User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:00:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? Hollis didn't actually build the gun. If the Form 1 is invalid he keeps the lower as long as he hasn't drilled the happy hole. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:01:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
http://www.sdslaw.us/single-post/2016/06/30/Today-the-Fifth-Circuit-held-that-you-do-not-have-a-Second-Amendment-right-to-a-machinegun Now for the full court! Let me show you my shocked face. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:01:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Is this in reference to Watson or Hollis's firearm? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. The firearm that is registered on the form one that was submitted in the motion for Judicial Notice |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:02:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC: The firearm that is registered on the form one that was submitted in the motion for Judicial Notice Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC: Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC: Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. The firearm that is registered on the form one that was submitted in the motion for Judicial Notice |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:06:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Ok, the BAR that's a 1919. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. The firearm that is registered on the form one that was submitted in the motion for Judicial Notice Yupp.... So will the ATF seize the firearm? Will the ATF revoke the form 1 as they did Hollis? Will the ATF declare the firearm to be a "Post Sample"? Will the ATF not bother it? Someone needs to do a poll..... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:09:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
The triumph of hope over experience. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
The triumph of hope over experience. Indeed. ...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. ... That document was written by people who arguably endured far worse than we have with far fewer legitmate avenues of redress. Our doors are shutting, one by one. Let's hope we can find a window lest we be forced to resort to tearing down the building. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:12:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Is this in reference to Watson or Hollis's firearm? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. I believe he is referencing the record for the manufactured machine gun that had the tax paid but was not manufactured before the cutoff in 1986 (see Nolo's post above). Seeing as at least one Federal court has ruled that ATF lacks the authority to grandfather absent Congress, I would put good odds on ATF either going after that machinegun on their own or being directed to do so. Of course I could be wrong however that person may have paid a high price for this legal adventure. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:14:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Judge Southwick's opinion, thankfully, breaks no new ground, and is simply a straightforward explanation of the language from Heller that I have quoted in my previous posts. In fact, the opinion is careful not to take sides in the AWB cases, and it provides a helpful roadmap for the type of evidence that is relevant to the common-use inquiry. I would rate this opinion as the best one could hope for from a court that is bound to follow Heller. And given the author, this shouldn't come as any surprise. Judge Southwick knows his stuff. In 2005, he was deployed to Iraq in service to our country. He almost certainly took an M-16 with him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_H._Southwick Nolo, given that four federal court decisions all have correctly explained they are bound by Heller's clear instruction that machineguns, and M-16s in particular, are excluded from the Second Amendment, and because this opinion is about as damage-free as one could hope for, I do not understand the push for en banc review. As the Fifth Circuit and Third Circuit panel opinions explain, you are essentially asking lower courts to overrule the Supreme Court on an issue of law that, albeit in dicta, the Supreme Court has clearly foreclosed. Only the Supreme Court can overrule itself. Asking for en banc review is pointless; only certiorari can give you the relief that you seek. Don't get me wrong, I think petitioning for certiorari is a bad idea (for reasons listed in my previous posts). However, if you and your clients are dead-set on that inadvisable course of action, I would suggest a nuanced approach that does not ask this increasingly gun-shy SCOTUS to completely contradict what it said in Heller. I am aware of one line of argument that is both legally supportable and technically not foreclosed by what the Court said in Heller about machineguns. I will shoot you a private message with that info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:17:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
I believe he is referencing the record for the manufactured machine gun that had the tax paid but was not manufactured before the cutoff in 1986 (see Nolo's post above). Seeing as at least one Federal court has ruled that ATF lacks the authority to grandfather absent Congress, I would put good odds on ATF either going after that machinegun on their own or being directed to do so. Of course I could be wrong however that person may have paid a high price for this legal adventure. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. I believe he is referencing the record for the manufactured machine gun that had the tax paid but was not manufactured before the cutoff in 1986 (see Nolo's post above). Seeing as at least one Federal court has ruled that ATF lacks the authority to grandfather absent Congress, I would put good odds on ATF either going after that machinegun on their own or being directed to do so. Of course I could be wrong however that person may have paid a high price for this legal adventure. I am referring to exactly that firearm. It almost sounds like your saying that DOJ/ATF would exact some form of vengeance? Why that would almost be un-constitutional. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:19:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Is this in reference to Watson or Hollis's firearm? