This is the part of the Heller decision that was poorly written. Now states made laws saying that every place is a "sensitive" place, that all government buildings are "sensitive" places.Sunny Boy wrote: ↑Sat. May. 27, 2023 8:38 amI have read them. DC v Heller did not give unlimited access to military weapons.
" (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
It's been 15 years since Heller. Show me where the Fed & State restrictions on owning full auto weapons ever went away. I loved my M-16A1, maybe I can get one at Walmart ?
Paul
All these issues might be ironed out , maybe another 70 yrs , who knows.
I'm arguing to my legislature ... there is a law making it a crime to bring a gun into the legislative building; this is one place I think that the Bruen decision said was OK as a "sensitive place". Then the legislature began searching people for guns as a condition of entry into the building. But the 4th amendment does not allow such a fishing expedition (and guns=anything the police deem a weapon). This is an issue. Making a true "sensitive" place into a trap where they could claim a stapler is a weapon.
I recall a recent case about a ban in a government building where the court found that the government building does not equal all government buildings and deemed the particular gov't building not to be a "sensitive" place. I forget the case unfortunately.
The Miller court found that sawed off shotguns were not in the Army inventory when, in fact, they were. The Miller party never even provided a brief to the court (I forget why) only the government.
Show me a restriction on gun ownership of possessing auto guns or any other class of guns from 1791 era...I know of none...if you have such info. Remember, the law is unconstitutional until it is shown not to be.
If you want a M16, you can buy one if you like...figure they cost about $30,000 today.