Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

Gunfags BTFO
archive.is/Lehsx

Attached: IMG_20180316_150415.png (1080x771, 542K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
fortune.com/2017/08/01/nuclear-reactors-for-sale/
everettaero.com/harrier.html
exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-72-m
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage
Except that explicitly contradicts the purpose of the second amendment.

>goes to 5-4 conservative leaning US Supreme Court
>gets BTFO permanently

thanks for the softball, activist judges

>adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage
No I'm pretty sure that the DC v Heller decision said the exact opposite. Explicitly.

That's unconstitutional.

Guess they better come get em... If'n they dare!

>wepon of war

Well yeah thats why we dont get nukes or full auto rifles

Last time I checked the ar15 has never been used in a war

muskets are/were considered weapons of war

going back far enough, rocks and sticks were considered weapons of war

the spartains were ordered to hand over their weapons of war by the persians, that consisted of spears and swords, do we go back to that era?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
LEAVE MY GUNS ALONE NORMIES

Attached: A02D0B1E-9786-426C-9C54-5C1E4ABC1748.jpg (800x888, 189K)

come and take them nigger faggots

Attached: 1498413798249.jpg (487x496, 102K)

>2nd Amendment applies to muskets in the Revolution
>2nd Amendment doesn't apply to weapons of war

Attached: 1516417437809.png (1080x1059, 808K)

>Appeals Court Rules
oh yeah, just like they stopped Trumps travel ban right?

Attached: 1469756283209.jpg (620x465, 54K)

Also, assault weapons aren't weapons of war. They specifically miss a major function of true military assault rifles.

So I guess the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover made up terms by tiny bent dick leftists. That's cool.

Man liberals quoting the Heller decision make me fucking lol. All Scalia said was "the right to bear arms is not absolute" meaning you can't tote your loaded firearm with you in the capital building or whatever. Nothing in there said "oh muh weapons of war are too scaryyyy"

AR15's are the most popular and modular firearm platform on the market, how is this not common usage?

battle rifles are better anyway

>"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
So during George Washington's time, what the fuck was a musket then?

Thank God I already have an AR-15.
I recommend anyone reading this if you don't already, get one. Save up money because it is just a matter of time before gun-grabbing greasy kikes start banning them completely.

Attached: Ch-chocolate.jpg (1280x720, 65K)

The people making these decisions are tyrants and the people who support their decisions live in bubbles with very narrow viewpoints.

>the Second Amendment protections to weapons of war
This is the dumbest statement I have ever heard in my entire life.

Attached: 1507018768153.png (579x800, 572K)

You can go even farther:

>1st applies only to horse delivered, print press printed communications, not interwebs, TV, radio etc
>4th only applies to stone and log homes and horse drawn carriages
etc..

We should meme it and make the left look like the totalitarian beta cucks they really are..

there is no such things as "ASSAULT WEAPONS".

Perhaps there is Assault French Fries, as clogged trans fats from fast food and fried fries causes 500,000 + deaths in America yearly through Cardiovascular disease related deaths.

French Fries literally kills 1000 times more people yearly than automatic rifles, though french fires is hard to use to take down the government.


Didnt they say, You will never need your guns until they try to take them away from you?

>weapon of war
A few years ago this was a category of weapons here. Then they shuffled everything, renamed this category, and now it includes handguns as well. If you guys ever give an inch on gun laws they'll take everything.

Also that means the whole constitution is worth abvsolutely nothing, which obviously isnt the case.

Were muskets not considered weapons of war?

Attached: milo1.jpg (534x652, 52K)

Americans understand that better than anybody.

Attached: 1474179140572.jpg (600x600, 63K)

Ya my state isn't all that great when it comes to gun laws. Even worse is that people still buy ar-15s with a heavy barrel, hoping that it will last in the long run. Even if maryland decides to finally ban weapons that are "assault" rifles

Don’t count on Roberts on this. He betrayed the country on Obamacare because he wanted to have a social life in DC. He’ll do the same here.

this

Constitution:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
The 2nd amendment maintains that it is our right to have a militia.


Declaration:
>...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
These statement prove that the Founding Fathers valued rebellion or abolition to ensure free states.

...We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
This sentence proves that rebellions are knowingly waging war in order to reach their ends.

tl;dr weapons of war are our right

Attached: 1517274822809.gif (480x480, 1.91M)

I wish they would just start arresting these judges

nah, public execution for high treason.

The judicial branch is just about as gay as the legislative branch. I know what the constitution says and don't need some fucking kike in a stupid costume permission to do anything.

>assault weapons
This legalese colloquialism language bullshit needs to stop yesterday.

Now let's see if amerimutts really bite as much as they bark.
If this doesn't spark a civil war you have no right to criticize Sweden or Britain.

Attached: hot chocolate.jpg (200x300, 35K)

United States V Miller

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon"

"Sawed off" Shotguns specifically aren't protected because they aren't weapons of war.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

2nd amendment does indeed cover all weapons of war including canons. You just have a lot of traitors in this country that are in power that shouldn't be but people are too comfortable with their lives to death with them.