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. the one i filed a motion for judicial notice on |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:21:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Judge Southwick's opinion, thankfully, breaks no new ground, and is simply a straightforward explanation of the language from Heller that I have quoted in my previous posts. In fact, the opinion is careful not to take sides in the AWB cases, and it provides a helpful roadmap for the type of evidence that is relevant to the common-use inquiry. I would rate this opinion as the best one could hope for from a court that is bound to follow Heller. And given the author, this shouldn't come as any surprise. Judge Southwick knows his stuff. In 2005, he was deployed to Iraq in service to our country. He almost certainly took an M-16 with him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_H._Southwick Nolo, given that four federal court decisions all have correctly explained they are bound by Heller's clear instruction that machineguns, and M-16s in particular, are excluded from the Second Amendment, and because this opinion is about as damage-free as one could hope for, I do not understand the push for en banc review. As the Fifth Circuit and Third Circuit panel opinions explain, you are essentially asking lower courts to overrule the Supreme Court on an issue of law that, albeit in dicta, the Supreme Court has clearly foreclosed. Only the Supreme Court can overrule itself. Asking for en banc review is pointless; only certiorari can give you the relief that you seek. Don't get me wrong, I think petitioning for certiorari is a bad idea (for reasons listed in my previous posts). However, if you and your clients are dead-set on that inadvisable course of action, I would suggest a nuanced approach that does not ask this increasingly gun-shy SCOTUS to completely contradict what it said in Heller. I am aware of one line of argument that is both legally supportable and technically not foreclosed by what the Court said in Heller about machineguns. I will shoot you a private message with that info. Dicta isn't controlling...that is why you ask them to review. |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:21:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JohnC76]
[#12]
Today, the Fifth Circuit held that you do not have a Second Amendment right to a machinegun June 30, 2016 From the Opinion: "This appeal concerns the constitutionality of a 1986 federal statute that makes possession of a "machinegun” unlawful. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, as trustee of his own revocable trust, submitted an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to manufacture a machinegun. ATF denied his application pursuant to the 1986 statute. Hollis filed suit, challenging the constitutionality of the 1986 statute. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that Hollis lacked standing, and, in the alternative, that machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment. We disagree about standing, but we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment." It is disappointing that the Court disagreed with the rationale behind our arguments and affirmed the District Court, however, we will move forward with a Petition for Rehearing en banc. Seen this on FB a few seconds ago... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:22:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
That document was written by people who arguably endured far worse than we have with far fewer legitmate avenues of redress. Our doors are shutting, one by one. Let's hope we can find a window lest we be forced to resort to tearing down the building. To believe that we have effective means by which to obtain redress of our grievances is but another example of the triumph of hope over experience. To hope that "we can find a window" is a demonstration that "Hope springs eternal in the human breast.". Finally, the court's decision in this case is part of an ongoing effort to deprive the peasants of the means with which to tear down the building ... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:25:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
I am referring to exactly that firearm. It almost sounds like your saying that DOJ/ATF would exact some form of vengeance? Why that would almost be un-constitutional. The DOJ/ATF is like any other federal agency: schizophrenic. There are some really, really good people who work there who will bend over backwards to help people which is probably how machineguns like that one got "overlooked." At the same time there are some far too many people who, well, I imagine you have an idea who I am talking about given what you have been through in your life. I've seen the government retaliate against their own employees (even when it was illegal to do so) so I would not be shocked to see this person face some difficult times ahead. Of course I could be wrong. I'm just a tax monkey. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:26:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
I am referring to exactly that firearm. It almost sounds like your saying that DOJ/ATF would exact some form of vengeance? Why that would almost be un-constitutional. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. I believe he is referencing the record for the manufactured machine gun that had the tax paid but was not manufactured before the cutoff in 1986 (see Nolo's post above). Seeing as at least one Federal court has ruled that ATF lacks the authority to grandfather absent Congress, I would put good odds on ATF either going after that machinegun on their own or being directed to do so. Of course I could be wrong however that person may have paid a high price for this legal adventure. I am referring to exactly that firearm. It almost sounds like your saying that DOJ/ATF would exact some form of vengeance? Why that would almost be un-constitutional. what? the chief already said it was good to go? what more could you possibly want! lol |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:32:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheTaxMonkey]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
To believe that we have effective means by which to obtain redress of our grievances is but another example of the triumph of hope over experience. To hope that "we can find a window" is a demonstration that "Hope springs eternal in the human breast.". Finally, the court's decision in this case is part of an ongoing effort to deprive the peasants of the means with which to tear down the building ... To your first point: I will not accept that. That may be the case and it may be true but I won't accept it. I will fight anyway I can and as long as I can. To your second point: it has been said that hope is simultaneously mankind's greatest asset and worst weakness. I don't believe that either. To your third point: if illiterate goat ****ers can build explosives so can educated engineers. Court decisions and statutes cannot disarm a population that is unwilling to be disarmed. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:33:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSpaniard]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ziegenbock:
