#NRA/#CRPA Lawyer Says Machine guns can be banned

Clip from the oral argument before the en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Duncan v. Becerra/Duncan v. Bonta.

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons [US v.] Miller [1939] 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: “Ordinarily 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.” 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.” . . . 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." Judge Benitez, Duncan v. Bonta at page 15.

The NRA is the largest, most powerful opponent of the Second Amendment.

The #NRA does this sort of thing in every lawsuit it funds. Including #NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Please subscribe to this channel, and subscribe to my newsletter at https://CaliforniaOpenCarry.com

Charles Nichols
Website - https://CaliforniaOpenCarry.com
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/
Twitter - https://twitter.com/CRTC_Nichols

Please Donate:
GoFundMe - https://www.gofundme.com/help-charles-nichols-fight-for-2a