Supreme Court: Ban against full auto un-Constitutional

[linuss]

Atleast, that'd be the headline if the provision inside the 1986 FOPA banning FA weapons after that date ever makes it to the Supreme Court, and for one simple reason: Miller.


US v Miller, SCOTUS held that a weapon was not allowed because it was not 'in common use'. The corollary is that if a weapon is 'in common use', it's legal and allowed to be owned by civilians. FA rifles are 'in common use' by the military. Therefor, if they follow their own precedent, if this ever gets brought up in court, that subsection should be ruled unConstitutional. It's also predicated on the statement of "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".



And that too, is why an AWB will not hold up in courts, if they follow jurisprudence: Not only are 'assault weapons' in common use by civilians, but also by the police and the military. There is no way to get around that one. And a 'military weapon' has some 'reasonable relationship' with a militia, does it not?




Now... who wants to pony up the cash for this fight?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ccw9mm]

Sounds like one that the SAF might well go after.

[Badey]

I say we deal with the current gun control fight, then take this one on after that.

[zacii]

It may be a possibility, and I agree with it in principle, but I think timing is off.

Gotta know when to strike.

Select fire weapons are not in common use among the population, thanks to the 86 law. So, I don't think it would fly on that alone.

If it could be proven that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, the same arms as a soldier may bear, then that might open a door. But that is a long way off given the fight we have now.

Time will tell.

Sent from my Galaxy S2

[Rattlehead]

It may be a possibility, and I agree with it in principle, but I think timing is off.

Gotta know when to strike.

Select fire weapons are not in common use among the population, thanks to the 86 law. So, I don't think it would fly on that alone.

If it could be proven that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, the same arms as a soldier may bear, then that might open a door. But that is a long way off given the fight we have now.

Time will tell.

Sent from my Galaxy S2

Unless I'm mistaken, this exact point was what the Supreme Court decided in Miller (and was the basis for Miller's loss).

"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."

United States v. Miller

[lchamp]

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Perhaps the roar of the antis will come back to bite them...or not...

[10thmtn]

IIRC, the SC stated in the Heller decision that regulations that prohibit things like machine guns and carrying a firearm into a court room would be Constitutional.

"Common use" means commonly used by civilians - not the military.

Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Let's worry about protecting our rights. This is not the time to be inflaming the issue by trying to get full auto legalized. Besides - can't afford the ammo anyway.

[481]

IIRC, the SC stated in the Heller decision that regulations that prohibit things like machine guns and carrying a firearm into a court room would be Constitutional.

"Common use" means commonly used by civilians - not the military.

This is what I have been led to believe, too. Of course, the silver lining to the current buying panic is that the exact gun that gets the anti's panties all bunched-up is the one that is flying off of dealer's shelves making it all the more "commonly used by civilians". Kinda nice even if it is kind of inconvenient.

[BeefyG]

I wonder if hoarding still technically counts as use.

[Eagleks]

There is no way to get around that one. And a 'military weapon' has some 'reasonable relationship' with a militia, does it not?

Now... who wants to pony up the cash for this fight?

An AR ... is a semi-auto , with semi-auto technology, don't confuse it with military weapons, that seems to be what has caused the issue in the first place.

[stanislaskasava]

The Constitution means what it means, regardless of previous Supreme Court bumbling. Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... Especially to keep and bear the very same arms that are in common use by soldiers. How else can we maintain a well-regulated militia?

What use is the right to keep and bear spitwads and bottle rockets? Disarming The People is the foundation of tyranny.

[Echo_Four]

Stare Decisis is only useful as far as a current court agrees with a previous court. Nothing in Miller would force a current court to rule in any manner. While Heller does uphold the common use clause in Miller it in no way indicates that the Court is ready to allow full autos to come back to the market. If anything they language leaves one to believe the court would rule against allowing it to happen.

[Exacto]

Your still thinking pre-Obama. We have a ruler now, not a president. The supreme court and the Constitution are on his hit list as well.

[1010]

The Protection act was passed in CONG , it was not a EXEC order like what Barry is looking to do.

CONG banned the AW weapons in 86, atleast thats what politicians called them, so WTH are we banning now!!

[dukalmighty]

An AR ... is a semi-auto , with semi-auto technology, don't confuse it with military weapons, that seems to be what has caused the issue in the first place.

According to swinestein I could convert one with bubble gum and a shoestring