10. The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L.Ed.2d. 637, 683 (2008). In addition, Heller also held that the Second Amendment guarantees not only an individual right to bear arms unconnected with militia service but that it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Id . at 582, 2792.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

....


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.

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Limitations have always been in place on the 2nd dating back to common law.

For some reason folks think there was just a free for all when it came to weapons back then but it was not that way.

With that said about the only limitations there were concerned felons with firearms/weapons.

There was a great thread here once with Eric The Hun and others discussing all of it. Wish I had saved the link.

Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
That is how complaints work.  

Originally Posted By Brian86992:
I nominate Nolo for Arf member American of the year

Originally Posted By Conspiro-Agnew:
Well, here's to hoping for the best.

Originally Posted By Undefined:
And we're off!

http://www.examiner.com/article/lawsuit-challenges-federal-machine-gun-ban?cid=rss

Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Certified mail went out today with copies of the complaint and summons to B Todd Jones and Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been named defendants in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the federal machine gun ban.

A complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division. Plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.

“By imposing such a ban on an entire class of weapons, the statutes and regulations exceed the power of the United States,” the complaint states. It makes its case by citing violations of Article I of the United States Constitution, the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and “principles of federalism and dual sovereignty.

...snip...

Representing Hollis is Mississippi attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh, reported on earlier this month in this column when he started a crowdfunding effort to finance this legal effort. This case represents the “first complaint,” Stamboulieh notes on the GoFundMe page he established that, with nine days left to attain its goal at this writing, has raised $37,505 toward a $50,000 goal.

Originally Posted By Undefined:
And we're off!

http://www.examiner.com/article/lawsuit-challenges-federal-machine-gun-ban?cid=rss

Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Complaint

Summons to Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones

Originally Posted By MaxxII:
I'm killing that link because of the info on that form...krp

What does NTXT mean over on that forum?
I'm confused.

Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Certified mail went out today with copies of the complaint and summons to B Todd Jones and Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Originally Posted By black_dog:
This is most definitely a tag.