Does the 2nd amendment specifically protect guns of military value?
1938 U.S. vs Miller (from wikipedia FWIW):
The government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military-type weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment, from federal infringement. The District Court agreed with Miller's argument that the shotgun was legal under the Second Amendment.
The District Court ruling was overturned on a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court (see United States v. Miller). No brief was filed on behalf of the defendants, and the defendants themselves did not appear before the Supreme Court. No evidence that such a firearm was "ordinary military equipment" had been presented at the trial court (apparently because the case had been thrown out—at the defendants' request—before evidence could be presented), and the Supreme Court indicated it could not take judicial notice of such a contention.
So "ordinary military equipment" falls under constitutional protection?
By that view, a FA AK-47 would be more protected than a Serbu, and therefore should be at least as easy to obtain. It, however, is not... by a long shot.
I would much rather see a $2000 tax, than the situation we're in now. FAs are disappearing by slow attrition.
...and can never, ever be replaced. The Hughes amendment is not regulatory, it is a
prohibition in everything but name. It will eventually lead to the disappearance of an entire class of militia-relevant firearms from civilian hands.
I don't think the Hughes amendment will stand up to scrutiny in court, because at its core it makes weapons illegal based solely on date of manufacture. Explain to me why possession of a FA M16 lower made in 1980 is acceptable, but the exact, same contraption made in 1990 is not. Could it be that the real intent of the law is to limit the right to own a militia weapon to a select few citizens.. and then, in time, to none?
Now if the courts determine that the Second Amendment is only about hunting, and that weapons of significant value for militia service are not protected by law, then that is another story. OR if courts uphold the right of government to limit access to constitutionally protected items (guns) by way of price fixing, or ridiculously high taxes, then that too is another story. I don't think either of those scenarios are likely.
One other hurdle may be internal to the gun community.
SO true! but due to apathy more than greed. If the Hughes amendment isn't struck down it is because of us shooters and our blatant unwillingness.The biggest hurdle to repealing is the reluctance of the gun owning community itself to admit that full auto firearms are in fact very much legal, reasonable to own and a constitutional right... and then go out and ASK for them. WE are brainwashed that FA is not appropriate, or desirable.