Dicta isn't controlling...that is why you ask them to review. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ziegenbock:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Judge Southwick's opinion, thankfully, breaks no new ground, and is simply a straightforward explanation of the language from Heller that I have quoted in my previous posts. In fact, the opinion is careful not to take sides in the AWB cases, and it provides a helpful roadmap for the type of evidence that is relevant to the common-use inquiry. I would rate this opinion as the best one could hope for from a court that is bound to follow Heller. And given the author, this shouldn't come as any surprise. Judge Southwick knows his stuff. In 2005, he was deployed to Iraq in service to our country. He almost certainly took an M-16 with him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_H._Southwick Nolo, given that four federal court decisions all have correctly explained they are bound by Heller's clear instruction that machineguns, and M-16s in particular, are excluded from the Second Amendment, and because this opinion is about as damage-free as one could hope for, I do not understand the push for en banc review. As the Fifth Circuit and Third Circuit panel opinions explain, you are essentially asking lower courts to overrule the Supreme Court on an issue of law that, albeit in dicta, the Supreme Court has clearly foreclosed. Only the Supreme Court can overrule itself. Asking for en banc review is pointless; only certiorari can give you the relief that you seek. Don't get me wrong, I think petitioning for certiorari is a bad idea (for reasons listed in my previous posts). However, if you and your clients are dead-set on that inadvisable course of action, I would suggest a nuanced approach that does not ask this increasingly gun-shy SCOTUS to completely contradict what it said in Heller. I am aware of one line of argument that is both legally supportable and technically not foreclosed by what the Court said in Heller about machineguns. I will shoot you a private message with that info. Dicta isn't controlling...that is why you ask them to review. [A]lthough [w]e are not bound by dicta, even of our own court [,] [d]icta of the Supreme Court are, of course, another matter. De Leon v. Abbott, 791 F.3d 619, 625 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). ETA: See also: [W]e cannot simply override a legal pronouncement endorsed just last year by a majority of the Supreme Court. McCravy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 176, 181 n.1 (4th Cir. 2012). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:34:56 PM EDT
[#18]
What gets me is the court used grenades and pipe bombs as examples of "unusual" items that the militia would find useful. Then states they have been banned so they can ban machine guns. I can submit form1's for both items and they will be approved, as the are apparently protected by the 2nd amendment. We have examples on this very board of that. Did I read that correctly?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 5:36:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
what? the chief already said it was good to go? what more could you possibly want! lol Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Those of us at the back of bus are taking bets on how long it will be until ATF either seizes or revokes the firearm attached to that form 1 the court found "moot"... Still working on the odds, so what say the hive mind of Arf? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. I believe he is referencing the record for the manufactured machine gun that had the tax paid but was not manufactured before the cutoff in 1986 (see Nolo's post above). Seeing as at least one Federal court has ruled that ATF lacks the authority to grandfather absent Congress, I would put good odds on ATF either going after that machinegun on their own or being directed to do so. Of course I could be wrong however that person may have paid a high price for this legal adventure. I am referring to exactly that firearm. It almost sounds like your saying that DOJ/ATF would exact some form of vengeance? Why that would almost be un-constitutional. what? the chief already said it was good to go? what more could you possibly want! lol I see your point, it's not like the ATF would ever tell anyone they were "good to go", pull the rug out, cause economic harm or anything like that.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 6:01:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
I see your point, it's not like the ATF would ever tell anyone they were "good to go", pull the rug out, cause economic harm or anything like that.... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Is this in reference to Watson or Hollis's firearm? I thought the state already had Watson's firearm and Hollis's firearm was never converted. I believe he is referencing the record for the manufactured machine gun that had the tax paid but was not manufactured before the cutoff in 1986 (see Nolo's post above). Seeing as at least one Federal court has ruled that ATF lacks the authority to grandfather absent Congress, I would put good odds on ATF either going after that machinegun on their own or being directed to do so. Of course I could be wrong however that person may have paid a high price for this legal adventure. I am referring to exactly that firearm. It almost sounds like your saying that DOJ/ATF would exact some form of vengeance? Why that would almost be un-constitutional. what? the chief already said it was good to go? what more could you possibly want! lol I see your point, it's not like the ATF would ever tell anyone they were "good to go", pull the rug out, cause economic harm or anything like that.... Nah, that's crazy talk. Just fine upstanding bureaucrats fairly administering the decision that they made this morning. Or yesterday. Or tomorrow. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 6:29:37 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
I see your point, it's not like the ATF would ever tell anyone they were "good to go", pull the rug out, cause economic harm or anything like that.... I have no idea how you are not a bitter man after what your government did to you. Just thinking about what they did to you, and many, many others and what they continue to do to people makes my blood boil.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 6:35:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kbailey3:
What gets me is the court used grenades and pipe bombs as examples of "unusual" items that the militia would find useful. Then states they have been banned so they can ban machine guns. I can submit form1's for both items and they will be approved, as the are apparently protected by the 2nd amendment. We have examples on this very board of that. Did I read that correctly? So useful there's a manual for them: TM31-210. Off to remove that from my google history now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 8:47:37 PM EDT
[#23]
It's so nice to see judges conflate and confuse the laws and arguments they're discussing.
