[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

This + This

= Contradiction.

Did you stop reading as soon as you found this supposed "contradiction"?

There was a "But . . . " in there.

Why don't you try again and let's see if this "contradiction" survives:

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:

• A type in common use at the present time and/or
• A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
• A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .

"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .

The type of arm commonly referred to as an "assault weapon" meets ALL the tests for protection so it can not be "dangerous and unusual".

Thus, any government claim of power to restrict / control / ban the possession and use of that type of arm is repelled and the citizens right to possess and use that type of arm will be preserved.