Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does the Supreme Court have anything to say regarding assault rifles and the 2nd?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Amish, May 10, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Amish

    Amish Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    178
    They must have an opinion. If rappers can say anything they want under the freedom of speech, then I should be allow to buy any firearm I want.
     
  2. 7.62FullMetalJacket

    7.62FullMetalJacket Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,991
    Location:
    Cedar City, Utah
    Look at Miller back in 1934. They clearly stated that any military weapon is legal. While I do not agree with the arbitrary BS about barrel lengths, they did state that if a weapon has military use, then we can have it.
     
  3. longrifleman

    longrifleman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    western Missouri
    7.62 FMJ's reading of Miller is correct IF the words on paper actually mean what the dictionary says they mean. The Supremes apparently don't use the same dictionary as the rest of us mere mortals.

    Their refusal to hear any cases that would clarify the 2nd and thereby let stand lower court rulings says it all.:banghead: :cuss:
     
  4. HBK

    HBK member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    A liberal hellhole: Olympia, WA.
    There's a book called "Supreme Court Gun Cases." It has evey instance the court ruled on the 2nd ammendment. THe court has not been silent on this issue. A link is www.gunlaws.com
     
  5. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,513
    Location:
    Winter Haven, FL
    The "modern" Supreme Court avoids making any direct ruling on the 2nd Amendment like the plague. About all they do is make oblique references to the individual right to own firearms in decisions in similar cases and let it go at that. Given how the current court made free speech illegal in their Campaign Finance Reform Act decision, I'm not sure I'd want to let them make a straight up yea/nay decision on the 2nd Amendment.
     
  6. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,980
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Not that I'm aware of, but they can stonewall the issue as long as there is a sunset clause of manageable duration. If the AWB became permanent, there would surely be a scrap eventually.

    The Supreme Court apparently believes it is on the high road but they surely have a gentleman's agreement in the Federal Court system to filter out such cases so that they don't have to address them. On at least one occasion, a case was referred back to the State Court. The Supreme Court will use every technicality they can find or fabricate to reject a case, yet when they want to hear an issue, it's suddenly on the fast track, never mind technicalities. Thus they are fairly characterized as political and inappropriately so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page