Twelve states and the District of Columbia entirely ban machineguns even if the weapon is legal under the Gun Control Act. An additional 22 states, like Texas in the present case, ban machineguns unless the weapon is legal under federal law. Thus, 34 states and the District of Columbia prohibit possessing machineguns. Only 16 states have no such prohibition, but even some of these states have some sort of restriction affecting or limiting machinegun possession. They're confusing the NFA and FOPA under GCA. They're also confusing registered and unregistered machine guns. Their "analysis" was wrong. The possession of a registered machine gun, the object Hollis was attempting to obtain, is legal in 38 states according to the court's own counting. I guess they just choose to forget things they've already said, Moreover, a judgment in favor of Hollis on his Second Amendment challenge would also likely put him in compliance under Texas law, erasing it as a separate bar. If Hollis were to prevail in this case, the likely effect would be approval of Hollis’s application to make a machinegun, which would satisfy the Texas requirement that lawful possession of a machinegun is dependent on being “registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record." And I STILL would like a judge to articulate why a personal defense weaponmachine gun is inherently dangerous. I'm tired of this god damn self-evident crap. The Golding case the COA cited used a justification that is beyond absurd. United States v Golding
We hold that an offense of unlawfully possessing a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is a “crime of violence” because it constitutes conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another. This risk is presented by the inherently dangerous nature of machine guns; ?a determination that is evidenced by Congress's decision to regulate the possession and transfer of this specific type of firearm. So not only are machine guns unusual/uncommon because Congress has restricted them, but machine guns are dangerous because Congress has restricted them?! What the utter fuckery. Plaintiff: "I don't think Congress is allowed to do this. What's your take?" Court: "Well, they implied they can when they did it as demonstrated by them doing it, so that's good enough for us." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 8:55:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Seeing what SCOTUS has been doing recently, and depending upon how this next election goes, I would guess various courts are going to be even more aggressive "walking back" Heller and McDonald now. The real upshot here is we get yet another insight into the fact the Federal Judiciary is no longer a vehicle which we can reliably expect to seek redress from grievances from our government. Well, you can go ask but they have demonstrated repeatedly that they are going to side with the government or their "feels" regardless of what the law says. That is both an incredibly useful and remarkably terrible revelation. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Which hasn't prevented any Circuit Court of Appeal which has considered the issue from approving "assault weapons" bans. See Heller II, Friedman and NYSRAPA/Shew.  Seeing what SCOTUS has been doing recently, and depending upon how this next election goes, I would guess various courts are going to be even more aggressive "walking back" Heller and McDonald now. The real upshot here is we get yet another insight into the fact the Federal Judiciary is no longer a vehicle which we can reliably expect to seek redress from grievances from our government. Well, you can go ask but they have demonstrated repeatedly that they are going to side with the government or their "feels" regardless of what the law says. That is both an incredibly useful and remarkably terrible revelation. Truth.. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 7:33:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: POLYTHENEPAM]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
To your first point: I will not accept that. That may be the case and it may be true but I won't accept it. I will fight anyway I can and as long as I can. That is literally the definition of the triumph of hope over experience To your second point: it has been said that hope is simultaneously mankind's greatest asset and worst weakness. I don't believe that either. To your third point: if illiterate goat ****ers can build explosives so can educated engineers. Court decisions and statutes cannot disarm a population that is unwilling to be disarmed. Those people don't make most of their weapons, etc.. Most of that is supplied by outside powers, which is quite similar to the activities of the French king supplying weapons to the Americans during the War for Independence.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
To believe that we have effective means by which to obtain redress of our grievances is but another example of the triumph of hope over experience. To hope that "we can find a window" is a demonstration that "Hope springs eternal in the human breast.". Finally, the court's decision in this case is part of an ongoing effort to deprive the peasants of the means with which to tear down the building ... To your first point: I will not accept that. That may be the case and it may be true but I won't accept it. I will fight anyway I can and as long as I can. That is literally the definition of the triumph of hope over experience To your second point: it has been said that hope is simultaneously mankind's greatest asset and worst weakness. I don't believe that either. To your third point: if illiterate goat ****ers can build explosives so can educated engineers. Court decisions and statutes cannot disarm a population that is unwilling to be disarmed. Those people don't make most of their weapons, etc.. Most of that is supplied by outside powers, which is quite similar to the activities of the French king supplying weapons to the Americans during the War for Independence. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 10:40:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in The Common Law (1881) Centuries of experience has taught those in charge that it is difficult or impossible to govern people without their consent when those people possess effective means with which to resist those who seek to do so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
