User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 6:14:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see that my attempt at sarcasm failed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If 41p passes and you add people to a trust, they will have 30-60 days to submit prints, photos and a CLEO sign off. If they fail to do so and are subsequently caught in possession of the trust's NFA, they will be subject to prosecution for felony possession of an unregistered (to them) Title 2 firearm, and upon conviction will face up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. In addition, anyone currently on the trust could face charges of unlawfully transferring an NFA item, by giving it to the no-clearance individual. Same penalty. And the NFA would be seized and destroyed. Y'all do what ya want, but make sure that anyone you add to the trust is aware of what he/she will be risking.  So...what if you make another trust the trustee of the trust? Or a corporation the trustee of the trust? Or the ATF the beneficiary of the trust? What if you made the "Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives Trust" with the beneficiary as the BATFE? LOL, maybe they will approve it? What if cleo sign off could count as being "under the authority of"?  No, the CLEO sign off is basically him telling the ATF that to his best knowledge you're not going to be breaking the law by getting the NFA item. I see that my attempt at sarcasm failed. It's been a long day. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 6:28:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: this... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hughes is unconstitutional on its face, as it bans a class of firearms that are explicitly protected under the 2A. If we challenge it, I really think there's a good chance of it being overturned. Have you read the majority opinion in Heller  Out of all the noise in this thread, this is a gem. I had never read that- awesome history lesson & legal lesson all in one. Lots of correcting the dissenters, lots of Blacks and Negroes in it. Simply amazing the really addressed what the true meaning of RKBA is/should be. Thank you two for pointing to that! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 9:46:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Out of all the noise in this thread, this is a gem. I had never read that- awesome history lesson & legal lesson all in one. Lots of correcting the dissenters, lots of Blacks and Negroes in it. Simply amazing the really addressed what the true meaning of RKBA is/should be. Thank you two for pointing to that! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hughes is unconstitutional on its face, as it bans a class of firearms that are explicitly protected under the 2A. If we challenge it, I really think there's a good chance of it being overturned. Have you read the majority opinion in Heller Out of all the noise in this thread, this is a gem. I had never read that- awesome history lesson & legal lesson all in one. Lots of correcting the dissenters, lots of Blacks and Negroes in it. Simply amazing the really addressed what the true meaning of RKBA is/should be. Thank you two for pointing to that! I'd suggest taking a look at the original Parker v DC decision. It has one of the best reading on the wording of the Second Amendment. Page 12 it starts to get pretty interesting. Seems to me the Court was advocating nationwide carry was legal, per the Second Amendment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2014 11:38:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Out of all the noise in this thread, this is a gem. I had never read that- awesome history lesson & legal lesson all in one. Lots of correcting the dissenters, lots of Blacks and Negroes in it. Simply amazing the really addressed what the true meaning of RKBA is/should be. Thank you two for pointing to that! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hughes is unconstitutional on its face, as it bans a class of firearms that are explicitly protected under the 2A. If we challenge it, I really think there's a good chance of it being overturned. Have you read the majority opinion in Heller Out of all the noise in this thread, this is a gem. I had never read that- awesome history lesson & legal lesson all in one. Lots of correcting the dissenters, lots of Blacks and Negroes in it. Simply amazing the really addressed what the true meaning of RKBA is/should be. Thank you two for pointing to that! I don't seem to recall that the Heller decision would imply that SCOTUS would rule machinegun bans unconstitutional.... On the contrary, the way I remember the decision and oral argument machineguns were held up as the example of something not constitutionally protected (I disagree, BTW....) I'm not sure I believe this Supreme Court would find the ban unconstitutional... although granted the panel will likely be different by the time this ever gets there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 12:46:35 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't seem to recall that the Heller decision would imply that SCOTUS would rule machinegun bans unconstitutional.... On the contrary, the way I remember the decision and oral argument machineguns were held up as the example of something not constitutionally protected (I disagree, BTW....) I'm not sure I believe this Supreme Court would find the ban unconstitutional... although granted the panel will likely be different by the time this ever gets there. It's been a year or so since I last read it, but if I recall the majority opinion said referred to machine guns several times -- "If we took this view, then machine guns woudl be legal!" -- but it doesn't say that the view in question is incorrect; merely that it specifically is not the basis for the majority opinion. If there's anything in Heller that specifically says MGs are not protected, please cite it. I'll be re-reading the opinion over the course of the next few days anyhow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 1:26:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I keep hearing the MG ban never passed. So if the Hughes Amendment didn't pass, how did the machine gun ban get signed by the president? I'm, confused... