i found this on another forum
why not ban assault weapons
They are rarely used for criminal purposes. To ban something based on someones "need" sets a dangerous precedent. Does anyone "need" a Ferrarri or a Porsche? They have the ability to exceed the speed limit. They should be banned because no one has a true "need" for them.
The 2nd Ammendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. Some feel that it is a collective right. I feel that it is an individual right. Regardless all agree that it guarantees the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms. Title 10 section 311 of the United States Code defines "militia"
"Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Any male from 17 to 45 is a member of the "militia"
In US v. Miller the Supreme Court found that a sawed off shotgun was not protected under the Second Ammendment because it was not a military arm and would not be usefull to the military.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm
The assault weapons ban prohibits firearms based on features that would make them useful to the military.
Looking at these combined facts, the AWB is Unconstitutional because it prohibits members of the "militia" from owning weapons that would be usefull for military purposes.
This is true no matter which side of the collective/individual rights theory of the 2nd Ammendment.
Not necessarily the exact reply you are looking for, but the 2nd Ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.
why not ban assault weapons
They are rarely used for criminal purposes. To ban something based on someones "need" sets a dangerous precedent. Does anyone "need" a Ferrarri or a Porsche? They have the ability to exceed the speed limit. They should be banned because no one has a true "need" for them.
The 2nd Ammendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. Some feel that it is a collective right. I feel that it is an individual right. Regardless all agree that it guarantees the right of the "militia" to keep and bear arms. Title 10 section 311 of the United States Code defines "militia"
"Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Any male from 17 to 45 is a member of the "militia"
In US v. Miller the Supreme Court found that a sawed off shotgun was not protected under the Second Ammendment because it was not a military arm and would not be usefull to the military.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm
The assault weapons ban prohibits firearms based on features that would make them useful to the military.
Looking at these combined facts, the AWB is Unconstitutional because it prohibits members of the "militia" from owning weapons that would be usefull for military purposes.
This is true no matter which side of the collective/individual rights theory of the 2nd Ammendment.
Not necessarily the exact reply you are looking for, but the 2nd Ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.