You want to go there?
Fine. “Assault weapons.” “Weapons of war.” Now how ’bout some of that settled law of which Dims have recently become so enamored.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
There you have it. The possession, by private citizens who could be called up for militia service, of “weapons of war” is not only protected by the Second Amendment — settled law — it is required. Sawed-off shotguns could be regulated because no one showed the Court that those were “weapons of war.”
Perhaps Kneepads, becoming aware of the requirements of the Second Amendment, will join the call for repealing it.
She doesn’t really want to go there…
…but a fed-up part of me half-wishes she would be that stupid.
Added: I’m actually glad idiots like Harris aree making such a big deal about this whole “weapons of war” bull.
If you take a look at the old assault weapon ban of 1994 you might notice someone back then was smart enough to not open the MILLER can of worms. There are ZERO references to “assault weapons” being “weapons of war” or “militarily useful. Even feinstein was that stupid, with her S.736 last year.
But even if the next damnfool likewise omits such a specific claim, we have Harris, and so many more morons, putting out in the public record that banning 2A/MILLER constitutionally protected arms is exactly their intent.
That should look good in Court.
(More Tip Jar Options)