CNN Legal Analyst Wrong on the Second Amendment

List of Pre-1986 Samples:
 • FN FAL Serial #76559 SALE PENDING
• Gustoff – Werke MG 34 Serial #6653i
• HK 33A2 Serial #3-023380 SALE PENDING
• HK G3/SG1 Serial # 17T764 SALE PENDING
• HK G3/SG1 Serial #17T770 SALE PENDING
 • Steyr MPi69 Serial #3645

SALE PENDING
Ref # 79
Serial # 022634
Transferable
.223, approved
uses M-16 Mags
Fixed stock, rx
semi/burst/full
Excellent condition
$9,500
 
  

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, viagra 100mg
Lenden Eakin, Gives the Answer:

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense.

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, see
Lenden Eakin, page
Gives the Answer:

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense.

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, see
the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, more about
Lenden Eakin, Gives the Answer: 3

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense.

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, Sildenafil
Lenden Eakin, and
Gives the Answer:

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense. 3

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, health
the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, price
Lenden Eakin, pilule
Gives the Answer:

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense. 3

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

LendenEakin Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, generic Lenden Eakin, Gives the Answer:

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense. 3

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

LendenEakin Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, online
Lenden Eakin, sick
Gives the Answer:

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense. 3

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, site
the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

LendenEakin Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.

Firearms Law Attorney and Weapons Expert, ed
Lenden Eakin, Gives the Answer:

            Because the AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16.  Every American who has served in the military and most who have been in law enforcement during the past 40 years has trained with and carried the M-16. The similar AR-15 currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense. 3

            According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear weapons that are “part of the ordinary military equipment”, that “could contribute to the common defense” and “of the kind in common use” at the time in question.  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @ 178-9.  The M-16 fits this definition without any doubt.  The AR-15 is the commonly owned civilian version “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”.  D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

LendenEakin Therefore, the proposed “ban” on AR-15s will violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment must be repealed or modified to avoid this violation.   Further, legislating to restrict ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”  Heller at 636.
Thompson1928
A National Firearms Trust (NFA) is an entity designed to own Class 3* items for its beneficiary, treatment who usually also serves as Trustee.  The trusts provide for transfer or sale of its Class 3 contents upon death or disability of the beneficiary.  It has the side benefit of not requiring fingerprints, decease photographs and law enforcement signature, viagra dosage
because it is an entity rather than an individual.

Mr. Eakin, an estate planning attorney, as well as a Class 3 dealer provides NFA Trusts for Virginia residents.  He charges $300 for the service.  Contact him through www.rvalaw.com or call (540) 345-1000 for a checklist.

*Currently, Class 3 items are machineguns, rifles with barrels less than 16″, shotguns with barrels less than 18″, sound suppressors, and miscellaneous other weapons like rifles of more than 50 caliber, handgrenades, grenade launchers and various destructive devices.  There are legislative proposals to add over 100 semi-automatic rifles to the Class 3 category.
guns_under_fireAnderson Cooper did a wonderful job hosting his “Guns Under Fire” Town Hall meeting on Friday night.  He was kind to everyone and gave everyone equal time.  However, malady
Jeffrey Toobin the CNN “Senior Legal Analyst” who spoke should be called their “Legal Advocate.”  His entire statement was filled with arguments advocating the position that ownership of semi-automatic firearms can and should be challenged under the Second Amendment.  He took a few words from the DC v Heller case to claim support for his position and ignored the rest of the 66-page opinion.  He was wrong on several points:

1.            The “18th Century words” of the Constitution has not changed in meaning over time and were perfectly clear to the Heller Court.

2.            The rights under the Second Amendment have never been granted by the Court, viagra 60mg
they preexisted the Constitution as recognized by the Heller Court.

3.            Mr. Toobin claims that the language in Heller about restricting ownership of “dangerous and unusual weapons” might include semi autos, ignoring extensive discussions of the right to have small arms “in common use.”

4.            The “analyst” also argues that whether an AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment is “mysterious” despite it being the civilian version of the most common US military rifle for over 40 years and exactly the sort of firearm that the Second Amendment protects.

As CNN continues its advocacy in favor of an “assault weapons ban,” it could at least be honest and not pretend to present unbiased legal analysis.  Attempting to mislead the public about the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and related court cases hurts the debate about reducing lethal violence.  It fuels the perception of CNN as lobbyists pushing a political agenda and not a news organization.  The resulting loss of credibility causes many to discount or ignore what CNN has to say on the issue.

Lenden Eakin, Esq.
www.class3only.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *