Posted on Sep 24, 2020
Revisited: Biden Says Heller Decision was Incorrect
1.12K
34
10
10
10
0
I think what He really said was dubba blubby blah.
TSgt David L., PVT Mark Zehner
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
PO3 Bob McCord, SSG Gordon Holmes,
SGT (Join to see), COL Mikel J. Burroughs,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
1SG Steven Imerman, SGT Gregory Lawritson,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, CW5 Jack Cardwell,
MSgt David Hoffman, SSG Michael Noll,
SPC Nancy Greene, CPL Dave Hoover
TSgt David L., PVT Mark Zehner
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
PO3 Bob McCord, SSG Gordon Holmes,
SGT (Join to see), COL Mikel J. Burroughs,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, Maj Marty Hogan,
1SG Steven Imerman, SGT Gregory Lawritson,
MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi, CW5 Jack Cardwell,
MSgt David Hoffman, SSG Michael Noll,
SPC Nancy Greene, CPL Dave Hoover
Revisited: Biden Says Heller Decision was Incorrect
Posted from americas1stfreedom.orgPosted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Gun Control
2nd Amendment Gun Control
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Mr. Hiden (oh Yeah, it's Biden) needs to limit what comes out of his pie hole in the way of words... In my view He has lost the ability for self-reason and has to have someone prepare his speech material... either on paper or on a teleprompter... How is that going to work with global leaders? Not very good, that is for sure... and yet the liberal radical left marches down the road like this man knows everything about everything, which is just not the case...
As regards the 2nd Amendment, the Liberals continue to SPIN the subject material so that they can eventually DICTATE that all guns and weapons must be turned in to the government! Why do they want to do that? Simple! Without defensive arms protection against our enemies, we can be CONTOLLED or MANIPULATED as was done by Adolph Hitler and his regime in WWII...and you know how that turned out! If you think this won't happen, you would be a fool... It has happened many times in the past and it will happen again somewhere... Perhaps in the United States in the not to distant future...UNLESS 'WE' STOP IT!!!
As regards the 2nd Amendment, the Liberals continue to SPIN the subject material so that they can eventually DICTATE that all guns and weapons must be turned in to the government! Why do they want to do that? Simple! Without defensive arms protection against our enemies, we can be CONTOLLED or MANIPULATED as was done by Adolph Hitler and his regime in WWII...and you know how that turned out! If you think this won't happen, you would be a fool... It has happened many times in the past and it will happen again somewhere... Perhaps in the United States in the not to distant future...UNLESS 'WE' STOP IT!!!
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
The Heller decision does have flaws, but it was correct that the 2A protects an individual right--there simply is no legitimate alternative interpretation on that point, given the plain text of the amendment, the writings and statements of numerous Founders, and the historical record.
To be clear, this is the part of the question that has issues: "..that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?" There are no such stipulations in the 2A. The "in common use" nonsense was introduced by the ridiculous Miller decision--which ignored that arms similar to the short-barreled shotgun in that case were commonly used in the trenches of WWI.
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the Miller case is that one of the US government's arguments in that case was:
"The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." Well, that's not correct either, but if that *were* the case, then how can the NFA's infringement on the right to keep and bear machine guns be permissible? Machine guns certainly are appropriate for use in an organized militia--and no sensible person would try to argue otherwise. And if the 2A protects those arms suitable for militia purposes, as the Miller court held, how then is the 1986 ban on new fully automatic weapons permissible??
The courts have made themselves into jokes with their convoluted mental gymnastics and activist legislating from the bench in an effort to avoid overturning these infringements as the blatantly unconstitutional power grabs that they are.
To be clear, this is the part of the question that has issues: "..that are in common use and which are utilized for lawful purposes?" There are no such stipulations in the 2A. The "in common use" nonsense was introduced by the ridiculous Miller decision--which ignored that arms similar to the short-barreled shotgun in that case were commonly used in the trenches of WWI.
