Are Military Assault Weapons Constitutionally protected under our 2nd Amendment Right for use by us?

Select fire weapons require a $200 transfer tax and back ground check. And they must be old ones as new ones are not allowed. Those are military assault rifles. A semi-auto rifle, a design that has been around over 100 years, is not a military assault rifle.

FYI, until the 1930s, the civilians had the better guns.

During the Revolutionary when the military was issuing smooth bore muskets, civilians had rifles.

During the Civil war when most of the troops were using muzzle loading rifles, civilians had lever action cartridge guns.

During the second half of the 1800s when the military kept issuing breech loading rifles like the trap door spring field, the civilians had magazine fed repeaters.

In World War One when the military was using knock offs of the German Mauser, civilians had lever action rifles and the same Mauser rifles. After the war the civilians moved ahead with machine guns like the Thompson. It was not until the 1930s when the military got its own Thompsons and the M1 Garand that the military finally moved ahead of the civilians.

So maybe the debate should be, does the military deserve guns equal to what the civilians have?

@ Welcome to America now go home- Actually Miller lost because at the time of the decision Miller was already dead. Hard to defend your side when you're no longer living.

Miller also lost because the Justices at the time did not know that the US military was actively issuing short-barreled shotguns for MP duty and trench warfare.

Specifically, US v. Miller held:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

From this we can conclude that if there is evidence that possession or use of an arm has a reasonable relationship to the preservation OR efficiency of a well regulated militia, then it might* be protected by the 2d Amendment.

Arguably modern "assault rifles" are of a great relationship to the efficiency of a militia, and so should be covered under the Miller line of reasoning.

@ "Jim Crockett Promotions Fan"- This is not how the Constitution is applied. All the Constitutional amendments automatically carry over time. Otherwise the 1st Amendment would only protect printed newspapers and not cover things like radio, television, or the internet. And that would be ridiculous. So in the same way the 2d Amendment automatically covers contemporary arms, not just what existed in the 18th century.

*I use "might" here because when you take the negative of a statement it is not necessarily true. For example, you cannot make a cake without flour. However, just having flour doesn't mean that you can make a cake!

While the US Constitution makes no reference as to the type of firearm and that assault rifles were not invented until 168 years later , it is still protected and applies to "military assault weapons" because the rifles used by our ancestors in gaining independence from the British were even better than the standard muskets used by the British. In other words, the flintlocks in 1776 was the state of the art weapon of their day.

The delineation of what constitutes a military and civilian firearm is artificial and created by anti-gun nuts who use it to erode the rights of ownership by small increments. First, it is what type of weapons, then how many rounds it may hold, when you can use it to defend yourself, and finally the restrictions will be so narrow that no one will be able to own or use a firearm without breaking some points of the law at which time some politicians and their mouthpiece in the liberal media will campaign for the end of the 2nd Amendment because it "doesn't work". Does that sound familiar?

As you know, there is no specific type named in the constitution. By the words of the Constitution any firearm is protected.

It does specifically state " A WELL ARMED Militia " .

I would say that does specifically mean that the state of the art military firearms would be of the utmost protections.

I believe this does have and has had a whole lot of citizens very angry, that the government, and it's Supreme Court Justices do not recognize our rights, or making their personal interpretations the law over all Americans. I realize that the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret our Constitution, however, Modern Justices bring their personal reading far beyond what the ACTUAL words read. It seems there is a lacking in their resolve to uphold the Constitution. ALL OF IT, FOR EVERYBODY. That is the entire reason such a document exists and they are supposed to see that it is upheld, not watered down.

Edit :@CF_45 My intention was to include the word used in the Constitution, "Militia", when describing the reason for these protection, I believe that was the essence of the question being asked. I will next time look up the exact word for you however, if you prefer. I was simply writing and thinking at once which does become more difficult to exact with age.

It was MY quote NOT quoting the Constitution. If the Justices can make their interpretations of the Constitution, may I be allowed to make my own quote in an explanation ? Geeeze.

Shall we look for more perfect answers from you also sir ?

Assault Weapon means a weapon that was used in assault, which may be a hammer, a kitchen knife, a rock, or a gun military or not.

Any kind of weapon protected by second amendment. If weapon was used in assault, it still may be sold to a public later. In that case it is no longer an assault weapon.

As for politician terms on weapon, where have you seen a politician who is also professional and knowledgeable in weapon? And yes, they love to screw up all kind of laws, that's why they called politician.

yes!

if you think about the military had and what the people had at the time of writing the US constitution, the people had what politicians and anti-gunners would consider to be military assault weapons!

it was like that until 1934 with the first gun control act banning automatic weapons. civilians many not own the M1919, M1918 and M1928 military machine guns, automatic rifle submachine gun.

but civilians cna own "military assault weapons" no problem until 1967 when we adopted an automatic weapon to be the nation's armed forces' primary rifle.

the US constitution covered civilian ownership of the same guns the US military used for more than 150 years, if not for the 1934 automatic weapons ban it should still apply now.

@Staap It - The 2nd Amendment reads "A WELL REGULATED militia" not "well armed"

In the language of 1791, "regulated" meant trained,

and militia meant "the whole of the people, except for a few public officials"

The definition of the words is well documented in the writings of the Founding Fathers

To answer your question. Yes, IMO the 2nd Amendment as written and intended does protect the best available military grade weapons carried by the common soldier.

"Congress have no power to disarm the people. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American"

Tench Coxe - Continental Congress 1788-1789

_________

Edit for "It was MY quote, NOT quoting the Constitution"

Then you have my apology,

>>"By the words of the Constitution any firearm is protected"<<

>>It does specifically state "A WELL ARMED militia"<<

I must have misunderstood.

Yes, I do tend to get a bit protective when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Again, my apology, my intent was only to clarify,

>>"Shall we look for more perfect answers from you also sir?"<<

If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath...

Ah, I see US V. Miller has already been cited. Since ANY military type firearm, fictional or not, ("Assault Weapon" is a misnomer intentionally created by the gun control crowd, as we all know), is particularly suited for militia use, a "military assault weapon" is most CERTAINLY Constitutionally protected under the rights defined by the Second Amendment.

According to part of the Supreme Court's decision in US vs Miller 1939 ANY firearm particularly suitable for militia/military purposes is clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Just a side note this ruling went against Mr. Miller since he was charged with possession of a sawed off shotgun which was NOT particularly suitable for militia purposes

I own two AR's, a Colt M4 carbine magpul edition and a custom shop build AR-15. I also own a Ruger mini 14. These are civilian type weapons!!! Last time I checked I wasn't allowed to purchase an M4 with burst fire, M249 SAW's or M240B's.