Profile
Subscribe
The Heller Court made clear that the Second Amendment right it recognized did not include possession of weapons by certain categories of individuals, or possession of weapons in certain places, or possession of certain types of weapons. The Court specifically discussed the types of weapons that were not protected by the Second Amendment in distinguishing the Miller case.
The conclusion that the Heller Court did not extend Second Amendment protection to machine guns,the Eighth Circuit held that the defendant’s possession of a machine gun was not protected by the Second Amendment under Heller: “Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.
Sebastian from the Snowflakes in Hell-blog opinion on the subject is:
This is why I don’t jump on board in support when people do stupid things that end screwing the rest of us. This is a prime example of that in action.
What can i say, he is right.
I’m sorry, but anybody that fears firearms probably does so because they are uneducated about them. Criminals will always have guns. They will steal them or even make them. You can fashion a shotgun out of a few raw materials in your garage. If someone is going to illegally possess a machine gun and use it to promote a criminal enterprise, then by all means prosecute away. Just don’t trample on the rights of those who legally possess firearms of all types in the process. Don’t forget the most important element of any crime…intent.
No, I disagree. People fear guns because intent or not, they have been known to kill. As much as I recognize the fact that gun laws unfortunately don’t apply to criminals, I still think that there is no need what so ever, for an ordinary civilian to have a machine gun. Give me one reason why it would be necessary?
Ordinary civilian? What is that? I own a machine gun. It takes a special permit to possess it. I am also a certified law enforcement officer and firearms instructor. I’ve fired almost every type of small arm there is with proficiency. Everybody who has ever imagined coming under automatic machine gun fire is of course going to dread that imagining ever coming true. One thing that most people don’t realize, however, is that automatic machine gun fire is extremely inaccurate when you don’t know what you’re doing. The term is "spray and pray" (that you hit the target, in other words). However, if you walk in to a crowded mall with a semi-automatic rifle or carbine, the body count is most assuredly going to be higher. This is because the shooter takes time to line up the shot first and does not waste subsequent rounds that simply follow the leader, but never strike the intended target. Also, it is very hard to miss the target with a shotgun. So, in other words, you would actually be better served by outlawing semi-automatics, shotguns, etc., etc. Which is exactly why you can’t start down the slippery slope of only outlawing "certain types" of firearms. The machine gun didn’t exist at the time the Second Amendment was written, but neither did any of the other more advanced/modern types of firearms. Would you then outlaw all firearms but the revolutionary musket? Again, to be clear, I am all for the prosecution of Illegally obtained, possessed machine guns by those who do in fact intend to use them to promote a criminal enterprise. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Thank you for your response, Nancy.