Jay Factor @factorjay1

@News2ATeam Sounds very General Gage Boston 1775-ish.

One thing that needs to be better explained, Miller’s “in common use at the time” from page 179 must be read in tandem with 178’s “any part of the ordinary military equipment.” A proper reading of Miller/Heller/McDonald/Caetano/Bruen is that military weapons are covered. The other class of weapons Miller explained (were covered) were “ or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” (Miller 178) That would be where the hunting rifle, duck gun, and non mil-spec handgun come into play.

@storm1news Use their own language against them viz., it is an insurrection.

My guess is, SCOTUS is getting tired of all of the Heller linguistic work-arounds and like 2C:58-4.2, the incessant legislative (non 1791) new hurdles, (legislation). IMHO in one, or two of the next 2A cases, SCOTUS is going to have to plainly state that the government (state & federal) can not regulate/legislate/create Gun Control Laws that encompass the “Law-abiding responsible citizens” from Heller at 2821 (& 2816 & post at 2827). And that all the legislation from the 1960’s to Heller was unconstitutional. That is the Bright Line that needs to be clearly enunciated. Both State & Federal legislatures can regulate criminals and criminal conduct all they want. But they cannot create criminal conduct by L-ARC’s. And they cannot create new licenses, fees, tests, and expirations. And very importantly, that if the reading of Bruen N9 and Heller 2822 is that licensing and one BG check is allowable, (which is an odd reading of 1791,) that it is one, one time license for everything. To purchase, to carry, to possess at home, for handguns and long-guns, ammunition, magazines, and accoutrements. It is an easy enough single 4 paragraph page for SCOTUS to write. #onceandforall

Trying as hard as they can to hang on the remnants of Burton v Sills and Siccardi. (Throw in Neumann.) All of which violated what is now Heller/McDonald/Caetano/Bruen. Simple fact is, under both the “arming” clause of Article 1, Section 8, cl 16, and the Second Amendment, the State of NJ never had any authority to legislate the AWB or Mag Ban in the first place. Contra to the Burton & Siccardi precedent the State cleverly concocted in the late 60’s/early 70’s.

@GunsofLiberty75 One has to wonder John Stark’s 1st New Hampshire Regiment and Israel Putnam's Connecticut Regiment got to Bunker Hill if the citizens that comprise the militia of the Second Amendment can’t cross State lines with their weapons … military grade at that.

>’Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).’ [Heller at 2791] #anything

The most interesting part of it, is that originally, viz., historically, in the govt’s of the grants to the Duke of York, through the Colonial (state) governments and at least another Century, the well armed populace, and by that I mean with Miller 179’s “ordinary military equipment” (which Ben Franklin et al,proves,) involved cannon,) was designed for the public safety. Talk about an attempt to flip the Heller Methodology script!

@News2ATeam The way it was set up, we were supposed to vote them out of office. Its time for that.

@AAGHarmeetDillon Murdock is awesome citation. These two together should get rid of all fees and tests. (Get rid of the fees most likely get rid of most of the permits.) In Bruen’s Note 9, Thomas cites Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 US 147 - Supreme Court 1969. After that citation the very next sentence of Shuttlesworth reads: "It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms." Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 322. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.” [at 151.]

@MorosKostas The records of the NJ Const Convention of 1947 show clearly that the 2A is part of A1 P5.

Micro-infringements. There is no plain text parts ban. The British had the Iron Act banning manufacture and the 19 October 1774 Dartmouth Circular Letter banning “gun power or any sort of arms or Ammunition (without) a license from his Majesty…” Every Lancaster County/Womelsdorf/Piquea Creek Pa Long Rifle was made with (to the British) illegal barrels, springs, jaws, jaw screws, Frizzens and pans. Every single part, including the barrel, is included within the scope of the Second Amendment.

One has to wonder what Morgan’s Rifleman (Western Virginia) did while they were in Boston in August of 1775 and if Washington could have won the war without these Virginians at the Battles of Saratoga (NY) Cowpens (SC) and Gloucester (NJ)? Where did they get their replacement/new weapons? They certainly did not speed march round trip back to Virginia for them.

