From: Ben Tasker <ben@bentasker.co.uk>
   On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:37 PM, jim bell <[1]jdb10987@yahoo.com>
   wrote:

Court rules assault weapons are not protected under Constitution [2]http://daily
m.ai/2mmUuqG via [3]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: [4]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 [5]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 [6]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

References

   1. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   2. http://dailym.ai/2mmUuqG
   3. http://dailym.ai/android
   4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
   5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii
   6. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii