Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger
Just to correct a misapprehension about what the militia is, take a look at the law. This provision has been in effect since at least the early 50's; I suspect that it's a re-enactment of something much older, but I have no time to research it today. By federal law, Title 10 United States Code Section 311, every able bodied male between 17 and 45 is a member of the Militia of the United States and I suspect that they are also members of state militias in most or all states:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
In Heller, the Supreme Court views the preamble of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia . . .) not to limit or restrict the remainder of the Bill of Rights guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". That seems to be the correct reading because the operative language does not address itself to "members of the duly constituted militia" but to the people. This conversation would be enlightened by a careful reading of Heller. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html That's the law of the land.
I will shortly be expanding my practice to more gun cases that I've handled in the past. Last weekend, another lawyer and I agreed to act as founding members of the Second Amendment Lawyers' Association.
Finally, the original poster has entirely missed the point of my last post and I just don't know how to make it plainer: the whole point of a "right" is that you don't have to re-argue the matter or justify or defend how you exercise it. When a right is established, it is no longer necessary to tell people why you take advantage of it. And the correct answer to "why do you need to . . . ", whether it's about voting, reading or writing a book, publishing or viewing porn, traveling between states, refusing to admit warrantless agents into your home, or having firearms is - "it's none of your business". That's the only answer the original poster deserves. When you can only vote by giving some official an explanation, it's no longer a "right". For one year, my own website, xxxlaw.com, has said on its front page: "Personal freedom and privacy need no excuse." I count gun rights as a matter of personal freedom and societal protection from tyranny. |
Oh my God, you're going into gun law????? Why not just post a sign that says gimme money, no refunds, no promises, no ability.
I know that's very complicated for you to understand, if I write it in crayon would it help?
to explain this again so you can HOPEFULLY (although doubtfully) understand it, cause you seem to not have a clue about what is being brought up here, is that the point was SOME firearms can and are restricted in the USA - Thus WHY are semi auto needed without huge regulations like full auto? Who cares if it's state or federally mandated. You have given NO reason as to WHY they are needed to be owned with minimal regulation by the general civilian population other than the typical NRA 'it's your right' bullshit which is full of holes.
if it's your right to own firearms, why are some highly regulated and some aren't then!?!?!?!??!?!. Apparently the gov't can and does take away your rights. You can't walk off the street in ANY state and just buy a full auto machine gun the same way you can buy a handgun most states.
my whole point was semi auto and handguns should be treated like full auto is in most places in the USA.
now IF you are an even slightly capable lawyer, show me a reason why this should not be so?
you avoided that, it was brought up MANY times in this thread, thus you were owned.
and still are.
sad, your answer says a LOT about your ability to practice law doesn't it.........
I highly doubt your highly trained legal response of "it's none of your business' would go very far with any police officer if they found a full auto uzi in your glove compartment and you didn't have ALL the highly restrictive licenses for it in ANY state.