Pennsylvania to classify PUMP-ACTION RIFLES as "Assault Weapons" (idiot legislators alert!)

AW ban sunset website forums ^ | 27 March 2004 | Pennsylvania legislators

[Unknowing]

And yes, I do see the nascent tyranny lurking behind this willingness to accept a true fundamental Constitutional right as a mere statutory "civil right."

[templar]

Unfortunely, our side repeatedly makes the same mistake ovei>r & over- we think that once an issue ( like the AWB ) is settled, it's over.

Or the even bigger mistake in believing all we can hope for is to prevent (or slow down, or mitigate) new restrictions. We never try to roll back and repeal laws restricting guns because we don't believe we can. And that believe becomes a truth since we don't try to do what we don't believe we can do. We argue for our limitations and they are ours.

[Woahhs]

The key is to keep the pressure on those representatives who represent us, the normal, working, traditional American families.

This belief is why we are losing. The key is the mechanisms that form the culture...and inform it. Draw your own conclusions.

[the crow]

the end draws closer bump

[Christopher Dion]

I had no idea it was an "assault weapon".

The term 'assault weapon' is redundant. All weapons have one purpose: to assault someone. My fists are assault weapons.

If you break into my home you will find that my granpa's 'Sweet 16' skeet gun doubles quite nicely as an 'assault weapon.'

[Travis McGee]

Well, there's always the final appeal to Rule 308.

[Christopher Dion]

Actually according to the main body of the Constitution. Art. I section 8 "Congress shall have the power to ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Note that the Constitution refers to the milita. The Second Amendment refers to 'the people'.

While I'm expounding on this, let us examine the legal definition of 'militia.'

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

Note that ALL able-bodied males between 17-45 are members of the 'unorganized' militia, and therefore under potential State control. The people (those not members of the militia) still retain their right to keep AND bear arms.

I also note that Article One, Section Eight grants Congress two distinct powers... one of which is:
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

This is the Constitutional law under which Congress funds our standing army. It has nothing to do with the 'militia,' which is covered by the clause in question.
Congress shall have the power to ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...)

[El Gato]

The Bill of Rights are applicable to the states only through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Then what was the purpose of the "Privileges and Immunities Clause". Every part of the Constitution has meaning, that is fundamental. The authors said it was to apply the fundamental guarantees/protections of the first eight amendments to the states. The Court has disagreed, but that doesn't mean the Court was correct or that some future Court won't finally see the light.

[El Gato]

Note that ALL able-bodied males between 17-45 are members of the 'unorganized' militia

That's only the federal definition, each state has it's own. The age range is much larger in Texas, and all females, not just those who are members of the National Guard, are also included.

[Unknowing]

Separating the privileges and immunities of a state citizen from the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States, I think, started with the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873. Justice Miller made that separation for the Court, according to the decision, partially in order to limit the control of Congress over the states. Thus only "fundamental" rights were deemed incorporated.

The fundamental-ness of those rights was to be weighed, according to Justice Miller in the Slaughter-House Cases decision, weighed according to the standard put forth in the 1823 case of Corfield v. Coryell, a circuit court case: "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole."

[Unknowing]

Yes, I agree: Rule 308 would ultimately apply, IMHO, as in the case of Bardiwell v. Special Training Unit.

". . . an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." Marbury v. Madison.

[jjm2111]

"Why can't we, especially since we are so well organized and informed?"

Umm...we have jobs?