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ Anyone have the details on this? I watched this video more than once. I have to say that was a chaotic scene. It's hard to understand what is going on there, but the vote that showed 200+ Nays I thought was on a motion to have a recorded vote on the Hughes amendment not the actual amendment. In addition, the video says 'motion' at the top of the video. Which of the votes was actually on the adoption of Hughes? In addition, can someone explain how Hughes can be used to get rid of the NFA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 9:16:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In addition, can someone explain how Hughes can be used to get rid of the NFA? Would you call up Russia and explain to them how you were planning to invade? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 9:28:52 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you call up Russia and explain to them how you were planning to invade? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In addition, can someone explain how Hughes can be used to get rid of the NFA? Would you call up Russia and explain to them how you were planning to invade? Point taken. Others were discussing it earlier in the thread and I was just wanting clarification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 9:40:40 AM EDT
[#9]
So what does this mean for a guy in IL? Anyone care to share their information on Trusts in IL?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 10:45:25 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what does this mean for a guy in IL? Anyone care to share their information on Trusts in IL? Nothing. To get to the national level you are looking at several years (IIRC around 3-5 depending on circuit). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:01:24 AM EDT
[#11]
 Yeah that is what I thought, thanks for confirming.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:07:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't seem to recall that the Heller decision would imply that SCOTUS would rule machinegun bans unconstitutional.... It didn't. Nothing in the case points to that. People need to read pages 54 to 56 of the opinion before they presume that the case means that the court is likely to hold that a prohibition on the manufacture (or making) of machine guns for ownership by private individuals violates the Second Amendment. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:32:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what does this mean for a guy in IL? Anyone care to share their information on Trusts in IL? I'm from Joliet area. I filed two Form 1 MG's for AR lowers. Never in the denial did it say anything about state law being violated but I was disapproved regardless with the same denial reason as everyone else I posted my denial pic about 12 pages back. Still waiting on my refunds I did use eforms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 3:29:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point taken. Others were discussing it earlier in the thread and I was just wanting clarification. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In addition, can someone explain how Hughes can be used to get rid of the NFA? Would you call up Russia and explain to them how you were planning to invade? Point taken. Others were discussing it earlier in the thread and I was just wanting clarification. I disagree with the notion that stating the strategy here would somehow tip our hand to the BATFE and their legal council............any arguments being alleged against the BATFE/Hughes/NFA would be disclosed in filing the lawsuit through the courts anyway. Any advantage they'd have by reading that strategy here prior to reading it in the lawsuit is rendered trivial since this litigation will likely take years to resolve. Once it's filed with the courts its also public record. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 3:51:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would you call up Russia and explain to them how you were planning to invade? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In addition, can someone explain how Hughes can be used to get rid of the NFA? Would you call up Russia and explain to them how you were planning to invade? Reagan did 
I wish Reagan would have outlawed the ATF |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 4:06:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree with the notion that stating the strategy here would somehow tip our hand to the BATFE and their legal council............any arguments being alleged against the BATFE/Hughes/NFA would be disclosed in filing the lawsuit through the courts anyway. Any advantage they'd have by reading that strategy here prior to reading it in the lawsuit is rendered trivial since this litigation will likely take years to resolve. Once it's filed with the courts its also public record. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In addition, can someone explain how Hughes can be used to get rid of the NFA? Would you call up Russia and explain to them how you were planning to invade? Point taken. Others were discussing it earlier in the thread and I was just wanting clarification. I disagree with the notion that stating the strategy here would somehow tip our hand to the BATFE and their legal council............any arguments being alleged against the BATFE/Hughes/NFA would be disclosed in filing the lawsuit through the courts anyway. Any advantage they'd have by reading that strategy here prior to reading it in the lawsuit is rendered trivial since this litigation will likely take years to resolve. Once it's filed with the courts its also public record. And I will post it all online. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 4:34:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FWIW we just a got "shall sign" CLEO law inplace here in Az.... If you are not a prohibited possessor...they have 60 days to sign. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 4:42:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Republicans controlled the Senate in 1986. https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I keep hearing the MG ban never passed. So if the Hughes Amendment didn't pass, how did the machine gun ban get signed by the president? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ Anyone have the details on this? The history is out there and has been out there. The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 1986. Rep. Charles Rangel was sitting as Speaker Pro Tem. Under House of Representative rules, in a voice vote, when the Speaker says it passed, it passed - it can be protested and a recorded vote taken, but that's the Speaker's decision. Rangel said it passed. That was it. He ignored the protests. That's the rules of the House and the Supreme Court has said that since the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 5) says each house makes its own rules, that's Constitutional and SCOTUS won't review their rules. The Senate passed version didn't have it. In the conference committee, the Progressives controlled the conference committee. They kept it in. When it got to President Reagan, the only choice was for him to veto it or sign it. Since Rep. Volkmer and Sen. McClure (two very pro-gun politicians) had been trying to reform the GCA '68 for years and the Democrats could overturn any veto, Reagan signed it. The NRA thought 922(o) could be overturned in court. Farmer vs. Higgins, an NRA supported lawsuit tried. Remember that the NRA was successful in changing the draconian Brady Law with lawsuits. And, to be brutally honest, we (gun owners) got far more out of Volkmer-McClure (the Firearms Owners Protection Act). People that weren't alive before 1968 (GCA) and between 1968-86 have no idea how bad things got. Likewise people who weren't alive or buying guns 1993-97 (before the NRA changed the Brady Law via Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997). Republicans controlled the Senate in 1986. https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm Wasn't the Republican party refereed to as the minority party in this video? Am I recalling wrong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 4:51:07 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasn't the Republican party refereed to as the minority party in this video? Am I recalling wrong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ The Republican party was the majority party in the Senate during the 99th Congress (January 1985 to January 1987). Bob Dole was the Majority Leader. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 5:07:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wasn't the Republican party refereed to as the minority party in this video? Am I recalling wrong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I keep hearing the MG ban never passed. So if the Hughes Amendment didn't pass, how did the machine gun ban get signed by the president? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ Anyone have the details on this? The history is out there and has been out there. The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in 1986. Rep. Charles Rangel was sitting as Speaker Pro Tem. Under House of Representative rules, in a voice vote, when the Speaker says it passed, it passed - it can be protested and a recorded vote taken, but that's the Speaker's decision. Rangel said it passed. That was it. He ignored the protests. That's the rules of the House and the Supreme Court has said that since the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 5) says each house makes its own rules, that's Constitutional and SCOTUS won't review their rules. The Senate passed version didn't have it. In the conference committee, the Progressives controlled the conference committee. They kept it in. When it got to President Reagan, the only choice was for him to veto it or sign it. Since Rep. Volkmer and Sen. McClure (two very pro-gun politicians) had been trying to reform the GCA '68 for years and the Democrats could overturn any veto, Reagan signed it. The NRA thought 922(o) could be overturned in court. Farmer vs. Higgins, an NRA supported lawsuit tried. Remember that the NRA was successful in changing the draconian Brady Law with lawsuits. And, to be brutally honest, we (gun owners) got far more out of Volkmer-McClure (the Firearms Owners Protection Act). People that weren't alive before 1968 (GCA) and between 1968-86 have no idea how bad things got. Likewise people who weren't alive or buying guns 1993-97 (before the NRA changed the Brady Law via Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997). Republicans controlled the Senate in 1986. https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm Wasn't the Republican party refereed to as the minority party in this video? Am I recalling wrong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ The House was controlled by the Democrats (253 or 58.2% to 182 or 41.8%) and the Republicans had a narrow majority in the Senate (53 - 47). And we're talking about somewhere around 150,000 machine guns on the Registry in 1986 (prior to the post Hughes surge), owned by less than150,000 people (because of owners with multiple machine guns). Let's be realistic about it instead of hyperventilating. Saving machine gun transfers was not a vote getter. Congressmen and Senators rarely go to the mats nationally over issues that have so little public interest (it took 52 years to get ~150K