How can fully automatic weapons be restricted under the 2nd Amendment? Or hand grenades? Or SAMs? I’m ignorant of the basis for that policy.
Yes, but the Administration has flexibility within the legiatitve intent that accompanies each specific appropriation to reapropriate funds as needed. The Administration can do that to a certain extent even without declaring an emergency if the legislative intent is broad enough. Take the Transportation appropriation, for example. Unless there are specific projects listed in the bill (such as a highway from A to B, or an airport in city C) the discretion as to where to spend it lies entirely under the authority of the Administration. Likewise the Defense budget has tons of latitude built into it. Finding $5 (or $8) billion dollars to divert to border defense should be easy.
Let’s not do this again. An “arm” as referred to in the Constitution does not include ordnance. Nuclear bombs are ordnance.
What about automatic weapons, as I asked a few posts above this?
“arm” is defined by the court they choose not to include “x,y,z”. just like a court can (but wont) not include automatic weapon under “arm”.
They can’t … that’s an infringement that has been allowed to stand even though there is Court precedent (Miller v. US) that civilian use of military arms is protected by the 2nd.
Again, hand grenades and SAMs are not arms as referred to in the 2nd, they are ordnance. You can, however, possess hand grenades, mortars, cannon, rockets, bazookas, flame throwers and a bunch of other fun military weaponry with the proper permits.
No … arm is defined by the common use of the term at the time the Constitution was ratified.
And with regard to automatic weapons, read the Miller v. US decision. The court ruled against Miller because they said (erroneously) that the short-barreled shotgun he was charged with possessing was not a commonly used military weapon, and therefore was not protected by the 2nd. The implication was clear … keeping and bearing military weapons is protected.
and Miller vs US was a court case.
Single shot firearms?
In Miller, the court ruled that civilian use of military arms is protected by the Constitution. They ruled against Miller on the grounds that his short-barreled shotgun was not a military weapon (a ground that was factually incorrect.)
No, any weapon that an individual soldier may carry on his person to attack or defend against the enemy. There is nothing in the definition of the day, otf the word arms about the specific design or function of the arm. In fact, arms is not even limited to firearms; it includes swords, bayonets, knives and pikes and such. Furthermore, in 1789, the rifles owned by American civilians were generally superior to the mass produced muskets used by every standing Army in the world.
my point is its up to the court if something is or isn’t protected under “x,y,z”. the court could have said military arm are not protected, just like they can do so in the future setting new precedent.
For a side that seems to like currently complaining about executive over reach, you sure seem fine with judicial over reach.
No. They can’t just reinterpret words to mean what they like. They do it quite often anyways. But technically they can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to.
Guns can fall under the term arms…but arms are not guns…you have the roght to defend yourself…we have the right to regulate those arms…too bad thats how reality works.
Yes or no…give it a try…
I agree precedent is important part of judicial process, i’m speaking in hypothetical…
Technically true, but the wording of it leaves so little wiggle room for regulation that constitutionally there may as well be no regulation on arms. Constitutionally you can regulate arms so long as it doesn’t make it more difficult to own OR carry that arm. Any regulation is going to make one of those two things harder, which is technically unconstitutional.
The exception is people who legally have their rights removed for criminal actions, or mentally adjudicated. And those area are actually where we do need more work done controlling arms.
Of course we can…we can make waiting times longer. We can make back ground checks tougher…
We have banned actual guns and its been upheld…
The fact that they have done it doesn’t actually mean they have the authority to.
Our government has a full history of doing things they can’t can’t do. Internment camps, quashing protests, segregation, federal lands, illegal drugs… the list can go on and on with things the govt technically can’t do, but does because they don’t get called on it.