Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 2133479" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>Werewolf's answer is excellent. N8thegr8 is correct. I would add:</p><p></p><p>The Supreme Court (and all lower courts, and all legislatures) itself does not correctly or consistently apply its own reasoning when it refers to Miller. The written reason the Court upheld the 1934 NFA is that Miller's short-barreled shotgun was <strong><em>not</em></strong> a military weapon (false though that claim is.) By that reasoning the Court would have to strike down all restrictions against keeping and bearing fully automatic firearms, as those demonstrably <strong><em>are</em></strong> military weapons, as it also would have to strike down other provisions of the NFA that <strong><em>do</em></strong> restrict military weapons (such as the Thompson submachine gun that started the whole thing with the St. Valentine's Day massacre!)</p><p></p><p>The objective mind has to conclude therefore that the courts and legislatures merely and lawlessly apply whatever specious reasoning they think necessary to arrive at the desired conclusion. For supporting evidence cross reference e.g. John Roberts' specious opinion upholding the manifestly unconstitutional Affordable Care Act.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 2133479, member: 5183"] Werewolf's answer is excellent. N8thegr8 is correct. I would add: The Supreme Court (and all lower courts, and all legislatures) itself does not correctly or consistently apply its own reasoning when it refers to Miller. The written reason the Court upheld the 1934 NFA is that Miller's short-barreled shotgun was [B][I]not[/I][/B] a military weapon (false though that claim is.) By that reasoning the Court would have to strike down all restrictions against keeping and bearing fully automatic firearms, as those demonstrably [B][I]are[/I][/B] military weapons, as it also would have to strike down other provisions of the NFA that [B][I]do[/I][/B] restrict military weapons (such as the Thompson submachine gun that started the whole thing with the St. Valentine's Day massacre!) The objective mind has to conclude therefore that the courts and legislatures merely and lawlessly apply whatever specious reasoning they think necessary to arrive at the desired conclusion. For supporting evidence cross reference e.g. John Roberts' specious opinion upholding the manifestly unconstitutional Affordable Care Act. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom