Assault Rifles are “Probably Not” covered by the Second Amendment? WTF? How does that jive with US v. Miller stating that the 2A covers “Weapons suitable for Militia use”?
Agreed. But I would be very careful about relying on Miller for anything – there’s a really good argument for SCOTUS to decide that it shouldn’t count as precedent, since it never should have proceeded in the first place after Miller’s death, and because the government got to present their case without any opposition.
“6. Prior to 2008, the US Supreme Court last decided a case involving the Second Amendment in 1939. The case, US v. Miller, was a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934. What did that federal law require?”
their correct answer =”Registration of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and other “gangster weapons” carried across state lines.”
All of their answers suck. It wasn’t a registration scheme, it was a ban via taxation scheme. And it wasn’t about “carried across state lines”. WTF?
Yeah, the quiz left a lot to be desired, and you can guess the position of its creater by the questions that are asked and their wording, but it’s the first time I’ve seen that particular publication do anything that was even remotely about guns and gun rights.
Tomcat: Right about state lines (and they got “gangster weapons”, quotes included, straight from the NFA Wikipedia page).
But since the NFA did (and does) require registration of the aforesaid items, it’s fair to say it requires registration. It might be nice if the intent to effectively ban for non-rich-people was mentioned, but…
November 7th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Assault Rifles are “Probably Not” covered by the Second Amendment? WTF? How does that jive with US v. Miller stating that the 2A covers “Weapons suitable for Militia use”?
November 7th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Yea, I really didn’t like question 10. “probably not” is not a definitive answer. At this point personal opinion applies.
November 7th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Agreed. But I would be very careful about relying on Miller for anything – there’s a really good argument for SCOTUS to decide that it shouldn’t count as precedent, since it never should have proceeded in the first place after Miller’s death, and because the government got to present their case without any opposition.
November 7th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
“6. Prior to 2008, the US Supreme Court last decided a case involving the Second Amendment in 1939. The case, US v. Miller, was a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934. What did that federal law require?”
their correct answer =”Registration of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and other “gangster weapons” carried across state lines.”
All of their answers suck. It wasn’t a registration scheme, it was a ban via taxation scheme. And it wasn’t about “carried across state lines”. WTF?
November 7th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Yeah, the quiz left a lot to be desired, and you can guess the position of its creater by the questions that are asked and their wording, but it’s the first time I’ve seen that particular publication do anything that was even remotely about guns and gun rights.
November 7th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Tomcat: Right about state lines (and they got “gangster weapons”, quotes included, straight from the NFA Wikipedia page).
But since the NFA did (and does) require registration of the aforesaid items, it’s fair to say it requires registration. It might be nice if the intent to effectively ban for non-rich-people was mentioned, but…
November 8th, 2011 at 1:23 am
Very slanted quiz.
November 8th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Agreed, Very slanted. I like how on the second question, two answers were the same, with one truncicated.