Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

This is found in the various level of scrutiny applied to restrictions applied to our various rights.
2A rights, like 1A rights, enjoy the protection of strict scrutiny, where the state essentially has to prove the restriction is not just necessary - not just a good idea, but necessary - but also the least restrictive means.

This is a mechanism of granting cert; usually the court waits for a split in the circuit courts to review cases regarding rights.
One a circuit court strikes an AW ban there will be a split, and the court will likely review.

 

The AR-15 isn't banned. Certain functions of the AR-15 are banned. Granted, they are moronic, arbitrary and useless regulations, but perfectly constitutional. You can own an AR-15, or other semi auto 223/5.56 in every state.

 

Antonin Scalia found it necessary to engage in such for the purpose of getting supreme court justice Kennedy to vote in favor of the individual rights interpretation of the second amendment. If he did not, the verdict would have been five to four against it being an individual right, and Heller would have been lost.

 

That's only because the anti's aren't smart enough to write a law that would effectively ban every permutation. Their intent is certainly to ban them all. It only took 21 years for them to rewrite the 1994 AWB text to change "two features" to "one feature", and that just gave us travesties like the weapon picture below. There's always the chance that they may find a smarter monkey.

 

Under the new CA law, in order to remove a magazine from a weapon you have to first disassemble the weapon.

 

US v miller is still good law, what it is is they haven't had a case on pointe with that issue in some time. But far be it from me to try to educate you.

 

Arbitrary impositions on rights are by definition unconstitutional. Thanks for playing chief.

 

Meanwhile, its perfectly constitutional to ban machine guns, and hand grenades, per the Supreme Court.

I am not the one in need of an education.

 

Nope. Which is why you can't own hand grenades, full autos made after 1986, or an AR in some states with flash hiders.

 

That's dicta in a 5/4, not on a case that tested the specific issue. You don't understand how SCOTUS case law functions.

You can own machine guns and hand grenades. And tanks. And artillery. Even under current law. Educate yourself

 

You can actually. Hughes hasn't been tested, and AR flash hiders hasn't been tested either

 

No, you can't. You can own some machine guns in some states. You can't own hand grenades in any state that I'm aware of.

 

No, you can't. The bans currently stand as constitutional.

 

http://www.drivetanks.com/

shows what you know on the subject

 

Quote the scotus case that had that as the issue at play, don't quote dicta as dicta is not binding. ANNNNNNNNNNNNNND Go

 

No idea what tanks had to do with the fact you can't own a machine gun made after 1986 or hand grenades?

 

Why? You are claiming the bans are unconstitutional. You would need to quote the case which ruled them as so. You can't, because they haven't been ruled unconstitutional. And so, until ruled so, they are constitutional.


Basic stuff here.

 

https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/files/2015/02/nfa.pdf
Tanks have cannons. Cannons have explosive rounds.

See also destructive devices.

 

US v MILLER, already cited. You now need to show a case from SCOTUS approving of the hughes amendment specifically.

 

No idea why you kep talking about tanks, or incideary rounds for them, when we are discussing the fact you can't own machine guns made after 1986, or hand grenades.

 

Lol, miller did not rule machine gun, device or hand grenade bans are unconstitutional.

It's why you can't own machine guns made after 1986. Or hand grenades, or have flash supressors in some states.

 

You can own hand grenades, see destructive devices in the link you quoted. Don't be obtuse. People called you a troll, were they correct?

As to the legality of the hughes amendment: The hughes amendment violates US v Miller. Show me a court case overturning US v Miller.

 

You've got to READ little one. Read. Miller ruled ordinary military equipment (which now constitutes full auto and hand greandes) as protected by the 2a. The hughes amendment violates that. Show me a case overturning US v Miller.

 

Correcting you doesn't make me a troll. You can't own hand grenades.

miller did not rule machine gun, device or hand grenade bans are unconstitutional. Which is why you can't own them.

 

I don't need to. You are claiming something is unconstitutional. You need to cite a ruling stating as such. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

It's why you can't own them.