Quote of the day—Brief of NRA

Inherently, any firearm can be used for either offensive or defensive purposes. The performance capabilities that cause many firearms to be adopted by the military also make them a preferred choice among the American people. The inextricably intertwined history of parallel use by both the military and civilians necessarily means a firearm’s military heritage cannot foreclose its civilian use.

BRIEF OF NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
August 28, 2015
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Brief of NRA

  1. I would add that civilian arms development by civilians is also uniquely suited to have a positive influence on military arms. Example: all the AR15 developments that are now being implemented into the M4/16 series. Free float tubes, P-mags, and the myriad of small improvements that make a significant reliabilty contribution. Example 2: Kentucky rifle which changed the way thee war was fought.

    Civilian gun development is military arms development.

    • Except for the Potato Digger, the Ma Deuce and the BAR, did JMB develop ANY firearm for the military first? As I recall, the M1911 was developed from an earlier model that did not fire the .45ACP and was sold to the civilian market and was not government issue. While the Turks used the 1873 in its mid-1870’s war with Russia, the Browning designs for the lever action rifle were all for the civilian market.

  2. If the Supremes pass on an ar15 ban, that will just embolden the blue enclaves to go full retard. I am not optimistic given its recent track record.

  3. Virtually any of the hunting rifles used today have a basis in military arms – Mauser bolt actions, Springfield bolt actions, Browning BAR.

  4. that cause many firearms to be adopted by the military also make them a preferred choice among the American people.

    Not to mention they usually end up costing less, both for the arms and the ammo.

  5. None of this has any relevance to the right to keep and bear arms. The only reason it’s ever discussed is that some leftist agitators made up the issue out of nothing. Why should we entertain them? They knew before they concocted the issue than an “arm” means a weapon, means a tool, means a toy, means a weapon of war. The very concept of a firearm, it could be well argued, is a military one.

    They throw out what they know to be a ridiculous premise (the more ridiculous the better), their severely ignorant and/or retarded followers parrot it, and then they all watch us go apoplectic over it in our courts and our legislatures. I assume they’re getting a lot of entertainment out of this. What a grand show!

    Puppets; meet your puppet-masters. You can go along or you can rebel, but either way the left is influencing you and that’s what matters.

  6. I was amused to see the NRA bring up the unenumerated right to contraceptives as a parallel to the enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

    “And even absent any specific enumerated right, this Court has found flat bans on certain contraceptives are necessarily unconstitutional. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). These restrictions, like Highland Park’s blanket prohibition, are per se unconstitutional.”

    When “emanations and penumbras” of enumerated rights are subject to strict scrutiny by courts, it follows that the actual enumerated rights are, also.

    • We have them dead to rights any way you look at it. I believe the Progressives know this full well also, or rather, their top planners and stratregists know it even if their dupes are oblivious. Just stick to principles.

    • Then again, while the “penumbras” argument is obviously BS, it has been argued that those decisions could have been founded on the 9th amendment instead. One wonders if the reason it wasn’t is that progressives are scared of the 9th amendment. Or perhaps they didn’t know of it — or didn’t take it seriously.
      Prof. Randy Barnett mentions in his (very good) book “Restoring the lost constitution” that in law school he was given the assignment to argue based on the 9th amendment, or find a way to apply it, I don’t remember which. Apparently everyone in the class thought that the 9th amendment means nothing. After studying the subject, he concluded otherwise and demonstrated his conclusions.

Comments are closed.