The failure of logic astounds me. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in The Common Law (1881) Centuries of experience has taught those in charge that it is difficult or impossible to govern people without their consent when those people possess effective means with which to resist those who seek to do so. "Good arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law." Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 10:50:43 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:
"Good arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law." Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:
"Good arms and good laws go together. Where the people have recourse to good arms, no Prince dare make a bad law." Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince We have seen above how necessary it is for a prince to have his foundations well laid, otherwise it follows of necessity he will go to ruin. The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms. I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 7:12:24 PM EDT
[#28]
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 7:57:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chadnutz:
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses. Seems fitting so close to "independence day" "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Declaration of Independence |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 8:08:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Now that the 5th Circuit ruled that a "trust" is a "person" under the gun control act, it opens the ATF up to having to give FFLs to trusts...
https://www.atf.gov/file/56456/download Licensing of Trusts under Federal Firearms Laws Only a “person,” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, can obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 923(a), no person may engage in the business of impor ing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until that person has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The GCA provides that “[t]he term ‘person’ and the term ‘whoever’ includes any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). The term “person” does not include trusts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 8:27:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Now that the 5th Circuit ruled that a "trust" is a "person" under the gun control act, it opens the ATF up to having to give FFLs to trusts... https://www.atf.gov/file/56456/download Licensing of Trusts under Federal Firearms Laws Only a “person,” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, can obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 923(a), no person may engage in the business of impor ing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until that person has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The GCA provides that “[t]he term ‘person’ and the term ‘whoever’ includes any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). The term “person” does not include trusts. LAWL... 
I think that's the other reason this is a "winning" strategy, even if the brass ring of post-'86 MG's doesn't happen. We can tie the fed.gov up in knots with all the other loopholes and case law they're going to create in the mad scramble to deny the masses FA. Pyrrhic Victory extraordinaire. Kobayashi Maru assholes. You touch ANYTHING RKBA/2A/gun related at your absolute fucking peril. 
Even without a huge "win"... this can become the Judicial Branch equivalent of the post-'94 AWB landslides had on the Legislative Branch, that IMO, is still protecting us today. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 8:29:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chadnutz:
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses. While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 8:32:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Chadnutz:
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses. While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? with violence?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 9:16:21 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Chadnutz:
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses. While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? Who's court will enforce it? The tyrants that have been thrown out? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 10:20:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJ_Dual:
LAWL...
I think that's the other reason this is a "winning" strategy, even if the brass ring of post-'86 MG's doesn't happen. We can tie the fed.gov up in knots with all the other loopholes and case law they're going to create in the mad scramble to deny the masses FA. Pyrrhic Victory extraordinaire. Kobayashi Maru assholes. You touch ANYTHING RKBA/2A/gun related at your absolute fucking peril.
Even without a huge "win"... this can become the Judicial Branch equivalent of the post-'94 AWB landslides had on the Legislative Branch, that IMO, is still protecting us today. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJ_Dual:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Now that the 5th Circuit ruled that a "trust" is a "person" under the gun control act, it opens the ATF up to having to give FFLs to trusts... https://www.atf.gov/file/56456/download Licensing of Trusts under Federal Firearms Laws Only a “person,” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, can obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 923(a), no person may engage in the business of impor ing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until that person has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The GCA provides that “[t]he term ‘person’ and the term ‘whoever’ includes any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). The term “person” does not include trusts. LAWL...
I think that's the other reason this is a "winning" strategy, even if the brass ring of post-'86 MG's doesn't happen. We can tie the fed.gov up in knots with all the other loopholes and case law they're going to create in the mad scramble to deny the masses FA. Pyrrhic Victory extraordinaire. Kobayashi Maru assholes. You touch ANYTHING RKBA/2A/gun related at your absolute fucking peril.
