Did Heller overturn the ban on new full auto's?

[Bold Lib]

It would seem so, at least M-16's or whatever is currently being issued to our military personal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

If this is NOT overturning the NFA ban on new (since 1986) full autos then it is an invitation to challenge it.

[Statistical]

1. It most certainly did not.

Maybe it is an invitation to challenge the 1986 ban (not the NFA) but the decsion had absolutely no legal authority on the question of banning machineguns.

[nebenaube]

2. A M-16 can go full auto... n/t

[Statistical]

4. WTF? does that have to do with anything.

[nebenaube]

7. quote from the op...

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause."

followed by: "If this is NOT overturning the NFA ban on new (since 1986) full autos then it is an invitation to challenge it."

[Pullo]

9. It SHOULD be challenged!

The 1986 ban on full autos deserves a constitutional shit-canning, IMO. There will be lots hissy fits by the Bradys and such, but in truth overturning the ban will have little effect.

New full-autos will still be subject to the 1934 NFA, requiring owners to purchase a treasury stamp and be subject to random full cavity inspections by the ATF to ensure Class III owners are in compliance with such "reasonable regulations."

So, no, Heller did not overturn the '86 ban(which was included in the FOPA by dubious means), but it did kind to telegraph the court's thought on the matter.

[spin]

5. Yes, it's a military assault rifle ...

The M16 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle, with a rotating bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation. The rifle is made of steel, aluminum, composite plastics and polymer materials.

The U.S. Air Force's rifle, the M16, and the United States Marine Corps and Army rifle, the XM16E1, were the first versions of the M16 rifle fielded. Soon, the Army standardized the XM16E1 as the M16A1 rifle, an M16 with a forward assist feature requested by the Army. All of the early versions were chambered to fire the M193/M196 cartridge in the semi-automatic and the automatic firing modes. This occurred in the early 1960s, with the Army issuing it in late 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

Don't confuse it with the semi-auto AR-15 which is called an "assault weapon".

Today the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and have captured the affection of sport shooters and police forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity. (Please refer to the M16 more history on the development and evolution of the AR-15 and derivatives.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

The term assault weapon is often confused with the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle". There is no technical military definition of an assault weapon, but in a general sense, the term assault weapon can refer to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position (as referenced in multiple uses in military terminology below). Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.

Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".<3> Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[benEzra]

13. And an F-22 can fire AMRAAMs, and an M109 can fire M982's.

What's your point?

[Bold Lib]

8. Help me out here please.

This is the crucial part of the quote from the Heller decision, "if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause." This to me is saying that part of the 2A right is keeping M-16 rifles and the like at home. So how is this not a repeal on the machine gun ban of 86?

[sharesunited]

3. I get your point though. And it illustrates the absurdity of the decision.

[spin]

6. What the Heller decision said ...

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws

How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

*Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.

*Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.

*Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.

*Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30295.html

[SteveM]

12. "dangerous and unusual weapons" from the Miller decision?...

It was the Miller decision which erroneously declared shotguns as unsuitable for military use (see: "trench gun"), and further, the sawed-off version not suitable for "lawful purposes." But my reading of Heller leaves the heavy restrictions on "full auto" open to challenge. Curious quandary, do gun-control advocates really want to keep the RKBA an integral part of the "militia clause" and risk having full-auto weapons possession liberalized?

[Callisto32]

11. Sharesunited, master of the absurd.

...I won't argue with that.

[slackmaster]

10. I think the analysis is out in left field, but I'd love to see two changes...

A repeal of the 1986 ban, and having all state restrictions on NFA weapons (over and above federal restrictions) declared unconstitutional.

[jeepnstein]

14. If they're thinking about it...

there is a middle path. Lift the 1986 restriction of M16 type lowers only and exempt those transfers from the tax when they're transferred on Form 4. The whole 14.5 inch barrel length issue would be moot on an NFA registered machine gun. One could go so far as to state the the weapon must comply to the mil-spec in order to be exempt. Personally, I'd make the CMP the sole distributor of the things but I doubt that would sit well with some folks. That would give the militia access to the weapons platform generally accepted by our professional military and still tightly regulate everything else. It's far from ideal but it's workable.

[benEzra]

15. In context, no.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

D.C. v. Heller protects those guns commonly owned by the militia (i.e., the population at large), NOT those used by the military. The fact that the gun prohibitionists like to intentionally confuse "militia" with "military" doesn't mean the court was similarly confused.

Ownership and use of civilian AR-15's and such (in very common use for lawful purposes) by mentally competent adults with clean records would be protected by D.C. v. Heller under the "in common use for lawful purposes" test, but the decision explicitly upholds the Title 2 restrictions of the National Firearms Act on M16's and whatnot.

Now, a good case might can be made that the 1986 Hughes Amendment was stupid and arbitrary and should go, but I don't think Heller really addresses that area. The Court seems to have mostly been concerned with preserving the status quo more or less intact, i.e. upholding the Title 2 restrictions on automatic weapons, sound suppressors, and whatnot while mostly closing the door to new restrictions on what the the lawful and competent may legally own.

[Bold Lib]

16. Looks like there is a challenge to the 86 ban already on it's way to SCOTUS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTTYyO_8N9M