Skip to main content

View Diary: Assault Weapons Question (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Therefore,... (0+ / 0-)

    legal arguements can be successfully made that the 2nd Amendment does not give citizens the right to own any kind of firearm that they want.
    Citizens do not have a "right" to own semi-automatic firearms. Even Scalia figured this one out.

    ego sum ergo ego eram

    by glb3 on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 10:01:26 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, what is protected are "militia arms (0+ / 0-)

      that reflect common use" and while it has never been spelled out specifically, civilian semi-autos do in fact mimic the "common arms" in use by today's military, lacking only the fully-automatic feature (which, ironically, the military discourages the use of, so if anything they are actively copying the features of civilian semi-autos).

      In the dissenting opinion of Heller, it was acknowledged that the Heller decision could still allow for some regulation of those arms.

      This has been my point all along: the conservatives fixate on the second half of the second amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" while ignoring the first half: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the defense of a free state..."

      If a "militia" is supposed to have "common arms", then what needs to be done is emphasize the entire 2nd Amendment and formalize the militia. In other words, require training, and demonstrate proficiency. Being active in a trained and regulated "militia" would be the only way someone would have access to "militia arms". If they're not in the militia, then they are limited to hunting-style weapons only.

      The provisions for control are already laid out in the 2nd Amendment and all the cases that have gone into interpreting it since then, concluding most recently with Heller and MacDonald vs. State of Illinois.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site