Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs.

And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer.

Besides these explicit references to ammunition, there are the de facto descriptions of it. All the laws restricting the sale of ammo, and types of ammo such as frangible, need to be challenged, assuming the correct decision next month. Say a prayer.

1 posted on 05/26/2008 3:20:01 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: neverdem

Indeed.


2 posted on 05/26/2008 3:22:48 PM PDT by IGOTMINE (1911s FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem; bang_list
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

L

3 posted on 05/26/2008 3:23:29 PM PDT by Lurker (Islam is an insane death cult. Any other aspects are PR, to get them within throat-cutting range.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
This was a very interesting decision. On one hand, it could have been much, much worse if FDR's nasty brief was accepted. I'm trying to remember where I read it (may have been through Westlaw).

On the other, I wonder what would have happened if Miller's attorney showed up there?

What's most interesting to me on this is that it was 9-0 despite a normally very split SCOTUS in that period. I think this decision could have been much more favorable if Miller's counsel showed up, despite this being a rather nasty test case.

5 posted on 05/26/2008 3:38:00 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in - Michael Corleone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Back in the early 1970’s the MSM was extremely anti-handgun, calling for the ban on all handguns.

Many TV shows had an anti-handgun line written into the scripts and we were bombarded weekly with anti-handgun propaganda.

Then the anti-handgun media discovered the US vs Miller and went ballistic.

Now every script had written into it an anti-handgun line using Miller as a “proof”. Even All In The Family and Barny Miller’s scripts spewed tha anti-gun line that “the Miller decision in the 1930’s proved that handguns wern’t ‘militia’ weapons and could be banned.”

On the other hand RIFLES and shotguns got the media’s blessing. That was before the MSM found out the new term...”Assault Rifle”.

Oh for the good old days of 1961 when Thomas J. Dodd and Emanual Cellar said...”We don’t want to ban your guns. We ONLY want to register Handguns! Long guns will not be affected!”


11 posted on 05/26/2008 6:04:01 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
The vaunted, by the left, Miller decision had some pertinent comments about ammo, so I found this html version.

Buyer's Remorse - How Rank and File Democrats are Rejecting Their 'Inevitable' Nominee

The Unraveling The jihadist revolt against bin Laden.

America's VetDogs - The Veteran's K-9 Corps

Let Us by All Means Have an Honest Conversation About Race

Regarding whites in general, one-quarter of those surveyed said they believed white doctors had invented AIDS in the laboratory in order to commit genocide, and nearly half said that the CIA and FBI had flooded black neighborhoods with drugs and guns so that blacks would harm one another—findings that suggest Jeremiah Wright is no outlier among blacks.

I'm not crazy about the last author, but she has some interesting things to say.

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

12 posted on 05/26/2008 10:09:57 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
A timely history lesson, in light of the upcoming DC vs. Heller.

Whichever way it goes, next month is going to prove interesting.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

16 posted on 05/27/2008 7:26:01 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
What amazes me is that were it not for state boundries, none of this would have occurred. So I ask, given that the states are now mere factions of their once proud selves and must bow to practically every edict given them by the feds, why must we continue this 'state border' facade? To inspect fruit?

The second ammendment basically tells all regulatory authority (Fed, State, County, Local, etc.) to "pound-sand" with regard to infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. And if it possesses any usefullness at all in the hands of a citizen (militia) called to put-down say, an insurrection, even the lowly potato gun would qualify.

The second ammendment doesn't recognize state-lines, county-lines, city-limits, or school grounds. What it does recognize is that without it, you sure as hell, will not be living in a "free state".

21 posted on 05/27/2008 5:47:35 PM PDT by budwiesest (Don't bug me man, can't you see I'm working here? And what not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson