Does This Guy Every Say Anything That's Not Stupid?

"From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons," Biden said. "You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.""Anybody think you should be able to go out and have a machine gun these days?" Biden asked. [More]

Don't tell that to Ben Franklin, who helped a volunteer militia get cannons from his business pals or  "leading Loyalist, Colonel Philip Skene ... prepared to defend his manor with cannons and his own armed schooner."  Or the privateers (Letters of Marque and Reprisal are still authorized by that Constitution this execrable dolt knows nothing about).

And guess what...?

As for mgs, somebody needs to tell this dope plenty have them, and no less an authority than the Supreme Court opined "ordinary military equipment [that] could contribute to the common defense" was protected.

Get Serious

It's time for the government to get serious on gun control [More]

You'd have to be either evil or ignorant to take the arguments presented by this presumptuous incompetent seriously.

What the hell does "Another part is people who are zealots for their cause and think killing those who disagree should be murdered" even mean? And why would anyone want to buy that blurry, over-lit photo of his unimpressive mug?

As for Miller, you'd think a lawyer would be able to read the case. The government's argument was not that Miller was a felon and the opinion issued held that the short-barrel shotgun was not exempted from registration and tax stamp requirements because the court hadn't seen evidence "that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

The rest of this screed is equally vapid, devolving into outright lies. Read it yourself and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Figures this is birdcage liner is part of the USA Today network, a Gannett Publication...

You want to see serious? Keep pressing.

[Via Michael G]

Next Gen

The U.S. Army is getting much closer to deploying the next generation weapon that could soon replace the M4 carbine and M249 light machine gun sometime in the early 2020s. [More]

Oh look: Arms that will have  “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

[Via bondmen]

Planned Obsolescence

CA Bullet-Microstamping Law Upheld By 9th Circuit, Even Though Technology Doesn't Exist [More]

By denying firearms developed after the exclusionary "roster" was imposed, the People are effectively being denied "ordinary military equipment" suitable for "common defense" that is in "common use."

[Via Greg K]

Of Significance

Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military. [More]

I focused on a different aspect yesterday.

Besides, I thought it had already been long established that we are entitled to "ordinary military equipment."

[Via Felix B]

Well Regulated

Received via "Comments":

Does the word "regulated" in the 2A mean as used today, to control or direct, or does it mean well equipped? I have been told that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights regulated meant well equipped.

Both. Others say precision-adjusted like a clock.

The Militia Act of 1792 specified required gear including:

...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of powder... 

The Militia clauses in the Constitution calls "for organizing, arming, and disciplining ... and for governing."   Hamilton explains his understanding in Federalist 29.

My key takeaway:

“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

In other words, we are entitled to what even modern courts have recognized as "ordinary military equipment" that is "in common use at the time" and "that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Once they show up for militia duty, citizens are subject to discipline. But the equipment they keep and bear in everyday life is not what is "regulated" and, significantly, there is no delegated power to allow for an override of "shall not be infringed."

(I didn't post this as a reply in "Comments" because I require those to stay on the topic being offered for discussion. That and if it were buried beneath a post, it wouldn't get enough eyeballs to be worth the work. I'm happy to try to answer questions, so please use the contact form in the left sidebar.)

Set Phasers to 'Kill'

China brings Star Wars to life with ‘laser AK-47’ that can set fire to targets a kilometre away [More]

How soon until it's "ordinary military equipment" considered "in common use at the time"?

[Via Henry Bowman]

Speaking of Clashes

The complaint specifically cites three sections of the ordinance that clash with Colorado state statutes. [More]

So I don't suppose it says anything about "the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense” that the Supreme Court has already acknowleged?

[Via cydl]

All the Arguments Needed

On the one hand, we have a qualified and enthusiastic testimonial for reliability and ease of use. [Watch]

On the other hand we have those waiting to pounce, and to mandate such technology for the guns themselves.

There ought to be a place in a free market for those who perceive a use for such devices, and those providing them have every right to extol their virtues.

The issue here is how to keep the totalitarians from exploiting it. Then I think "New Jersey."

This will go on until the recognized right of the people to keep and bear  "ordinary military equipment ... in common use at the time" is secured.

