• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Feinstein introduces Assault Weapons Ban

yes, but, they also say “reasonable” restrictions and regulations are permissible. What you and I believe to be reasonable, is a far cry from what SCOTUS and politicians will deem to be reasonable. Other than an all out ban, I think SCOTUS will refrain from interfering with most gun control legislation.


OK,
but in a previous SC decision of 1939 it was argued that a short barreled shotgun was not 2A protected because it was NOT an "ordinary military equipment"

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:

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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
 
OK,
but in a previous SC decision of 1939 it was argued that a short barreled shotgun was not 2A protected because it was NOT an "ordinary military equipment"

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:

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. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Yet, short barrel shotguns are still regulated by the NFA and require tax stamps. And there is no chance SCOTUS would interfere with that or any other “reasonable regulations” that the government puts on our guns. It sucks, but it’s our reality. The recent SCOTUS cases that ruled in our favor dealt with regulations that were ostensibly bans.

but I still think Feinstein’s proposal has no shot. The gun laws we need to be concerned with, in my humble opinion, are the ones that deal with registration, eliminating private transfers, increasing length of background checks, red flag laws, etc.
 
This won't be the bill they use for an AWB. That one is being crafted in the House.

They won't try and get anything through the Senate first, they need these bills to sail through the House (like HR 8 did) so they have some momentum behind them when they hit the Senate. Feinstein's bill would simply bog down the Senate in a bill they don't really want.

They have a much 'better' set of bills being worked on in the House that cover AWB w/ confiscation, ghost guns, and probably binary triggers and braces to boot. They have the votes to get them passed in the House as well, which will put pressure on teh Senate to follow suit.

Expect to see those almost immediately if they can get the two bills in the Senate now through, or 30 seconds after the next mass shooting.
 
This won't be the bill they use for an AWB. That one is being crafted in the House.

They won't try and get anything through the Senate first, they need these bills to sail through the House (like HR 8 did) so they have some momentum behind them when they hit the Senate. Feinstein's bill would simply bog down the Senate in a bill they don't really want.

They have a much 'better' set of bills being worked on in the House that cover AWB w/ confiscation, ghost guns, and probably binary triggers and braces to boot. They have the votes to get them passed in the House as well, which will put pressure on teh Senate to follow suit.

Expect to see those almost immediately if they can get the two bills in the Senate now through, or 30 seconds after the next mass shooting.


Or just "HIDE THEM DEEP" in the next ...

JUST FOR THE CHILDREN PROTECTION AND DEMOCRATIC BACKDOOR FUNDING BILL"
 
I am not a lawyer... but if states were to adopt laws, which I believe by constitutional law they can, that 2A laws cannot be attached to any 'budget' bills then the 2A is protected as proposed by our forefathers.
 
I am not a lawyer... but if states were to adopt laws, which I believe by constitutional law they can, that 2A laws cannot be attached to any 'budget' bills then the 2A is protected as proposed by our forefathers.

Hmmm. So now the fate of the 2nd amendment here in GA rests with Kemp. Not getting warm and fuzzies. Despite his ridiculous campaign ads.
 
Back
Top Bottom