Constitution question.

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Mosin, Dec 18, 2012.

  1. Mosin

    Mosin Well-Known Member

    7,369
    167
    63
    Serious question...
    The Supreme Court ruled that the nfa was legal because a sawed off shotgun wasn't considered a common weapon in usage with the militia. It was that ruling that allowed them to restrict those weapons.
    If another gun ban is attempted, could it be cited that an AR-15 IS a common weapon in use of the militia, and therefore constitutionally protected???
     
  2. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    Depends on if the judges are following political lines, or actually following the Constitution. That argument definitely could be made effectively.
     

  3. Yunus

    Yunus New Member

    5,250
    0
    0
    Wouldn't that also mean that M-16's are common firearms used by the militia? They are banned unless they were previously registered.
     
  4. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    The sawed off shotgun case was won by the government because the defendant failed to show up and present an argument. NFA is the law of the land because of default.
     
  5. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    12
    38
    thats correct. the nfa has never been challenged in court. even if it was brought to the supreme court it would be upheld by the same court that sh@t all over the constitution when it came to obamacare.

    the supreme court has never to my knowledge actually made a just decision in regards to the constitutionality of any law. why would they start all of a sudden now.