In hearing all this talk of "no citizen needs a military style ASSAULT" rifles I've found several US cases that seem to disagree. I'm no attorney, but let me know what you guys think:
-
-
It seems to me that the courts are essentially saying "A sawed off shotgun has no purpose in providing for the common defense and thus the 2nd amendment does not apply". Also, "..when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time". To me it almost seems that if they want to challenge the constituationality of owning such weapons on the premise of "the founders couldn't have imagined..." that we ought to put a ban on weapons that COULDN'T be used in the military (although I hope we don't.....)
-
-
US vs. Miller
"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... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
-
-
Opinions sought....
-
-
It seems to me that the courts are essentially saying "A sawed off shotgun has no purpose in providing for the common defense and thus the 2nd amendment does not apply". Also, "..when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time". To me it almost seems that if they want to challenge the constituationality of owning such weapons on the premise of "the founders couldn't have imagined..." that we ought to put a ban on weapons that COULDN'T be used in the military (although I hope we don't.....)
-
-
US vs. Miller
"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... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
-
-
Opinions sought....
