“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”
The only time they’ll EVER say they don’t have the power. What does it take to catch a break around here? My state, Oregon, is trying to pass more gun control.
At what point do we say “enough”?
People say they need guns to protect their freedom, then willingly give up both when the government tells them to.
I saw this comment on another blog, and though I would pass it on:
[Congress should] pass a damn law at long-last stating it is “illegal for any state or local official to pass a law banning the possession, sale, or manufacture of [firearms] in the interest of upholding the RKBA” and daring SCOTUS to overturn its own incorporation of a civil liberty and at the same time deny congressional supremacy in the area of defending civil liberties from state oppression. You’d think there would be more than enough support from the “Pro-gun NRA-owned” party with a majority of both houses and the presidency to pull this off, considering there is ample authority for them to do so, yet I’m sure such an obvious and appropriate solution to the problem is beyond their notice.
It’s really frustrating. I don’t think the majority of gun owners fully back the 2a. I’d bet maybe 80% are Fudds.
Someone on ar15.com said that they wanted more gun control so the gun owners are made into criminals, and then maybe they’ll do something about it.
I agree on the fudds. You should see all the people losing their minds over PA allowing semiautomatic rifles to be used for hunting. You would think the State had passed a law allowing grenade launchers instead of semiautomatic rifles.
Too many people have the mentality that as long as their pet firearm use isn’t limited or restricted, they don’t care. They just don’t get the whole picture or comprehend the overall end game those fighting against the Second Amendment are really after.
As far as the “NRA Owned Party”, to the most part, they aren’t any better than the other party. They both want the same thing , one party just wants to go at it at a slower pace. The authority is there but there is still too many “establishment” types. With work and some luck, maybe we can change that by holding our elected official’s feet to the fire and cleaning out the “dead wood” in 2018.
Contact your reps and tell them they are violating the Constitution and that anything they do involving firearms is an invalid law.
Not a bad idea, I’ll give that a shot. I’ve sent them stuff before, but I just get auto-spammed. One of my D reps cosponsored the old HPA and I sent a thank you, and then I got crap saying how he cosponsored it. They probably don’t bother reading it.
My Representative is how he is supposed to be. Seen often at events that have no direct benefit to his election. And he responds when written to and in more than a cookie cutter, form letter approach. Our Democratic Senator responds but with a cookie cutter form letter telling us how he supports the Second Amendment and one’s right to hunt. One never hears a thing from our Republican Senator other than pandering email news letters and when he supports things like the Toomey/Manchin background check collaboration. The only reason he is still in office is because his Democratic opponent was worse. Senator Casey? The man got into office by his daddy’s name and hasn’t done a darn thing for his State or country since. I have no clue how he’s still in office. The big Democrat urban centers must be the reason but that is only a guess. Hopefully, that will change this next election.
Grenade launchers are legal and protected. “Arms” is military weaponry.
and we need to remind the FUDDS and everyone else that actual weapons of war (Enfield, Springfields, Mausers, Nagants, and the list goes on) have harvested more game animals than anything “non-military”.
The US military currently issues the Remington 700, as the M-40 rifle.
Kinda hard to dismiss that connection between a common ‘deer rifle’ and current military use as a ‘weapon of war’.
Thread resurrection because someone pointed to this very case as proof AWB’s are constitutional in the face of both Miller and Heller. Here’s a snippet of my reply in case anyone wants to refer back to it…
"when addressing Heller, the 4th circuit created authority to ban certain firearms from whole cloth. They held:
‘𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦-𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 ‘𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦’ 𝘔-16 𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴 — ‘𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙞𝙣 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚’ — 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙚𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝,’
‘𝘗𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚.’
The Heller court 𝗡𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥 said such arms were ‘beyond the second amendments reach’, nor did it ‘explicitly exclude them from such coverage’. What the Heller court 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 said was:
“𝘐𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝙞𝙛 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙞𝙣 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚—𝙈-16 𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚—𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙗𝙚 𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚. 𝘽𝙐𝙏 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵’𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘼𝙇𝙇 𝘾𝙄𝙏𝙄𝙕𝙀𝙉𝙎 𝘾𝘼𝙋𝘼𝘽𝙇𝙀 𝙊𝙁 𝙈𝙄𝙇𝙄𝙏𝘼𝙍𝙔 𝙎𝙀𝙍𝙑𝙄𝘾𝙀”
Notice that ‘but’ in there??? While 2A protection is not predicated on military/militia service, neither can it be completely detached.
Go read the whole thing. The opinion(the actual legally binding part) starts on page 4 and goes to page 67. It’s double spaced and doesn’t take long.
When referencing Miller, the Heller court had this to say:
‘𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘴(𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 ‘𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙝𝙞𝙥 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙖’)’…
So what happened in Kolbe…
A denial by SCOTUS to hear an appeal also does NOT an endorsement make. The court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins‘𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙪𝙥𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚. 𝘐𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳, 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘪 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝙣𝙤 𝙗𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙩𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵’𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 (𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘪𝘳𝘤𝘶𝘪𝘵, 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵-𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤) 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵’
Interesting and excellent points.
Thanks.
Too many read an article and take it at face value(‘Assault weapons aren’t protected under the 2nd Amendment’ Read all about it!) without even looking at the pertinent details. Worse yet, they believe that SCOTUS opting not to hear a case means they support the lower courts ruling as constitutional. Lastly, those very same people, scream about Scalia and ‘judicial activism’ in regard to Heller(while he pointed out the very plain reasoning backed by actual legal precedent) but ignore the fact NINE of the 15 judges in Kolbe v Hogan were either Clinton or Obama appointees. No politics there, right???
Instagram
FULL30 Blog
Member Map
FULL30 Store
Giveaway Page
Ammo.com Gift
Tactical Reviews
SOG Donations