heller: full auto?

buschmaster

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

does not leave out the possibility of annulling the ban on full auto. the miller case they refer to didn't result in that ban either, unless indirectly. the ban wasn't until 1986.

I don't feel like reading the whole 157 pages of it, but has anything changed that might cast the full auto ban in doubt?

buschmaster

and, what exactly do they mean by "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"?

would "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" fall in that category?

CA sucks

See my other post on the text of what the court actually specifically "held" without all the background and opinions.

"(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Given the current US code definition of the militia includes the national guard, this decision should unquivocally say that select fire rifles and carbines are protected under the right.
However, the court declined to state if the right was subject to any licensing requirements.
"Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement."

So if the post 86 ban making such weapons ridiculously expensive is viewed as arbitrary and capricious, it may be in jeopardy, but the 34 ban, requiring registration and a $200 tax, will likely stay.

Time to challenge CA AWB - who else on this board from CA will apply for a permit to purchase an AWB with me?
CA has only granted 1 for the entire state, so, it will undoubtedly not be granted, and we will need to go to court