AR15s as available to the public without an FFL are not “weapons of war”. Neither are they “assault rifles”. If you want to take one to war, be my guest, you will be the one BTFO by true automatic fire.
The supposition that the second amendment supports a people’s militia, means that “weapons of war” are precisely within “the right of the people”.
Not that OP or the 4th circuit gives a fuck about the constitution anyway.

can someone explain to me what a non-assault weapon looks like?

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." This rulings are moronic.

It's an appeals court, not the Supreme Court.

Come and try to take them

Damn shame. Guess we'll have to just kill commies and kikes with a bolt-action then.

Attached: st_mosin_nagant9130_a[1].jpg (420x252, 41K)

SCOTUS doesn't do 2nd A cases.

The rot is deep.

this will 100% get overturned and most people dont even know what an assault weapon is

One of, or the first, gun control cases was US v. Miller, in which the judge said the second amendment ONLY protects "weapons of war."
Judges have to (supposedly) respect precedence, and US v. Miller hasn't been overturned, per se, just in practice.

Chip away a little here, a little there, all without ever being transparent with thr clear destruction of it all.

But you know the Supreme Court refuses to clarify anything related to the 2nd amendment, giving federal goverments the leeway to do what they want.

There is no law against private ownership of nukes. This is moot because there are countries that lack the ability to go nuclear.

We do get automatics.

>shall not be infringed

so you are telling me, colonists just had muskets and rifles in 1776 for recreational target shooting? what exactly were weapons of war back then?

Alright Faggots. Lets see if anyone can break my arguments against gun control.

1. The right to bear arms isnt granted by the Bill of Rights, it is merely recognized and enumerated by it, as a human right. The right to bear arms exists in the same fashion now as it did then regardless of any law, bill, statute or code.

2. This human right has nothing to do with hunting, sport, or target shooting. It has to do with being able to use force on par with the government(which is coincidentally just OTHER PEOPLE. They dont know any more than you or I do about why we exist, and what lies beyond death) Why should the government decide how I defend myself and my family?

3. We need to deregulate automatic weapons, and supressors. Both have niche uses and dont make a weapon particularly more deadly. The current status of "allowed" weapons is disastrous, and absolutely counts as an infringement.

4. Force is the gold standard for humans all over the world. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or ignorant. They ability to exercise force is a HUMAN RIGHT. And should not be held in the hands of the powers that be in the government.

Prove me wrong bitchlibs.

A musket was the equivalent of a modern assault rifle. Militia were not usually armed with muskets - they were armed with guns. A musket is a specific type of military firearm that's most useful for fighting other armed humans.

Most guns of that day were not muskets.

They have many times. Also Trump is going to get another supreme Court pick soon.

Hold on a secind there. You can still have semi-auto right?

Constitution:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
>The 2nd amendment maintains that it is our right to have a militia.
No it doesn’t. “Our right” is to “keep and bear arms”. That right exists within the people, not a militia. Since the militia is made of the people, there can be extended to the milita the same rights as the people, but the constitution leaves the formation of militias up to the states, as one of those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

Assault weapon:
>automatic
>use of banned weapon mods (such as extended magazines and bump stocks)
>use 7.62 ammunition
>are approved for use by military only

so....what about my semi automatic AR15 which fires .233 with no modificarions is illegal again?

Well we can own full auto rifles, it just costs a shit ton of money due to the hughes amendment to the firearm owners protection act of 86 which states that you can not register a new machine gun post 05/19/1986. It also requires a thorough background check, registration, finger print checks, etc. etc. etc. However, you can own them.

FAKE (((NEWS)))

Attached: trumpbern.gif (500x281, 3.99M)

Why are sawed off shotgun's banned?

Because SCOTUS said it isn't a weapon of common US Military use. Even though it's a great trench gun in common use during WW1

Am I getting the precedent in Miller wrong?

> not be infringed
> absolute term

Pick one.

And if it didn't, McDonald v. Chicago did.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Attached: IMG_8381.jpg (588x1212, 165K)

um... no.

Attached: guns.jpg (3264x2448, 1.42M)

> In 2016, the Tennessee Valley Authority turned on its Watts Bar 2 reactor after work had been suspended in 1985. Franklin L. Haney bought an unfinished, decades-old nuclear plant in northern Alabama at an auction last November for $111 million. The Bellefonte plant came with two partially built nuclear reactors, one that’s about 55 percent complete and another about 35 percent finished.

fortune.com/2017/08/01/nuclear-reactors-for-sale/

This guy picked up a half finished nuclear power plant for 111 million$$$.

everettaero.com/harrier.html

Harrier jump jets with fire control systems removed...

exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-72-m

T72 with 125mm main cannon. Sold in working order.

hoho

'But the Winchester Trench gun had a barrel of 20", not 18.

Leftists haven't figured out the playbook, yet.
>Gets appealed again
>SCOTUS protects 2A rights

>appeals court

lol good thing Hillary didnt get to appoint a supreme court justice you faggots.

fucking feds.

