WHHHHHHHOOOOOOO HHHHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

This post was the first thing I saw on the internet this morning (OT addict....ummmm....yeah...:) )

YES!!!!!!!!!!! SO stoked.

You can get them on a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500 frame. I purchased mine locally, but this guy sells them regularly on Gunbroker:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=103273869

Unfortunately, the chances of owning this gun in California are slim/none (see: none). You need the local sheriff's signature in order to be approved for your Federal Tax Stamp.

It hurts to shoot. The one time I did, I used light shot. Not sure how things would go with 00.

You can also form either a LLC or a Living Trust and by-pass the CLEO sign-off.

Thank You Supreme Court, at least five of you understand the Constitution as written.
This will make little difference to the violence in our inner cities.
At least now, law abiding citizens, 98% of us, will still have the right to defend our families and homes.

Then you can't carry it. My CCW has my name on it, not my LLC. On the other hand, if you can't get your sheriff to sign off, you can't have the weapon to carry anyway...:(

Regardless, though. You ain't getting one of these into Calif.

Did anyone else catch the interpretation of the Miller decision in there?

I believe what it means is that the Miller case only aplies to weapons commonly used by soldiers in the millitary. In other words, it protects your right to have a rifle, but not a fighter jet.

But I ain't one of them thar' lawyer types.....

That is exactly how I interpreted that.

What does that mean for the post-'86 ban?

How about the bans many states have on Class III stuff?

How about California's ban on "assault rifles"?

Based on a quick read, it seemd like a pretty well written opinion, except when it came down to saying what restrictions were reasonable and the test for determining reasonableness, the court just kind of stopped. They said the DC ban was unconstitutional, but didn't really say much else. I might have missed something, though. I got tired at page 56 when the court said "We finally turn to the law at issue here."

My take on it is that guns that are normally used by ordinary people, and which are not unusual or unreasonably dangerous, are protected. Guns that are used primarily by the military can still be restricted, so machine guns are still banned and assault rifles probably have lesser protection.

People who are barred from having guns, like felons, are still barred. The government can still pass reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on carrying guns, and guns can be barred from special places like schools, government buildings and churches. But blanket bans on handguns, which are a class of weapon commonly in the possession of ordinary citizens, is unconstitutional.

If you read through Heller it discusses the right to "keep" and "bear" arms. The "bear" part is clearly stated so as to indicate that you have a right to have a weapon on your person to protect yourself, not just in your home but at all times.

It is going to be very interesting on how this filters out. California's arbitrary and caprecious concealed carry law is now in the sights of a constitutional challege. Bring it on!

No basis in opinion to argue that NFA is unconstitutional. Court touches on Miller and NFA. Says NFA restrictions on machineguns is not contrary to Miller.

As for (semi-auto) assault rifle laws, opinion doesn't shed much/any light. Some implication that if a type of weapon is typically used by lawful citizens for lawful self-defense purposes, then ownership should be protected under Miller. But doesn't directly address it.

You are misreading. Court strongly implies 2nd Amend does not give right to concealed carry.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues."

This will be challenged as the Heller decission discusses the arbitrary nature of the application of government action as being unconstitutional. Also, the decission goes into the very definitive discetion of the language of the amendment and what it says about "bear" really puts a huge burden on California chiefs and sheriff's. Remember these Chiefs and Sheriff's are elected officials, not beat cops or detectives. They are politicians, at least in California, they should not be confused with the police officers. Think of it this way, police are there to "protect and serve" and elected officials are there to "elect and serve (their polical connections)". So it will get interesting. The desenting opinion IMHO is pure and absolute fantasy. It is based on out of context material that although discused by the vast minority of the leaders opposed to the individual right to keep and bear arms, the very fact that the amendment was worded in the manner that it was is further testament as to the actual meaning and exactly what the MAJORITY of the founding fathers desired to be reserved, TO THE PEOPLE!

You are not reading the decision in its entirety. Yes the prohibition in clearly defined circumstances applied in an objective manner is unclear as to its constitutionality. But the current decision states that you have the right to protect yourself, where ever you are. The current decision could be used to challenge the very basis of the "red stocking" decisions. It is a right to also "bear" arms.

Actually, the Semi-auto of today existed at the time of the Miller decision, in many forms, the Browning five and other semi autos existed. If you read this decission it clearly states that the semi auto can now be viewed as normal or common to the people. The proof will be on the government to redefine over 100 years of semi auto's not being a fire arm that is normal to the people.

Congratulations!!

You Americans may now safely keep on shooting each other! Good ruling! http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...flackwhore.gifhttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/clap.gif

An M-16 is perfectly legal to own as long as you have a Class III tax stamp.

Vote for obama, so he can make it 5 or 6.

I agree with this view.

A right to self defense ought not be geographically limited.

Sorry but they are not banned!

The ATF says that they are legal to own and transfer to another licensed owner:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#n

The ATF says that machine guns have to be registered:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m1

If they are banned, then why register them? Wake up here. They are legal to own with the right paperwork and permit, period!

~~~~

M. FIREARMS - NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (NFA)

(M1) The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples? [Back]

Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:

Machine guns;

The frames or receivers of machine guns;

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a4