Originally posted by: Marlin1975
And that was not even a federal court just a district court ruling. I guess you left that part out?
If you had done your reserach as I have you would know...
1. No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.
2. The meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller
"In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia."
3. Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.
If any of you gun people think the 2nd protects your individual right to own a gun. Sue the government over any gun law saying it breaks your right as a individual to own a gun that is protected by the 2nd. Tell me how that works out.
Theres a reason the NRA has not sued saying any gun law is wrong as it breaks the 2nd. They know they would lose and not be able to get their dues from all the gun people and lose their "we stand for the 2nd..." BS slogan.
Wow, look at the little boy pretending to be a constitutional law expert. :roll:
US v Miller only referred to sawed off shotguns.
"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."
It says nothing about the 2nd Amendment in general you tool. You should learn to read before you pretend to know what you're talking about. If US v Miller is your basis for argument, you've just lost. And I sure would like it you provide cites for those cases where the Supreme Court clearly laid out the meaning of "well regulated militia", because I'd love to see it.
Besides, the text states clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" not "the right of military to keep and bear arms". If you want to say "the people" only refers to military personnel, are you also willing to give up the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? Because if "the people" doesn't refer to citizens but only to the military, then there is no right for anybody but the military to protest and nobody but current military personnel can expect protection from government searches.
Illiterate and ignorant. You've really got your bases covered there, don't ya Marlin?
.
Facebook
Twitter