Even without a huge "win"... this can become the Judicial Branch equivalent of the post-'94 AWB landslides had on the Legislative Branch, that IMO, is still protecting us today. So now there is precedent that Trusts are in fact persons and can obtain FFLS? What's to stop this from being overruled by SCOTUS, or being reinterpreted by the 5th at a later date? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 10:32:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Diesel_Maximus_2992]
[#36]
Quote HistoryWent off half cocked  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 10:34:38 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Now that the 5th Circuit ruled that a "trust" is a "person" under the gun control act, it opens the ATF up to having to give FFLs to trusts... https://www.atf.gov/file/56456/download Licensing of Trusts under Federal Firearms Laws Only a "person,” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, can obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 923(a), no person may engage in the business of impor ing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until that person has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The GCA provides that "[t]he term ‘person’ and the term ‘whoever’ includes any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). The term "person” does not include trusts. I would start a trust just for that (baby on the way, putting NFA into the trust is on hold so I haven't made one yet) |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 11:25:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSpaniard]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MNGearhead:
Who's court will enforce it? The tyrants that have been thrown out? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MNGearhead:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Chadnutz:
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses. While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? Who's court will enforce it? The tyrants that have been thrown out? Exactly. We all (rightly) object that Heller obscured the 2A's anti-tyranny purpose by focusing on self-defense, but logically, what else could the Court have done? You don't ask courts for judicially unenforceable rights. You ask them for rights that courts can actually vindicate, and a right to revolt is not among them. It is illogical to waltz into court and say "hey, the government (of which you courts are a part) has become or is becoming tyrannical; give me the arms that the government took away so that I can resist you!" If it really is time to take up arms and resist tyranny, it is time to take up arms, not file a lawsuit. In other words, although a primary purpose of the 2A was to keep the populace armed as a deterrent to tyranny, the courts cannot fully vindicate such a right. Now it starts to make a little more sense why Heller distinguished between the **purpose* of the 2A announced in its "prefatory clause" and the judicially enforceable **content** of the right announced in its "operative clause." Taking this one analytical step further, it is illogical for a constitution to guarantee a right to revolution. Constitutions exist to place democratically and judicially enforceable limits on government power, and their operation assumes a government that, although it may not operate perfectly within those constraints at any given point in time, is capable of being brought back into line through legal means. Revolution is an indictment of the Constitution itself; it asserts that the Constitution has failed to constrain government power, and that violent overthrow should be employed to create a new and better system. No constitution can logically guarantee a right to its own destruction. Even apart from the mechanical problems of guaranteeing such a right (how do courts decide when government has become tyrannical, and how can they be impartial on such a question?), revolution is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution itself. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 7/1/2016 11:26:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MaxTheRabbit:
with violence? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MaxTheRabbit:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Chadnutz:
This is why we will never get new FAs. I haven't read the entire opinion but my mind is so fuck of fuck I'm going to head out to the farm to do some work. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Here comes the legal gymnastics. The second amendment was about militia weapons until Heller decided it was actually for self defense, and NOT for militia purposes. Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are "possessed at home” and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.” See id. at 621-27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service. And also: Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects "the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, "is the central component of the Second Amendment.” McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767 (quotation marks omitted). Completely contradicts historical text on the 2nd, which should have been included as evidence in this case. So I guess the amendment should be amended as such: A well-armed Citizen, being necessary for the safety and security of a home, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, but may be infringed in any way the government chooses. While I share your sentiment that Heller downplayed the true meaning of the 2A, how is a right to revolt (or, to walk it back a little, a right to deter tyranny) enforceable in court? with violence? Thus the logical problem. See my immediately preceding post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 2:12:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Now that the 5th Circuit ruled that a "trust" is a "person" under the gun control act, it opens the ATF up to having to give FFLs to trusts... https://www.atf.gov/file/56456/download Licensing of Trusts under Federal Firearms Laws Only a “person,” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, can obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 923(a), no person may engage in the business of impor ing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until that person has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The GCA provides that “[t]he term ‘person’ and the term ‘whoever’ includes any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). The term “person” does not include trusts. Good, now my trust will file for a FFL. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 2:52:01 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
That is literally the definition of the triumph of hope over experience According to Oscar Wilde, the literal definition of the triumph of hope over experience involves marriage. I am seeking something slightly less impossible than a happy marriage: rule of law.
Those people don't make most of their weapons, etc.. Most of that is supplied by outside powers, which is quite similar to the activities of the French king supplying weapons to the Americans during the War for Independence.
You mean like the outdated weapons we bought from the French (Charleville muskets)? I seem to recall a story of French muskets arriving only for the Americans to find, to their horror, that the flints had not shipped with them. Speaking of the French; I have a copy of correspondence from the War Department to an ancestor of mine where he was denied a military pension for fighting in the Revolutionary War because he was under French rather than American command. Apparently Congress hasn't changed all that much in 220+ years.
