… And, it’s not a superior race,…
Well, if we aren’t than why would we believe our politicians are any less vulnerable to the temptations of power, its abuse, the lust for domination, the desire to control others and force them to live correctly? If they’re human beings, if we aren’t superior than I can only conclude that the disasters which have occurred elsewhere around the globe throughout history can happen here. Unless there are things in place to prevent tyranny like, the intent of the constitution as the DC Court of Appeals in Heller, upheld by SCOTUS put it-
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
facilitate¬d militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
Should the sheriffs be honoring the SCOTUS/federal court interpretation of 2A?
It’s all about reasonable restrictions, and SCOTUS was silent in defining what those are, so do you, if you took an oath, look at the intent? Folks want to limit this sometimes to colonial era weapons, which the DC Court also addressed:
The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).
If the principle overrides the technology changing, than I believe that, as others have said, the AR is in fact the ‘modern musket’. It is in common use at this time.
(In orals the Solicitor General while attempting to defend the DC ban expressed the opinion that M16 machine guns would probably fall into the definition of ‘arms’ protected under 2A despite the current ban. In common use by the national guard. I don’t think that will ever fly especially since the military has found burst fire far more effective.
