ctdonath
Member
Two things are dramatically missing from every case on the subject:
1. The defendant/plaintiff needs to be an able-bodied male aged 17-45. While that's not the limit intended by the 2nd Amendment, it IS what Congress has defined as the US militia (be it "unorganized", self-armament becomes that much more important). Independent "militias" are not legally recognized and look too much like overgrown teenagers playing army. State militias could only pursue the case if the state pursues it, not individual members not authorized to be so armed (which few states do).
2. Emphasis on "shall not be infringed". Congress may have the power to regulate interstate commerce, but unlike any other commerce, that affecting the keeping and bearing of arms "shall not be infringed".
BTW: The focus needs to be on 922(o), the complete ban on a category of standard military weapons. Parker has a chance because that too is a ban, but lacks the militia angle (don't get me wrong: I personally don't think the militia angle is what the Founding Fathers had exclusively in mind, but it's the only way to crack the case at this point).
Methinks everyone is trying to make it all too complicated, and fall for too many red herrings.
I'll push the idea again:
We need a lot of simultaneous suits from able-bodied males aged 17-45 stating
- "By act of Congress, I am a member of the US militia."
- "By neglect of Congress, I am left to arm & train myself for time of need."
- "By prohibition of Congress, I am unable to arm & train myself for common modern militia combat."
- "I pray this court will overturn 922(o) on grounds that it infringes my right to keep and bear arms as explicitly prohibited by the Second Amendment, and will compel the BATFE to accept my Form 4 application for transfer of an M4 machinegun, that being representative of a common modern implement for defending the security of a free state."
I just need a lawyer to review this, and expansion thereof, for a thumbs-up for lots of people to pursue it.
1. The defendant/plaintiff needs to be an able-bodied male aged 17-45. While that's not the limit intended by the 2nd Amendment, it IS what Congress has defined as the US militia (be it "unorganized", self-armament becomes that much more important). Independent "militias" are not legally recognized and look too much like overgrown teenagers playing army. State militias could only pursue the case if the state pursues it, not individual members not authorized to be so armed (which few states do).
2. Emphasis on "shall not be infringed". Congress may have the power to regulate interstate commerce, but unlike any other commerce, that affecting the keeping and bearing of arms "shall not be infringed".
BTW: The focus needs to be on 922(o), the complete ban on a category of standard military weapons. Parker has a chance because that too is a ban, but lacks the militia angle (don't get me wrong: I personally don't think the militia angle is what the Founding Fathers had exclusively in mind, but it's the only way to crack the case at this point).
Methinks everyone is trying to make it all too complicated, and fall for too many red herrings.
I'll push the idea again:
We need a lot of simultaneous suits from able-bodied males aged 17-45 stating
- "By act of Congress, I am a member of the US militia."
- "By neglect of Congress, I am left to arm & train myself for time of need."
- "By prohibition of Congress, I am unable to arm & train myself for common modern militia combat."
- "I pray this court will overturn 922(o) on grounds that it infringes my right to keep and bear arms as explicitly prohibited by the Second Amendment, and will compel the BATFE to accept my Form 4 application for transfer of an M4 machinegun, that being representative of a common modern implement for defending the security of a free state."
I just need a lawyer to review this, and expansion thereof, for a thumbs-up for lots of people to pursue it.