Back to your point: should that day ever arrive, and I pray it doesn't, it would be a good thing the world is flooded with weapons (as is the USA) and an even better coincidence we have thousands upon thousands of people who have spent decades perfecting the art of smuggling drugs, people, money, and guns. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 2:59:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MKSheppard:
We know this now, thanks to the recent abortion regulatory ruling and the domestic violence MISD = no guns case. EDIT: The Supreme Court has shown that they don't follow internal consistency in their own arguments from case to case, so consider them a lost cause for at least a generation or more. EDIT II: Even our own laws are flouted -- Hawaii recently linked their gun registration database with the Feds; a registry database which is illegal according to the 1986 FOPA: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926 “No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recordedat or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s?[1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.” Honestly, I'm having a moment of clarity -- nothing we do matters -- the Second Amendment is considered a fifth rate amendment to be shit upon at will, no matter how tortured the legal construct you have to create in order to do so. Well said. Very well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 8:21:27 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard: Exactly. We all (rightly) object that Heller obscured the 2A's anti-tyranny purpose by focusing on self-defense, but logically, what else could the Court have done? You don't ask courts for judicially unenforceable rights. You ask them for rights that courts can actually vindicate, and a right to revolt is not among them. It is illogical to waltz into court and say "hey, the government (of which you courts are a part) has become or is becoming tyrannical; give me the arms that the government took away so that I can resist you!" If it really is time to take up arms and resist tyranny, it is time to take up arms, not file a lawsuit. In other words, although a primary purpose of the 2A was to keep the populace armed as a deterrent to tyranny, the courts cannot fully vindicate such a right. Now it starts to make a little more sense why Heller distinguished between the **purpose* of the 2A announced in its "prefatory clause" and the judicially enforceable **content** of the right announced in its "operative clause." Taking this one analytical step further, it is illogical for a constitution to guarantee a right to revolution. Constitutions exist to place democratically and judicially enforceable limits on government power, and their operation assumes a government that, although it may not operate perfectly within those constraints at any given point in time, is capable of being brought back into line through legal means. Revolution is an indictment of the Constitution itself; it asserts that the Constitution has failed to constrain government power, and that violent overthrow should be employed to create a new and better system. No constitution can logically guarantee a right to its own destruction. Even apart from the mechanical problems of guaranteeing such a right (how do courts decide when government has become tyrannical, and how can they be impartial on such a question?), revolution is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution itself. I'm not saying that the second gives the right, as in an nonpunishable right to overthrow the government, but merely to give us the tools so that, at such time that it becomes necessary by a sufficient plurality, it would at least be an option. Is that your interpretation, because it is mine? In my interpretation we can keep and carry all bearable arms and even the banning of one kind of gun is an infringement (trespass, encroachment, restrict, limit, curb) on that right. They could have broken out the dictionary and solved this fucking problem in 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 8:32:51 AM EDT
[#44]
I'm no lawyer, but I stayed in a holiday inn last night...
I think we need to start using their own arguments against themselves. The recent SCOTUS ruling on abortion clinic regulations is very pertinent. LINK Lots of talk in there of "undue burden" on "constitutional right" There's even the whole "laws are only for the law abiding!" bit: In the same breath, the dissent suggests that one benefit of H. B. 2’s requirements would be that they might “force unsafe facilities to shut down.” Post, at 26. To support that assertion, the dissent points to the Kermit Gosnell scandal. Gosnell, a physician in Pennsylvania, was convicted of first-degree murder and manslaughter.