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the Miller case is that one of the US government's arguments in that case was:
"The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." Well, that's not correct either, but if that *were* the case, then how can the NFA's infringement on the right to keep and bear machine guns be permissible? Machine guns certainly are appropriate for use in an organized militia--and no sensible person would try to argue otherwise. And if the 2A protects those arms suitable for militia purposes, as the Miller court held, how then is the 1986 ban on new fully automatic weapons permissible??
The courts have made themselves into jokes with their convoluted mental gymnastics and activist legislating from the bench in an effort to avoid overturning these infringements as the blatantly unconstitutional power grabs that they are.
(3)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
To that inconsistency of holding MILLER to limit the 2nd Amendment to "military useful" arms, while in essence forbidding ownership of "machine guns" (The $200 "fee" was equivalent to ~ $ 3,800 in today's dollar), I add the following:
How can MILLER be accepted as correct, and the possession of AR-15 type rifles --- semi-auto only versions of the U S Rifle M-16, not be permitted? They are "civilian versions", with the same functioning, most parts, and ideally chambered for the same ammo as our standard infantry rifle.
How can MILLER be accepted as correct, and the possession of AR-15 type rifles --- semi-auto only versions of the U S Rifle M-16, not be permitted? They are "civilian versions", with the same functioning, most parts, and ideally chambered for the same ammo as our standard infantry rifle.
(0)
(0)
Sgt James S.
CW3 Harvey K. - the question is how M-16s and M-60s and M240s aren't permitted...the AR-15 isn't used by any military in the world, so it wouldn't be protected by the Miller argument.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Sgt James S. - Your question is more of a demand than my observation that, "a fortiori", how can a closely similar rifle (lacking only full-auto or burst capability) be banned from civilian possession in light of MILLER?
MILLER did not require that "protected weapons" be military issue, only that they be "useful" militarily. Certainly, AR-15s would be more useful for militia purposes than the average deer rifle.
MILLER did not require that "protected weapons" be military issue, only that they be "useful" militarily. Certainly, AR-15s would be more useful for militia purposes than the average deer rifle.
(0)
(0)
Sgt James S.
CW3 Harvey K. - You're actually asking the same thing I raised in my initial post and my previous response to you.
I didn't say they were required to be military issue, but "military issue" certainly qualifies for 2A protection according to Miller. And if "military issue" qualifies, then there is no need for a "civilian" variant--because civilians ought to be able to purchase the M-16s, M-249s, and M240s, etc.
The answer to the rhetorical question, of course, is that there is no logical way that the court can follow the Miller decision's reasoning (or the US government's argument in Miller) and allow the infringements on machine guns and select-fire rifles to stand, nor can it allow bans on semi-auto "assault style" rifles for the same reason. But all of this would be moot if the court would simply and finally recognize what was plain to courts for many decades after the 2A was ratified: it's an individual right, and the government has no authority to enact gun bans, period. If people want to change that, then they need to get an amendment passed--until then, all anti-gun laws are unconstitutional infringements. That includes those requiring permits/FOIDs, etc.
I didn't say they were required to be military issue, but "military issue" certainly qualifies for 2A protection according to Miller. And if "military issue" qualifies, then there is no need for a "civilian" variant--because civilians ought to be able to purchase the M-16s, M-249s, and M240s, etc.
The answer to the rhetorical question, of course, is that there is no logical way that the court can follow the Miller decision's reasoning (or the US government's argument in Miller) and allow the infringements on machine guns and select-fire rifles to stand, nor can it allow bans on semi-auto "assault style" rifles for the same reason. But all of this would be moot if the court would simply and finally recognize what was plain to courts for many decades after the 2A was ratified: it's an individual right, and the government has no authority to enact gun bans, period. If people want to change that, then they need to get an amendment passed--until then, all anti-gun laws are unconstitutional infringements. That includes those requiring permits/FOIDs, etc.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google