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
My theory (opinion) on why magazine capacity limits are unconstitutional
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="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 3275730" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>Also note that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for banning anything that is not in common use. Flintlock arms are not in common use and they aren't banned. Nevertheless, 'use' is not mentioned in the Second Amendment.</p><p></p><p>In the Miller case, the Court added 'use' ("for lawful purposes") in their dissertation on the Second Amendment then made the claim that the right is not absolute when it comes to keeping and bearing arms 'for whatever purpose.' Laws can be written to prohibit and punish what ever is deemed to be an illegal use of arms but not the keeping and bearing of arms. Kill someone with a gun other than for self defense and you are up on murder charges. Pistol whip someone with a gun and you are up on battery charges.</p><p></p><p>The reference to Ginsberg's meaning of 'bear arms' in <em>Muscarello </em>is in no way the definitive meaning of 'bear arms.' She, her self, stated it was "a most familiar meaning," and not the only meaning, therefore, to limit the bearing of arms to any purpose is fallacious. I, myself, cannot give any sort of answer other than I carry (bear) my arms so I will not be caught empty handed if a need does arise. If that can be construed to constitute a purpose, I'll accept it as being all encompassing, non-limiting, and truly absolute.</p><p></p><p>What a person doesn't say, conflates, vitiates, and dissembles is just as important and can carry as much weight as what they state. In fact, it can render what they have stated meaningless under the cloud of conflation, vitiation, and dissemble. "(A)most familiar meaning" is just such a pile of hooey. </p><p></p><p>Remove all these obfuscations, ambiguities, diversions, and outright misconstruals from all the courtroom dalliances and all you have left of the Second Amendment is that it is absolute when it comes to protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Period. Doesn't matter if it is magazine capacity, bore or gage size, requires a fork lift to pick it up, whatever it delivers, whatever size crater it can create upon detonation, or what the size of the brass bead is on a front sight.</p><p></p><p>If you want to attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms legally, pass an amendment. Good luck with that. Just bear in mind what sparked the American Revolution.</p><p></p><p>Woody</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 3275730, member: 745"] Also note that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for banning anything that is not in common use. Flintlock arms are not in common use and they aren't banned. Nevertheless, 'use' is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. In the Miller case, the Court added 'use' ("for lawful purposes") in their dissertation on the Second Amendment then made the claim that the right is not absolute when it comes to keeping and bearing arms 'for whatever purpose.' Laws can be written to prohibit and punish what ever is deemed to be an illegal use of arms but not the keeping and bearing of arms. Kill someone with a gun other than for self defense and you are up on murder charges. Pistol whip someone with a gun and you are up on battery charges. The reference to Ginsberg's meaning of 'bear arms' in [I]Muscarello [/I]is in no way the definitive meaning of 'bear arms.' She, her self, stated it was "a most familiar meaning," and not the only meaning, therefore, to limit the bearing of arms to any purpose is fallacious. I, myself, cannot give any sort of answer other than I carry (bear) my arms so I will not be caught empty handed if a need does arise. If that can be construed to constitute a purpose, I'll accept it as being all encompassing, non-limiting, and truly absolute. What a person doesn't say, conflates, vitiates, and dissembles is just as important and can carry as much weight as what they state. In fact, it can render what they have stated meaningless under the cloud of conflation, vitiation, and dissemble. "(A)most familiar meaning" is just such a pile of hooey. Remove all these obfuscations, ambiguities, diversions, and outright misconstruals from all the courtroom dalliances and all you have left of the Second Amendment is that it is absolute when it comes to protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Period. Doesn't matter if it is magazine capacity, bore or gage size, requires a fork lift to pick it up, whatever it delivers, whatever size crater it can create upon detonation, or what the size of the brass bead is on a front sight. If you want to attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms legally, pass an amendment. Good luck with that. Just bear in mind what sparked the American Revolution. Woody [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
My theory (opinion) on why magazine capacity limits are unconstitutional
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom