Is the government legally allowed to ban "Assault Rifles" legally.?

Is the government legally allowed to ban "Assault Rifles". Due to the supreme court ruling in the 1939 case of United States V. Miller. Here is a small part of the Supreme Courts ruling on the issue to help you get a understanding for what it was going for.

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 Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

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.

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    No!

    The term "Assault Weapon" was coined by the liberal gun control bigots to make a firearm sound evil. Common sense should tell anyone that any weapon that is used to assault another, is in all reality an assault weapon, A hammer, baseball bat, golf club. lead pipe, candle stick, automobile, Ice pick, and even an old flint lock muzzle loading rifle are all assault weapons.

    Our fore father meant for law abiding Americans to own firearms. They wanted the right of the people to keep and bear arms protected, that is why they wrote it in the Constitution. Here is how these great men felt about law abiding citizens owning firearms:

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens .... from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms .... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee

    The peoples swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe Feb. 20, 1788

    And for those who are just to stupid to understand what was meant by those quotes, Thomas Jefferson knew that there would be idiots that couldn't understand the above, so he said it plain enough so even the most stupid could understand when he said. "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

    Now does any of them sound like our fore fathers wanted our firearms restricted?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • moline
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    "What are you legally allowed to do in self protection, while somebody gets on your face and threatens you?" bypass away, call the police, or the two. "does not it is clever so which you would be able to throw the 1st punch," no longer for me. yet i do in contrast to detention center. maybe if one's objective is to get to detention center, it may well be. would make it a quick, speedy holiday. "no person ought to ought to get hit first to verify that it to be observed as self protection." that's authentic. The protection in that undertaking would be to bypass away. "I propose while somebody provokes you like that, and you be responsive to you need to keep away from your self from getting harm, then does not you're taking the initiative." of path no longer. yet, although, i'm a an grownup with administration of my own strikes and emotions. I understand that the strikes of others are irrelevant to my own. Plus, i'm clever sufficient to realize that beginning a combat isn't a thank you to keep away from getting harm. that's, in fact, the suitable opposite. "additionally what once you're smaller than the different guy or woman?" irrelevant. "are you waiting to apply something as self protection, like a knife or so?" able? i assume. The fifteen 3 hundred and sixty 5 days detention center sentence is a deterrent to maximum individuals, even though it does not stop some. "you may no longer walk removed from maximum circumstances the place somebody needs to combat" you may once you're an grownup. that's, in fact, the only lifelike and clever reaction. "So I had the call of hitting him first or letting him hit me." numerous different recommendations there. the main glaring being that partitions are a airplane. you may no longer walk by them, yet you may unquestionably walk alongside them in the two course. the secret's, if one isn't mature or clever sufficient to keep away from conflict, one ought to devise for detention center time in this undertaking.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.