does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy

OK all you purists out there, do you think that Title 18 US Code, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional because it states that no one under 18 can own a firearm (long gun) and no one under 21 can own a handgun?

Do you think that the law that says you can not have a fully automatic weapon with out paying the extra tax and going thru the other hoops you have to is unconstitutional?

Should a 17 year old American be able to own a stinger? Should a 25 year old be able to own a Stinger?

Do you think you should lose your second amendment rights if you are convicted of a felony?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AceRider

Wait, how come mortars and tanks and stingers don't count?

---

Quote:

---

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
~snip~

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~snip~

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, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

---

In order to be a protected, a weapon must be "in common use at the time", and may not be "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:


Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArmyMan

In order to be a protected, a weapon must be "in common use at the time", and may not be "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership.

---

The interpretation by those in the black robes might not be consistent with those that wrote the 2nd amendment. And yes I know whatever they say is the end of the line however it doesn't mean its right.

In order for the people to insure their free state we should be allowed to keep the same weaponry as front line military personnel. Meaning at least pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, hand grenades, grenade and rocket launchers as someone mention in another thread.

The dangerous and unusual language is pure BS. First off is states "and" meaning it has to be both. A hand grenade can be considered dangerous if used improperly just a pistol/rifle can be dangerous if used improperly. Are any of the weapons I mentioned unusual the answer is no (and they are only dangerous if used improperly).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlr1m

The Constitution does not give the States anything. Its the other way around. The States and their citizens gave the Federal Government certain powers. What they did not give the Feds they kept for themselves.

Michael

---

Michael, well said. I was responding to tangoseal's statement, "Why should a felon have a permanent loss of the right to legally own a firearm. NO WHERE in our Constitution does it say this right can be taken away." What Roger Clegg says is that the Constitution doesn't give congress the power over state's "disenfranchisement" of felons:

Quote:

---

Article I, section 2, which says that electors for the House of Representatives—and, by extension, for all federal elections—“shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Thus, it gives authority for determining elector qualifications to the states.

---

with Civil Rights Act exceptions.
Note, that in the case of felons, states are not negating 2A via the 10th Amendment, as they do honest citizens but by the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, section 8, clause 18:
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" for domestic tranquility, if not the above Article I, section 2.
We know that 2A is not a civil right but a natural right that the Constitution protects and that we are a government of the people and for the people - but honest people.

Let we the people decide for themselves, If I want a full auto made after may 17,1986 who cares?

Also we cant we own tanks? I mean the Goverment can, Look at Waco,how many average guys have burnt 90 plus people alive over a $200 tax they where not allowed to pay? We cant be trusted? if the commen man cant and the commen man has no power? why should we trust those with power?