New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I realize why most of the recent lawsuits have focused on 'self defense' and the home- it is a safer legal argument since it uses the exact words of the Supreme Court. But the other side is trying to warp the Courts ruling from 'most' into 'only.' The anti-gun side wants to only allow the minimum explicitly stated by SCOTUS and the pro-gun side isn't bringing up anything else.

What I am worried about is a bit bigger picture. As I've said before, the 2nd Amendment is about National Defense - not only against imternal tyrany, but also against internal lawlessness and foreign invasion. Indirectly it also has implications for training etc that effect our nations defense posture. I realize this is not a popular view- some prefer to focus on the individual aspects of the right, and many dont want to contemplate the reality of war in the USA (especially in a long view of the next 200 years). But even if unpopular I feel it is a strong aspect of the 2A that is the most dangerous repircussion if the 2A is dismanteled.

Perhaps there is a new angle to bring up when the court considers what kind of weapon is or is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Courts like the 2nd Circuit seem poised to declare semi autos as not protected by the 2A and they will do it basically on emotional grounds about ownership by private citizens and the risk of individual crime. There is risk that SCOTUS might agree.

But comsider this- the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY thing in the Comstitution that limits the federal governments control over arms. Including those under state control! This is important. Any firearm that is declared outside the protection of the 2A is one that the federal government can limit or ban- not only for private citizens but also police or state defense forces. If a semi auto with a pistol grip is not constitutionally protected then there is nothing stopping Congress from banning them for police use or banning them for State Defense Forces (SDF). Perhaps this is an argumemt that might strike a tone with the LEO community and some of the states.

I think this also might be the kind of argument that the Supreme Court would find compelling. The first militia acts even required cannons Not owned by the federal govt to be within the state controlled militias. I doubt SCOTUS would agree that the constitution would allow the central federal government to disarm the states of the basic infantry rifle. Its the antithesis of the 2nd Amendment.

Imagine the implications. The federal congress would have the ability to declare that only federal forces can have semi auto rifles with pistol grips or any magazines over 10 round. All those in police possession need to be destroyed. State Defense Forces would need to only use low capacity mags and bolt action rifles. Sure we still have the National Guard but they are federal forces. What if there is an invassion? The federal govt calls up the National Guard and even moves them out of the state to where the govt thinks they are needed. Some states, possibly along a boarder, are left with SDF that is completely underarmed to protect against an invader. That disarmament by the Congress is exactly the type of arms control the founders feared. The fact that Congress says they wont do it doesnt matter-- the constitution is meant to prohibit the possibility.

The only way the Constitution can prohibit such over reach is throubh the 2A. No other portion of the Comstitution would prevent the strong ce tral govt from doimg such a thing to the states. And the only way the 2A prevents it is if the arms in question fall under 2A protections. There is no wording in the 2A or the Constitution that can be read to allow one standard of protected arms for the states and another for the private citizens. If it is not protected for the citizens then there is no other protection that guarentees protection for government uses.

Maybe some lawyers should point this out to the judges- if you want to say this 'assault weapon' is not protected then you are saying it would be legal to prohibit the state, against the state's will, from using them for police or SDF uses. Are you really willing to go that far?
1 - 1 of 1 Posts