Agree. Also, Common Use is a terrible term. The founders used the word uniform. We should all begin to transform back to using that viz., the proper terminology. If we pull up the Second Congress, Session 1, Chap 33 from 1792 (p271) the “Act (is) to more effectually provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia through out the United States.” To your point, all Miller required was “evidence tending to show that (the weapon) … AT THIS TIME … has some reasonable relationship to the … efficiency of a well regulated militia…” [178] The Court just needs “judicial notice that this weapon is any part of ordinary military equipment.” [178] That is exactly what you just did.

“Particularly dangerous” does not meet the Caetano Conjuctive Test. (Post at 1031) I understand the CCT is Concurrence but it is concurrence from Alito and Thomas and 1: even the Heller dissent knew new dangerousness was not an appropriate test: ‘It does not help respondent's case to describe the District's objective more generally as an "effort to diminish the dangers associated with guns." That is because the very attributes that make handguns particularly useful for self-defense are also what make them particularly dangerous.’ (Heller post 2864 Breyer dissenting). And 2. (More importantly,) Bruen put the Statute of Northampton to bed and all the dangerousness claims rest on the SN’s “dangerous and unusual.” (Which debuted in 1968 NJ Burton v Sills case which was a collective rights decision.) Seems to me the CCT is going to become SCOTUS precedent in one of the next few cases to end these incessant contra semantic Heller Methodology workarounds. (^^^This is without even historically factoring in that the founders owned their own cannon.)

I read your replies and the education you will put up suffers from that 1960’s Feller and Gotting scholarship.* The National Guard can’t be the militia of the Second Amendment no matter how much you want it to be. It is an appendage of the army. The founders did not know there was ever going to be a Dick Act in 1903 but if they did, they would call it a select militia, and they would not view that as the militia of the Second Amendment. Mason explained it in the Convention in 1787 and again in the Va., ratifying convention in 1788. Your comment “(A)s long as every gun owner is a member of a well regulated militia” also suffers from the same scholarship and ignores the the people of the Second Amendment are the same people of the of the 1st and 4th. There is no membership requirement. It also ignores the proposals from the original States; particularly NC & Va, there were Declarations of rights proposed, and there were alteration to the Structure of the Constitution. Madison was clear in his June 8, 1789 Bill of Rights proposal that he did not intend to alter the structure of the Constitution. Perhaps you should go back and review Madison’s 1789 speech and then go back and read the proposals from Va and NC and see what made the Bill of Rights and which did not. Because what you contend did not. Regardless of the education you claim. Btw it wasn’t poetry. That is how the Founders actually spoke and communicated in writing. *The Second Amendment, A Second Look 61 Nw. U.L. Rev. 46 (1966)

@2aHistory @KrollMik123 Lol. dude has Palestine flag and Hammer and Sickle on his bio and is anti-arms which is a conundrum in and of itself.

SCOOP: Georgetown professor Bill English dismantled gun control narratives with his 2021 National Firearms Survey. His updated 2026 survey just dropped. It's an absolute nuke that hits its target with devastating force. Here's what we learn: 📜📜📜 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

I think the Miller mis-conception with “in common use” is that it is not for civilian (for lack of better words) sporting and self defense weapons. A proper reading of Miller at 178 divides weapons into two classes. 1. “(A)ny part of ordinary military equipment”; 2. “(O)r that its use could contribute to the common defense”. 179’s “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind IN COMMON USE at the time” are #1’s ordinary military equipment. We know this because Miller cited 1649 Massachusetts law on 180 as well as 1784 Massachusetts and 1786 New York militia laws. No one was using a “corselet (and) head-piece” to hunt. Or bayonet for that matter. The real way Miller reads, is if the evidence shows the Article 1, clause 14 land forces carry it, the Article 1, clause 16 militia carries the same. BUT if they don’t have it viz., military weapons, they can bring whatever they have that “could contribute to the common defense.” Meaning the M4, M16 and SAW are actually covered. As is the Mk 19. With the caveat that so is the “Saturday Night Special” and 30/30 Lever Gun.