'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[sPzAbt505]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

 

[Howey]

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.

Ahh...another gun nut spreading the gospel.

I'm not sure if you know this, but claims such as yours are better when an accompanying link is furnished. It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS, even our conservative SCOTUS, disagrees.

The SCOTUS, in fact, in its decision on DC vs Heller, found that although the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm; but that the right to possess was "not unlimited".

 

[sPzAbt505]

Ahh...another gun nut spreading the gospel.
I'm not sure if you know this, but claims such as yours are better when an accompanying link is furnished.

United States v. Miller (No. 696) 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed
(Cannot yet post link)
For a weapon to be protected under the 2nd, it must one suitable for service in the militia, and part of the ordinary militatry equipment in common use at the time.
There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this sort of weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS, even our conservative SCOTUS, disagrees.

Nothing in Heller negates the soundness of my position.
If you disagree, please feel free to quote the text to that effect.

The SCOTUS, in fact, in its decision on DC vs Heller, found that although the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm; but that the right to possess was "not unlimited".

This does nothing to negate the soundness of my position.
If you disagree, please feel free to quote the text to that effect.

 

[Howey]

United States v. Miller (No. 696) 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed
(Cannot yet post link)
For a weapon to be protected under the 2nd, it must one suitable for service in the militia, and part of the ordinary militatry equipment in common use at the time.
There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this sort of weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.


Nothing in Heller negates the soundness of my position.
If you disagree, please feel free to quote the text to that effect.


This does nothing to negate the soundness of my position.
If you disagree, please feel free to quote the text to that effect.

Anton Scalia in US vs Heller:

“...does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

Miller, which has not been overturned, said that bans on short shotguns, short rifles and machine guns are not unconstitutional.

The AR-15 falls into this categorically and various courts throughout the country have said so.

Get back with me when you can verify your false claims. Otherwise, go troll another forum.

 

[sPzAbt505]

Anton Scalia in US vs Heller:
“...does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

That's a short barrel shotgun, not an 'assault weapon', and that's not what Miller says.

Miller, which has not been overturned, said that bans on short shotguns, short rifles and machine guns are not unconstitutional.

That is also not what Miller says.

So, thus far, you have done nothing to negate the soundness of my position, if for no other reason that you have yet to directly address anything I have said.

Please feel free to try again.

 

[Howey]

That's a short barrel shotgun, not an 'assault weapon', and that's not what Miller says.


That is also not what Miller says.

So, thus far, you have done nothing to negate the soundness of my position, if for no other reason that you have yet to directly address anything I have said.

Please feel free to try again.

Nevermind, Mr. W.

I know who you are. Find another forum to troll. Try not to get banned from another one, huh?

 

[sPzAbt505]

Nevermind, Mr. W.

I accept your concession of the point. Thank you.