Justice Stevens: Second Amendment is ‘no obstacle’ to banning automatic weapons

[Eleanors38]

7. Obvious problems, here...

“The Court did not overrule Miller (in Heller). Instead it ‘read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns..."

In the first place, the "short-barreled shotguns" were termed by the Court in Miller as those not used in the military, when in fact they were. Often known as "trench guns," they were employed by soldiers to "clear" the enemy who occupied trenches, and were preferable to the long, bayonet-equipped and slow-actioned bolt rifles which were typical infantry weapons. Since the shotguns (most often pump-action) were faster cycling, easier to use and didn't not require precise aiming, they were sometimes selected in close fighting situations. Many think the Court was in error in classifying "sawed off" weapons as non-military.

Secondly, if what Stevens said is quoted accurately, then the Supremes (in accordance with Miller) would probably find that the "sorts of...automatic (sic) weapons used in the tragic multiple killings" were not sufficient for "military activities," and may regulate those, but NOT weapons sufficient FOR "military activities." In other words true full-auto assault rifles and machine guns WOULD become protected for individuals!! Is this what Stevens thinks the Roberts Court wants?

Stevens presents a conundrum of his own making when he mis-identifies weapons (a common occurrence in gun-control circles). The kinds of weapons used in some of the killings he cited were SEMI-AUTO only. These category of weaponry is not considered by standing armies all over the world as sufficient for "military activities." Thus, these arms would not be sufficient for citizens who might bear them in a militia.

Finally, the types of weapons I THINK he means ARE in fact "...typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes..." and have been for years: Semi-automatic rifles/carbines. The only real difference is in appearance and updated actions.

This whole statement by Stevens might be interpreted to tell the American citizens: "Your present ownership of firearms can be limited due to their non-military applications. The exception is for FULL-AUTO rifles. It would behoove the citizens to acquire ASAP FULL-AUTO rifles to meet their obligations."

I prefer to look at this "dog's breakfast" and marvel in dismay.