The fuck do you mean, no. You can't even have an SKS that even I have?

>If you want to take one to war, be my guest, you will be the one BTFO by true automatic fire.
Not really. The military doesn't really issue full-auto assault rifles, but limited to three-round burst. Still assault rifles.

The AR-15 is a gun designed for killing other people who are trying to kill you, it's not a hunting rifle, as its caliber is too small. It's a good varmint rifle, but the 5.56 caliber, and all the other specific things about its design are to make it a functional rifle for an infantryman to carry as a weapon of war.

The AR-15 is a military rifle and that is its purpose and that's why I like it and that's why it should be legal for American citizens to keep and bear.

I think what they actually meant was every US citizen should be armed with tatical nukes and missile defense systems so we could legitimately defend ourselves

Yeah, if they're fucking vintage bullshit.

How's the gun situation in Russia?

you dont even have to go that far to expain though. and this is what everyone misses:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

>The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you know what "arms" means? It's a term used specifically to describe weapons of war. Arms has historically never been used to describe hunting tools. It's literally in the 2nd Amendment that the people have the right to possess weapons of war... How retarded can people get?

From my cold dead hands, asshole.

> “...cannot take judicial notice”

Meaning no evidence was presented, because Miller had fled.

Sawed off shot guns were used during trench warfare in WW1.

everything is spot on except for this claim
>. Both have niche uses and dont make a weapon particularly more deadly.

i understand your thinking and for many situations you are correct but if you are being objective you will recognize that a full auto can be more deadly to a large group of people than a semi auto, as the las vegas shooting showed. full auto weapons are also superior in CQB, where a split second or delay of incapacitation could cost you your life if the enemy has time to point his gun and pull the trigger. theres a reason SWAT and secret service use full auto sub-guns as PDWs. but yes for the most part it is not useful for combat.

however the 2nd amendment has no relation on governing the usefulness of a weapon and its nobodys business what gun you decide to choose for your self defense so arguing the lethality of a full auto weapon is pointless, because there should not be any restrictions on firearms whatsoever

You're right, 1st amendment doesn't protect your speech on Sup Forums.
Censorship and full shutdown when?

You can buy shotguns if you get a hunting license. Then, if you wown a shotgun for 5 years and don't fuck up, you can buy semi-auto or bolt-action rifles, even high-precision. No handguns, no full auto unless you're military or private security.

Vietnam, was used alongside the m16

US v. Miller:
>Sawed off shotguns aren't covered because they're not useful for military combat
This case:
>"Assault" weapons aren't covered because they're useful for military combat.

Theres no way this could make this ruling. Muskets were weapons of war. Ar15's a semi auto thats never seen the battlefield. Trump should fire all these activist judges, trying to change America

Mr. Chairman — A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c. by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.

same but unironically

Attached: 1516477619257.jpg (640x638, 92K)

i think its time for a gun rights group to gain massive funding, hire the best lawyers and archeologists, and show that short barreled shotguns were used in the revolutionary war and to fucking overturn the NFA once and for all

This is written by George Mason a framer of the constitution and specifically he was very involved with the wording of the second amendment

All weapons are weapons of war

A bit similar to what we have. Used to be able to own full auto weapon for shooting range use only, but not anymore.

how is /k/ taking this?

If I were a federal officer or a policeman, I would arrest these so-called judges. They are intentionally trying to destroy the second amendment and erode our rights. Tyrants dressed up in clean robes and waving a wooden toy in their hands have too much power and should be imprisoned, disposed, and removed from public and private spheres where they unjustly wield their anti-American influence as a weapon.

AR isn't a weapon of war. They are confusing it with the m4 which honestly I wouldn't use it if I was in a war if I had a choice. It isn't designed to kill, it's designed to disable, thus doubling the work load on the enemy. It's basically a glorified .22. But still, the government can't fucking take them, fuck off

I'm going to cuddle my AR even longer tonight.
Get fucked, grabbers. You can have my firearms 1 round at a time.

>federal appeals court rules
>Hey! We've shopped around and found a federally appointed political hack willing to bend laws to try to invalidate an unambiguous part of the Bill of Rights. Time to give up your guns!
Take the cock out of your mouth and then come take my gun, faggot. I fucking dare you.

>Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules
Our firearm rights aren't subject to the second amendment or rulings of the federal appeals court.

Miller had fled the courtroom before his side could introduce evidence and call in military experts to testify on the utilitiy if the weapon in close quarters combat.

So the court could not take judicial notice (ie no evidence was entered).

M240s were built and registered prior to 1986, as well as m16s, AKs, FNCs, HK 33s/G3s, FALs, etc. There's ALOT of modern(ish) firearms capable of being used in war available on the NFA market. Hell if the fire control group (auto sear) is registered and not the receiver itself, you can put it in any modern milspec ar lower, and turn your modern AR-15 into an m4 carbine legally, it'll just cost you 20-50 grand.

The Judicial branch is way to powerful. Founding Fathers intended itt to be Legislative than Exectuive and then Judicial. Its now the complete opposite