The right to keep and bear arms as historically understood has always been interpreted to mean individual arms; rifles, shotguns and pistols. These are held, and operated, by one person. They are meant to be used against other people.
Machineguns, Rocket Launchers, Grenades, Grenade Launchers, and Weapons of Mass Destruction are meant to be used as area-denial weapons, area-effect weapons, anti-vehicle weapons, and anti-material weapons. Thus, they are ordnance and not “arms.” Armaments /= Arms.
The right to keep and bear arms has never had anything to do with keeping and bearing armaments, I don’t care how many letters they have in common. So please, for the Love of OG, Sweet Zombie Jesus, and Santa, stop with the Straw Man arguments about the NRA advocating the right to keep and bear Nuclear Missiles and Anthrax.
Admittedly, the definitions begin to get hazy when you add in modern arms such a fully-automatic sub-machineguns, and assault rifles. The straight reading of Miller seems to imply that, since those arms are of a type in common use by military and police forces, that they are indeed protected by the 2nd. Amendment, and thus quite legal for any qualifying citizen to keep and bear at their discretion for purposes of being part of a ready, well-regulated militia.
But since the United States no longer relies upon the ordinary citizen militia, there is nothing wrong with administrative regulations prohibiting their ownership to the general population, without a certain qualifying approval process.
Which is what we had for the longest time, until the ATF banned the import and manufacture of any additonal fully-automatic weapons, and froze the registry. Which now goes against the plain reading of Miller and the 2nd. Amendment.
Bob: re-read Miller. The court simpy stated that there was no evidence that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches bore any semblance to the sort of ordinary arms used by a well-regulated militia, and thus was not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
The court found this way because:
A. It was the Government’s argument;
B. The Defendant (Miller and his attorney) didn’t show up to argue otherwise.
Jack Miller and Frank Layton both disappeared from the face of the earth after their aquital in the District Court in Arkansas. They were probably using aliases anyway. Their lawyer never argued the case any higher than the District Court aquital; he wasn’t paid to.
So you had a gun control happy federal government/political administration arguing a case before a court with zero defense. Sadly, I am told that this is actually quite common.
There is more than ample documentary evidence to show that short-barreled shotguns were and are indeed quite commom in military, para-military and civilian law enforcement use.
And finally, Bob, you are just flat-out wrong about what the NRA has on its websites. The 2nd. Amendment is not quoted at all on their Home page, or on their PVF page, or on their NRA News page, or on their Headquarters page, or on their Free Hunters page.
It is only quoted fully on the ILA page.
), I have to say it’s a predominately liberal organization.