close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Is this a 2A right thats been stepped on?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by StarShip2100, Mar 8, 2010.

  1. StarShip2100

    StarShip2100 Futurist

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    In the New World
    If this is a 2A infringment, please tell me your thoughts on how it came to pass, the logic of why it is in there, and supporting logic to take it out. Also one less general question. Why has no one apealed to the SC?

    "A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

    § 921. Definitions



    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 921

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

    (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

    (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

    (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.



    First I would like to give credit for this to Rep Rangel, who stayed up one night in 86 to take a vote of nay's, distort them to yeas and gable the bill passed.


     
  2. Isaiah1412

    Isaiah1412

    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Location:
    Abingdon, Maryland
    Not according to Miller vs. US and multiple other cases, no.
     

  3. StarShip2100

    StarShip2100 Futurist

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    In the New World

    And what was the foundation of their argument? And the Judicial response? What were the cases based on?
     
  4. StarShip2100

    StarShip2100 Futurist

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    In the New World
    PK, so they never showed for the appeal and it was decided for the them. I still dont understand why it would stand a challange.
     
  5. exmdshooter

    exmdshooter WWJMBD?

    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, U.S.A.!!!
    Not so. Miller was convicted for possessing a sawed-off shotgun, and his conviction was upheld because it was (erroneously) deemed that such a weapon had no militarily useful purpose... i.e. that it was unsuitable for "militia" use and therefor not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Had he and his counsel showed up in front of the Supremes, it's quite likely that they could have successfully argued that shotguns... even short barrelled ones... were in fact used by the military. History could have turned out very differently.
     
  6. StarShip2100

    StarShip2100 Futurist

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    In the New World
    so why has it not been appealed on machniguns? Clearly a M16 has military use and they have ceased consuimer production and caused them to skyrocket beyond most peoples means? I am just curious as to the absence of challanges
     
  7. silentpoet

    silentpoet

    Messages:
    30,883
    Likes Received:
    21,456
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Location:
    This Old Caddy
    You have to have legal standing, usually through a criminal case. That is why it is difficult to appeal the restrictions.
     
  8. StarShip2100

    StarShip2100 Futurist

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    In the New World

    Why can it not be pursued as unconstitutional without a crime? Is a infringment not worth of the appeal based on the merit of infringment?

    I thought the DC handgun ban was brought about at large and not through a criminal. Am I wrong?
     
  9. exmdshooter

    exmdshooter WWJMBD?

    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, U.S.A.!!!
    Silent is right. You have to have standing... to be a defendant or an injured party... to persue a case through the courts.

    Heller was an "injured party" in the DC v Heller case, as he had tried to register a handgun in Washington and had been refused. He claimed his rights were thus violated and therefor had standing to sue the DC government.

    Part of the problem with NFA weapons is that they aren't banned outright (like handguns were in DC) - you can buy one... you just need a bunch of paperwork... a few approvals... and to pay a tax. I suppose someone charged with the illegal possession of an MG might have a case that this constitutes "infringement" but in order to proceed it would have to be a clear cut case with an otherwise squeaky-clean defendant.

    Any volunteers?
     
  10. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    Also, consider what the Miller case would have looked like had the weapon in question been clearly of "militia" use. Like a BAR.

    Miller, and the 1986 MG "Ban", is a house of cards.

    It has never been seriously challenged since until "Heller" there was never any SCotUS-recognized decision as to whether the 2nd Amendment "really" provided for the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, or whether it only applied to such a right within the context of a militia.

    Heller decided that question. RtK&BA as an individual right.

    Now if "McDonald" gets applied down to the State and local level the way will finally be cleared to bring Miller and 1986 MG Ban into question.

    If the combination of the two does not constitute an "Infringement" of the 2nd Amendment, I do not know what does.

    I think that ultimately, the 1986 MG ban will be reversed but the NFA 34 structure will be kept intact. No one wants any weapons, much less full-auto weapons, to fall into the hands of those who will not use them responsibly. But possibly dropping the $200 "Tax" stamp. A tax on a firearm you have the right to own is no more appropriate than poll taxes.

    You heard it here first. :cool:
     
  11. Jon_R

    Jon_R

    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    935
    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Central Florida
    There are a lot of Gun Owners that don't want the FA plans to change. If suddenly citizens can buy class 3s or class 3 parts made after 1986 there investment in what they have will plummet. The only reason a FA M-16 costs 15 times what a SA AR costs is because of the 1986 rule that capped supply.
     
  12. StarShip2100

    StarShip2100 Futurist

    Messages:
    2,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    In the New World
    So they take a loss. Many did on houses and other investments.

    Also, is not the inability to buy one because it is $16,000 no an injury? I know I could never afford it.
     
  13. silentpoet

    silentpoet

    Messages:
    30,883
    Likes Received:
    21,456
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Location:
    This Old Caddy
    My point exactly. Do you(generic you) wish to risk a felony(losing your gun rights) on a case that might be decided by a wise latina type person?
     
  14. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 1999
    And which is why these guys, who might have had "standing" to challenge MIller and 1986 MG Ban all along, never did so.

    It would only hurt the value of their collections if they won.

    Tough feces.

    An M-16 should go for the same price as an AR-15, or just a little more.

    :steamed:
     
  15. Chad Landry

    Chad Landry Cajunator® CLM

    Messages:
    38,164
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, TX
    Please, if you're going to cite the 2nd Amendment, get it right.
     
  16. Chad Landry

    Chad Landry Cajunator® CLM

    Messages:
    38,164
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, TX
    One big reason most of us don't bother with full auto rifles is because we can't afford to feed them.

    Another big reason is that we constantly strive to improve our marksmanship. Full auto is pretty useless for that, IMO.
     
  17. silentpoet

    silentpoet

    Messages:
    30,883
    Likes Received:
    21,456
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Location:
    This Old Caddy
    I would do it, if I had the money for a full auto. But I could see somebody making a legal challenge on the 86 ban if McDonald goes the right way.
     
  18. Jon_R

    Jon_R

    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    935
    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Getting rid of it would be fine by me but don't think all Gun Owners want it gone. I would be trying to figure out how to turn my Tommy gun into FA even if I needed to get a tax stamp.
     
  19. Chad Landry

    Chad Landry Cajunator® CLM

    Messages:
    38,164
    Likes Received:
    22
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2005
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, TX
    It wouldn't be difficult to do it.

    I prefer submachine guns to FA rifles, for their intended purpose. They're much easier to control than the average FA rifle.

    Once fighting gets that close, it's good to have a submachine gun.