Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment | Homestead Security | Forums

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_Feed F-Homestead-Security
Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment
Avatar
K
Admin
Forum Posts: 31785
Member Since:
15 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
2 Jul ’16 - 8:12 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

so says an appeal court

A Texas man who sued the federal government because it wouldn’t approve his application to manufacture a machine gun doesn’t have a constitutional right to possess the automatic weapon, an appeals court ruled.

Jay Hollis sought permission to convert his AR-15, a popular semi-automatic firearm, into an M16 — an automatic firearm that is banned under federal law, except for official use or lawfully obtained pre-1986 models.

After he was rejected, Hollis mounted a constitutional challenge to the Gun Control Act of 1968 — which Congress amended in 1986 to make it illegal to possess or transfer newly manufactured machine guns. Among other things, he argued that an “M-16 is the quintessential militia-styled arm for the modern day.” 

In a unanimous ruling issued Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Hollis’ arguments, categorically noting that “machine guns are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.”

The court explained that the leading Supreme Court precedent on the right to keep and bear arms, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, only protected individual handgun possession for “defense of hearth and home.”

“Today ... ordinary military weaponry is far more advanced than the weapons typically found at home and used for (self)-defense,” the court said, adding that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual,” and nothing like what militias might have used at the founding of the republic.

“Heller rejected a functionalist interpretation of the Second Amendment premised on the effectiveness of militia service,” the court of appeals said.

more http://www.huffingto.....0?section=

Avatar
DangerDuke
Rancher
Members
Forum Posts: 2030
Member Since:
21 Feb ’12
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
3 Jul ’16 - 1:24 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

sigh

 

the fact that the judges in this case could only use the "musket" and home defense argument is telling. It's starting to get pretty old tbh.

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 476

Currently Online:
6 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

easytapper: 2149

DangerDuke: 2030

groinkick: 1667

PorkChopsMmm: 1515

Gravel Road: 1455

Newest Members:

deeno

Clearview Cladding Concepts

Summar

Yeager

Mariesays

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 12

Topics: 11467

Posts: 58659

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 1925

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Administrators: K