AKs Not Covered By the 2nd.

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/robert-farago/breaking-ca-court-appeals-2a-doesnt-apply-ak-platform-rifles/

 

California’s 4th District (Division 1) Court of Appeal just held that
the Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic firearms like “AK”
platform rifles. Click here to read the decision. “We construe Heller as
standing for the proposition that the right secured by the Second
Amendment is ‘not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose’ (Heller,
supra, 554 U.S. at p. 626), but is instead the right to possess and
carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for
lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense . . . We agree with James that
the ban on AK series rifles does not impinge on rights protected by the
Second Amendment because assault weapons ‘are at least as dangerous and
unusual as the short-barreled shotgun’ (James, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 677), which Miller concluded (with apparent approval from Heller) was outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee. (James, at pp. 674-675.)”

 

"
which Miller concluded (with apparent approval from Heller) was outside
the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee. (James, at pp.
674-675.)”

That isn't the conclusion of Miller. In Miller the Court ruled, "The Court
cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18
inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that
the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and
bear such a weapon." Of course the Court couldn't take judicial notice
of it because no evidence was produced in Millers defense. Had there
been a defense, all that he would have needed to do was show that during
WWI the govt. bought something like 30,000 short barreled shotguns.

 

Full Text:

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2013/10/ca-court-appeal-holds-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-semi-autos/

 

Wonder if this will make it to SCOTUS

 

 

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

another California wonder...

 

 

GG ~

[Blackwater 53393]

I suspect that SCOTUS will have a look at this ruling. I just hope that the enforcement contingent isn't allowed to run roughshod over the public before it is finally decided

[Subdeacon Joe]

Also from Miller (highlights added):

 

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

 

 

You could argue from that that all light arms, say such as would be found in a company of infantry, are protected by the 2nd.

and, from Heller:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542
, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , 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. Pp. 47–54.