[Via Andy M]

Federal Judge Exerts Personal Judicial Tyranny in MA Semi-auto Ban Lawsuit Dismissal

Young carries with his opinion the full force of the state, and his is indefensible. [More]

It would have been nice if the complaint had reminded everyone that the Supreme Court has previously recognized the Second Amendment's guarantee for citizens to keep and bear "in common use at the time ...ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”

Exclusive: The Insecurity of an Unfree State

Per the Miller Court, “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.” It’s beyond curious that the monopoly of violence zealots behind the semi-automatic bans justify them by screaming they are “weapons of war.” [More]

It really is about freedom and security, you know...

Close But No Cigar

I strongly support the right to bear arms.  I don’t care about or believe that garbage about a well-armed militia.  The Second Amendment was put in place and obtained its lofty position as the “Second Amendment” right behind the most essential amendment giving us free speech etc., etc., for a reason. [More]

First, you need to care about the "well regulated militia." The "garbage" part is the unfounded insistence that the right is "collective." But militia membership as a duty and a birthright is the main legal argument left for proving SCOTUS-reognized Founding intent that the people have a right to "arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”

Second, what's this "giving" presumption about?

[Via Sam Adams 1776]

No Doubt About It

Gun ban for young adults would be wholly unconstitutional [More]

Now the trick is to find judges who agree, and who won't instead resort to agendized legal chicanery to deny self-evident truth.

It's not like "we" haven't already rolled over on federal precedent for mandated age discrimination by FFLs on handguns, and anyone who would hold those aren't part of  "ordinary military equipment [that] could contribute to the common defense" is demonstrably a damned liar.

[Via Stephen M]

On Being Necessary

They ought consciously and carefully to devise and enact legislation that revives the organization of local militias throughout the United States, as the Constitution expects them to do. [More]

I've had problems with Alan Keyes in the past. Not on this.

This seems like a project that could be organized to find and then help an honorable rep to write and introduce such a bill, and then to rally gun owners behind it. This seems like the type of thing that could really make a group like GOA take off in terms of influence, and really show Fairfax for the insincere weaselworders that they are.

Perhaps Rep. Massie...?

I'd also like to see lawsuits -- based on equal protection, and on U.S. Code factoring in "ordinary military equipment [that] could contribute to the common defense."

A Dumb C...

“Even a dumb country lawyer like me understands that an AR-15 today is not recognized as a constitutional right of Americans under the Second Amendment,” Scarborough, a former Republican lawmaker from Florida, said. [More]

Why, because this turncoat media whore says so?

That said, I think it was a huge mistake for Cruz to talk "deer rifles." What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I'd instead like to see him confront "Morning Doh" with "ordinary military equipment [that] could contribute to the common defense" and see the despicable pipsqueak try to weasel his way out of that.

[Via Mack H]

What I Don't See

A militia argument that takes into account past court admissions... [More]

You know, "ordinary military equipment ... that ... could contribute to the common defense..."

ATF Seeking Public Comment on Proposed Bump Stock Rule

Talk about something that clearly infringes on the very arms that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that [are] part of the ordinary military equipment, or that … could contribute to the common defense.” Instead, we’re being asked to help provide cover to rationalize yet another Intolerable Act, and this one with the sanction of our “gun rights leaders.” [More]

If this doesn’t sit well with you, submit a comment on the proposed rule. I did.

I notice gunkapos supporting this have already started popping up in article comments, so feel free to express yourself there, too.

‘Modest Proposal’ Eviscerates Founding Intent on Second Amendment

That’s the key point being ducked. The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was—and is—to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia assembled with the intent to match and best a professional military threat. [More]

And all you've got to do to make the globalist dream come true is surrender everything you believe in and bare those throats.

NYT’s ‘Gun Control That Works’ Just another Disarmament Zealot Wish List Attack on RKBA

And as for it being “constitutional,” the reason the feds went after a transfer tax instead of a ban is they knew they didn’t have authority to try for the latter. And as for that registration and tax, the district court in the Miller short-barreled shotgun case agreed that it was a violation of the Second Amendment. It was only after the government appealed to the Supreme Court and no attorney showed up to argue the case, and only the government’s side was heard, that the opinion cited in subsequent cases was issued.  And even that had to concede a weapon was protected if it had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” [More]

If only we treat all guns the way we do machine guns, why we'd all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up and eatin' that rainbow stew.

Even ‘Friends’ on Supreme Court Diminish Purpose of 2nd Amendment

That’s the key point being ducked. The function of the militia was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat. [More]

The Supreme Court seems willing to ignore how it and the Constitution it was intended to serve came to be in the first place– citizens with military weapons, a no-compromise demand to be free, and a willingness to kill at the risk of their own lives made it all possible.