10 judges are nuts.

jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 25 20:13:01 PST 2017



 From: Ben Tasker <ben at bentasker.co.uk>

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG via http://dailym.ai/android

I'm no fan of the US's view on firearms, but this makes no sense to me:
'Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war,' wrote Judge Robert King
You are right, it makes no sense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 " 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.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).    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.

However, the only reason that M16's are relatively rare is that they have been restricted/taxed/semi-outlawed since their origin.  Thus, that sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
              Jim Bell
   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 14744 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170226/9348148f/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list