another chance to defend their case, if they could produce evidence that the shotgun was reasonable related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The police tried to arrest Miller and the co-defendant, Frank Layton, again after the decision, but Miller was killed in a shootout, and Layton pled guilty to the re-instated NFA charge before any evidentiary development was done, thus ending the case. It is a horrible case upon which to rely in support of gun control.
Given the dangerous and unusual standard and the historical tradition of don't throw flaming shit at people as long as it doesn't have radiation it wouldn't be deemed as unusual
If anyone bothers to read the US Constitution properly ratified treaties also become part of the law of the land. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is what bans private ownership of nuclear weapons. Besides, who could afford the upkeep on one of them?
That dude got it all wrong, they ruled that things like Sawed off shotguns, SBR's, machine guns were NOT in common use by the military so therefore wouldn't be covered by 2A protection. Even though by that time crew served machine guns were in wide use in the military, but they apparently didn't know & no one from the defense team showed up to set them straight.
It may help to understand that the Second Amendment is both an individual and a collective right... Also, it is a right defined by English common law. That's why the Constitution doesn't define what the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is, it just references a pre-existing right. Originally it was not only a right but a duty for every able bodied man to have basic infantry weapons and armor and to know how to use them. This was to allow the citizenry to defend England and to allow citizens to defend themselves. In a modern sense it seems reasonable to assume that this right applies to individuals and gives them the right to have the basic weapons used by an infantryman and by law enforcement. That would mean modern infantry rifles, like the M16 or M4, police handguns, like the Glock, and a riot shotgun. It probably would not include crew served weapons and certainly would not cover strategic weapons like h-bombs. However, it is also a collective right which also gives the states a right to have a militia. And if the states have that right then they obviously have the right to decide what weapons members of their militia can have and this might well include crew served weapons, artillery, tanks, jet fighters, etc. I will grant that purely strategic weapons are beyond the needs of state militias to own. Translation, pretty much all Federal weapons control is invalid except for strategic arms, nuclear weapons, poison gas, and the like. States can allow their militia (their residence) to own anything else or restrict access to certain weapons. But the basic weapons of the individual (rifles, pistols, and shotguns) can't be restricted by the states. As far as red flag laws go. If someone is a danger to others then it makes sense to arrest them as taking their guns won't stop them from getting another gun, or hurting people with an axe. If they aren't enough of an obvious danger to arrest then you don't have enough evidence that they are a danger to deprive them of their rights. Same principle with felons. If a person is so dangerous that they can't be trusted with a gun then why aren't they still in prison?
If the government can own it then you should be able to own it if you have the means to procure it. Period. As far as not knowing what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they didn’t bury any hidden meanings in it. It’s written exactly as they meant it. Setting aside the evolution of grammar, the meaning is right there on the page. The founding fathers never intended the Constitution to be some mysterious document that required an entire legal industry to translate it for the plebs. As soon as you hear “what they meant was…” you can freely ignore everything else that idiot says.
The supreme court remanded the Miller case back to the lower court for further evidentiary development, despite the fact that no one appeared for the defendants. No evidence was presented on behalf of the defendants at the supreme court hearing. The Court essentially gave the defendants another chance to defend their case, if they could produce evidence that the shotgun was reasonable related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The police tried to arrest Miller and the co-defendant, Frank Layton, again after the decision, but Miller was killed in a shootout, and Layton pled guilty to the re-instated NFA charge before any evidentiary development was done, thus ending the case. It is a horrible case upon which to rely in support of gun control.
No, it doesn't only apply to small arms. If it did the 2A would read the right to small arms shall not be infringed.
Given the dangerous and unusual standard and the historical tradition of don't throw flaming shit at people as long as it doesn't have radiation it wouldn't be deemed as unusual
If anyone bothers to read the US Constitution properly ratified treaties also become part of the law of the land. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is what bans private ownership of nuclear weapons. Besides, who could afford the upkeep on one of them?
That dude got it all wrong, they ruled that things like Sawed off shotguns, SBR's, machine guns were NOT in common use by the military so therefore wouldn't be covered by 2A protection. Even though by that time crew served machine guns were in wide use in the military, but they apparently didn't know & no one from the defense team showed up to set them straight.
It applies to ARMS. Not small, ANY arms. I don't believe that would include WMDs, but other might dissagree
It may help to understand that the Second Amendment is both an individual and a collective right... Also, it is a right defined by English common law. That's why the Constitution doesn't define what the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is, it just references a pre-existing right. Originally it was not only a right but a duty for every able bodied man to have basic infantry weapons and armor and to know how to use them. This was to allow the citizenry to defend England and to allow citizens to defend themselves. In a modern sense it seems reasonable to assume that this right applies to individuals and gives them the right to have the basic weapons used by an infantryman and by law enforcement. That would mean modern infantry rifles, like the M16 or M4, police handguns, like the Glock, and a riot shotgun. It probably would not include crew served weapons and certainly would not cover strategic weapons like h-bombs. However, it is also a collective right which also gives the states a right to have a militia. And if the states have that right then they obviously have the right to decide what weapons members of their militia can have and this might well include crew served weapons, artillery, tanks, jet fighters, etc. I will grant that purely strategic weapons are beyond the needs of state militias to own.
Translation, pretty much all Federal weapons control is invalid except for strategic arms, nuclear weapons, poison gas, and the like. States can allow their militia (their residence) to own anything else or restrict access to certain weapons. But the basic weapons of the individual (rifles, pistols, and shotguns) can't be restricted by the states.
As far as red flag laws go. If someone is a danger to others then it makes sense to arrest them as taking their guns won't stop them from getting another gun, or hurting people with an axe. If they aren't enough of an obvious danger to arrest then you don't have enough evidence that they are a danger to deprive them of their rights. Same principle with felons. If a person is so dangerous that they can't be trusted with a gun then why aren't they still in prison?
If the government can own it then you should be able to own it if you have the means to procure it. Period.
As far as not knowing what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they didn’t bury any hidden meanings in it. It’s written exactly as they meant it. Setting aside the evolution of grammar, the meaning is right there on the page. The founding fathers never intended the Constitution to be some mysterious document that required an entire legal industry to translate it for the plebs. As soon as you hear “what they meant was…” you can freely ignore everything else that idiot says.