Machine pistols or machine guns not covered by the Second Amendment?

[ISCS Yoda]

This goes hand in hand with the suppressor thread from today.

The question I have is whether or not the fact that it was a tricked-out Glock had any bearing on the decision versus a fully automatic rifle. This is another dilemma for the Supreme Court.

https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-insist-second-amendment-doesnt-protect-machine-guns/

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Okay, it was not new today but I just saw it:

D

Thread 'Suppressors Lack 2A Protection?'

Mar 19, 2025

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. Seems like a elephant size contradiction, DOJ claiming suppressors lack 2A protection, but they are treated as worst of the worst NFA items. If the DOJ is correct, should they be delisted from NFA and treated as the tin cans that they are? But if they are treated that way, can they be banned at will because they are not protected by the 2A? Interesting dilemma.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...S&cvid=d87898af35d44eb39ce39c80fe175677&ei=17

• dockmurgw
• Replies: 5
• Forum: 2nd Amendment Forum

• 

 

[robvious]

catcha 22... currently they are "ARMS"... just delisting isn't sufficient... any modifications will need to be carefully thought out, and will need to be superior to state level prohibitions..

 

[rwsmith]

WHY NOT use them in militia service? Any reasonable person would want the most effective weapons available. If the militia is called up to engage in a shooting war you are darn right I'd like to have an M-16 or at least an M3 Grease Gun or an Uzi or SOMETHING with full auto capability. And the 2A doesn't specify what the 'arms' can be, except that we could BEAR them. So don't let me have howitzers and tanks. Fine with me.

 

[petepeterson]

The Founding Fathers were more concerned about what types of governments we might have in the future than what type of arms.