He “staffed his facility with unlicensed and indifferent workers, and then let them practice medicine unsupervised” and had “[d]irty facilities; unsanitary instruments; an absence of functioning monitoring and resuscitation equipment; the use of cheap, but dangerous, drugs; illegal procedures; and inadequate emergency access for when things inevitably went wrong.” Report of Grand Jury in No. 0009901–2008 (1st Jud. Dist. Pa., Jan. 14, 2011), p. 24, online at http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf (as last visited June 24, 2016). Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. Ultimately, WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. is another time bomb waiting to explode, along with OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. because in order for the law to work; you can't differentiate between rights as if they were first, second, third, or fourth class rights; and the logic used by the court(s) has to be internally consistent from case to case (otherwise, you're just making stuff up as you go along). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 8:39:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MKSheppard]
[#45]
Quote HistoryDon't get me wrong, I think petitioning for certiorari is a bad idea (for reasons listed in my previous posts). Machine gun owners have been fifth class citizens in the gun community for at least 75 years. In 1934, the NRA sacrificed machine gun owners in the NFA in order to get handguns (pistols and revolvers) and anything that could shoot more than 12 rounds without reloading off the NFA. In the 1960s, American Rifleman specifically stated they would not allow advertising for machine guns in their magazine. In 1986, the NRA sacrificed machine gun owners again in FOPA (they advised Reagan to sign FOPA) for a series of 'concessions' which are not actually enforced. It's time Machine Gun owners forced their way back to the table, and didn't shut up; this time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 8:43:17 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dangerdan:
Does thay mean we can go back to turning MAC 11s into transferable M249s? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dangerdan:
Originally Posted By whiskerz:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By fattyfat:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
DOJ Response to Hollis' Motion for Judicial Notice Hollis' Reply to DOJ's Response to Motion for Judicial Notice http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mic-Drop.gif What if I told you that this machinegun has been recently verified as legit by ATF? ***** From: William.J.Boyle Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 7:36 AM To: Stephen Stamboulieh < Cc: redacted Subject: Re: 1919-type machinegun, serial number 574936 The National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record indicates that the machinegun, serial number 574936, was lawfully registered as a BAR 1918 A-2, and is a fully transferable as a "pre-86” machinegun. Thank you for your inquiry. Sent from my iPhone ****  What the ATF did there I see Does thay mean we can go back to turning MAC 11s into transferable M249s? Boyle's giving the benefit of the doubt that the owner flubbed the model number when he wrote the email. Put it in front of them, and you get a confiscation receipt. Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 8:54:16 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Back to your point: should that day ever arrive, and I pray it doesn't, it would be a good thing the world is flooded with weapons (as is the USA) and an even better coincidence we have thousands upon thousands of people who have spent decades perfecting the art of smuggling drugs, people, money, and guns. Have you ever wondered why there the government is so unsuccessful at preventing the smuggling of drugs and people while simultaneously managing to be so successful at preventing the smuggling of weapons? If you haven't you should. Then you should think about the implications of your conclusions in connection with your statement. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 8:56:22 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MKSheppard:
I think we need to start using their own arguments against themselves. You can't back a Federal judge into a corner, as these cases demonstrate. Their justifications for the desired result become the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 9:04:08 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MKSheppard:
I'm no lawyer, but I stayed in a holiday inn last night... I think we need to start using their own arguments against themselves. The recent SCOTUS ruling on abortion clinic regulations is very pertinent. LINK Lots of talk in there of "undue burden" on "constitutional right" There's even the whole "laws are only for the law abiding!" bit: Ultimately, WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. is another time bomb waiting to explode, along with OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. because in order for the law to work; you can't differentiate between rights as if they were first, second, third, or fourth class rights; and the logic used by the court(s) has to be internally consistent from case to case (otherwise, you're just making stuff up as you go along). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MKSheppard:
I'm no lawyer, but I stayed in a holiday inn last night... I think we need to start using their own arguments against themselves. The recent SCOTUS ruling on abortion clinic regulations is very pertinent. LINK Lots of talk in there of "undue burden" on "constitutional right" There's even the whole "laws are only for the law abiding!" bit: In the same breath, the dissent suggests that one benefit of H. B. 2’s requirements would be that they might “force unsafe facilities to shut down.” Post, at 26. To support that assertion, the dissent points to the Kermit Gosnell scandal. Gosnell, a physician in Pennsylvania, was convicted of first-degree murder and manslaughter.
He “staffed his facility with unlicensed and indifferent workers, and then let them practice medicine unsupervised” and had “[d]irty facilities; unsanitary instruments; an absence of functioning monitoring and resuscitation equipment; the use of cheap, but dangerous, drugs; illegal procedures; and inadequate emergency access for when things inevitably went wrong.” Report of Grand Jury in No. 0009901–2008 (1st Jud. Dist. Pa., Jan. 14, 2011), p. 24, online at http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf (as last visited June 24, 2016). Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. Ultimately, WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. is another time bomb waiting to explode, along with OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. because in order for the law to work; you can't differentiate between rights as if they were first, second, third, or fourth class rights; and the logic used by the court(s) has to be internally consistent from case to case (otherwise, you're just making stuff up as you go along). You're not wrong. You will see that they don't care. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2016 9:10:23 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:You can't back a Federal judge into a corner, as these cases demonstrate.
Their justifications for the desired result become the law. Then....what is the point of the law if it is just self justification for whatever they think that day? 
That's a serious question, and a long term thing to ponder over regarding the corrosiveness of a "feels" based judiciary. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
