If you haven't heard yet, a second town in Illinois has effectively banned assault weapons and did so with a very incorrect definition of what an assault weapon is. In our opinion, not only is this law illegal under the 2nd Amendment but is also directly in contrast with the previous opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2015, the City of Highland Park, IL was sued over their new assault weapons ban by many of their residents. The Supreme court denied to hear the case. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Thomas and joined by Justice Scalia it states:
To this day the Supreme Court has heard two cases involving the 2nd Amendment. In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individuals right to self defense AS WELL AS the citizens right to form a "well regulated militia". The court broke down the 2nd Amendment into two parts: (1) The prefatory clause and (2) the operative clause. They state the prefatory clause covers the citizens right to "keep and bear arms" while the operative clause covers the right of the citizens to form a "well regulated militia". But what is even more important is the 1939 case of United States v Miller. In the opinion of the court the following was written:
So, not only does the 2nd Amendment protect your right to defend yourself it also protects your right to preserve a "well regulated militia". If the above quote isn't enough the court does it justice by clearing up any ambiguity by stating the following:
In this case they allowed shotguns with shorter barrels to be banned because they were not part of the standard issued weapons for the military and that their use could not reasonably contribute to the common defense.
What dose this mean for the AR-15? The AR-15 rifle IS the standard issued military weapon and has been since the 1960's. Not only is it the standard issued weapon but it was specifically designed for the U.S. military at the request of the United States Army. This make the AR-15 designed for the "common defense". The ruling in United States v. Miller directly protects the AR-15 and any of it's variants. Now, there could be a case (a weak case at that) against assault shotguns and possibly even other assault rifles, however, any rifle that is of the AR-15 (and a strong case for the AK-47) type would be protected under the 2nd Amendment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ArchivesCategories |