The Unconstitutional War on Weapons



information pills 0,0,0’align=’middle’height=’500’width=’410’paramname=’allowScriptAccess’value=’true’/paramname=’movie’value=’’/paramname=’quality’value=’high’/paramname=’bgcolor’value=’#ffffff’/paramname=’allowFullScreen’value=’true’/paramname=’flashvars’value=’system=’/embedname=’cspan-video-player’src=’’allowScriptAccess=’always’bgcolor=’#ffffff’quality=’high’allowFullScreen=’true’type=’application/x-shockwave-flash’pluginspage=’’flashvars=’system=’align=’middle’height=’500’width=’410’/embed/object”>Star Parker of C.U.R.E speaks out against Gun Control in recent CSPAN press conference
President Obama’s goal of removing “weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets” may be in direct conflict with the Constitutional right of American citizens to be armed.  While taking illegally possessed military style weapons or any weapon whatsoever out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill is important to everyone, here
the Constitution calls for the American people to possess weapons suitable for war.  In other words, more about
according to the Supreme Court, Americans have the right to own firearms that “could contribute to the common defense,” “of kind in common use” at the time in question and are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) @178-9; D.C. v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) @ 625.

Lenden Eakin on Piers Morgan Tonight, Feb 6, 2013

Lenden Eakin on Piers Morgan Tonight, Feb 6, 2013

A ban on AR-15s and their standard magazines appears to violate our Constitution.  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 AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16, currently provides millions of Americans with the most familiar and effective arm for common defense and self-defense.  Legislation that restricts ownership of the AR-15 in hopes that the courts will not recognize the historic and legal meaning of the Constitution seems unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny.  The Supreme Court already stated “that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Heller at 636.

Those that would argue that AR-15s are dangerous and therefore restrictions are allowed under Heller are ignoring the full text.  The language is “dangerous and unusual” and not simply “dangerous.”  There is nothing unusual about an AR-15.  So unless there is a change to the 2nd Amendment by the American people or by activist judicial reconstruction of its meaning, an AR-15 “ban” will not be legal under the Constitution.

Hopefully our lawmakers will focus on preventing possession of any weapons by the wrong people rather than attempting to disarm responsible, law-abiding American citizens.

Lenden A.  Eakin, Attorney, and owner of Class 3 Only

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

Leave a Reply

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