machine guns on the registry - that's less than 3000 per year). That's why Congress will probably never address the NFA or 922(o) again except to 'tighten up the loopholes' and make it worse. There will probably never be enough pro-RKBA Congressmen and Senators that have a large enough "new machine gun constituency" that their re-election depended on to get that moving in the face of the public shit storm that would erupt. "Most" people think machine guns are totally illegal now. First you have to educate them in an environment where the dominant media is against you. Then you have to convince these voters that it's an important enough issue that they should vote for people that will address it (positively). And as far as that goes, it is important, but there's a lot of other important issues and, frankly, a lot of them are far more important. I've always thought the path to victory lies through the courts, not Congress. Until the statists and communists amend the Constitution or overthrow our Republic through a political coup (as our historic President, Barack Hussein Obama, has attempted to fundamentally transform racist, plutocratic, capitalist, imperialist Amerikkka into a socialist utopia First Comrade Michelle can finally be proud of). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 5:26:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[ It's been a year or so since I last read it, but if I recall the majority opinion said referred to machine guns several times -- "If we took this view, then machine guns woudl be legal!" -- but it doesn't say that the view in question is incorrect; merely that it specifically is not the basis for the majority opinion. If there's anything in Heller that specifically says MGs are not protected, please cite it. I'll be re-reading the opinion over the course of the next few days anyhow. From Heller: Majority opinion only mentiong MGs once... dissent mentions them a couple of times... "We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only thoseweapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean thatthe 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: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men wereexpected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” "We therefore read Miller to sayonly that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizensfor lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." Perhaps I am over-reading it, but I took that in bad light - the mention of how it would be "startling" to rule the ban on machineguns as unconstitutional, and then to go on to say they think it must be read in tandem with the next... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 5:34:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For now? What do you think is going to change if they indeed treat them like that? Wont they just make them be transfered to a dealer, and that's it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'd be ok with that,.....for now. For now? What do you think is going to change if they indeed treat them like that? Wont they just make them be transfered to a dealer, and that's it. It means that people can drill holes in the AR15's, assemble STEN and STERLING SMG's, make Glock select fire assemblies etc at home and use them until they pass away. What sounds better to you, paying $25,000 for a NIB Colt M-16, or buying a $80 AR15 lower and drilling a hole in it? What sounds better to you, paying $7,000 for a Sterling, or buying a parts kit for a few hundred and a piece of muffler pipe? What sounds better to you, mortgaging your house to buy a 1919, or buying a semi-kit and using a cheap harbor freight mill to make the sideplate full auto? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 5:54:27 PM EDT
[#23]
I never understood how this whole problem can't be beat using the Miller case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 6:09:01 PM EDT
[#24]
What do you guys think of this....
A local lawyer in my state says he's going to start working on nullifying the MG ban in our state via the 10th Amendment. Will it work? His response to me about the MG ban and what we could do about it: TFA is looking at legislation for in-state ownership based on the 2nd and 10th Amendments. As for nationally, no one seems interested or hopeful. Most respond "you can own them, they are just expensive" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 6:23:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A local lawyer in my state says he's going to start working on nullifying the MG ban in our state via the 10th Amendment. The courts will just look at precedent in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich, rule that the commerce clause grants the federal government the power to regulate machine guns, and the 10th amendment doesn't apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 6:29:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never understood how this whole problem can't be beat using the Miller case. Because even our most scholarly Justices aren't capable of complete Intellectual Honesty... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 6:42:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you guys think of this.... A local lawyer in my state says he's going to start working on nullifying the MG ban in our state via the 10th Amendment. Will it work? His response to me about the MG ban and what we could do about it: [div style='direction: ltr; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-right: 50px;']TFA is looking at legislation for in-state ownership based on the 2nd and 10th Amendments. As for nationally, no one seems interested or hopeful. [div style=' margin-left: 4px;'] [div style='direction: ltr; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.38; margin-right: 50px;']Most respond "you can own them, they are just expensive" We need to repeal the state law on suppressors and sbrs as well. If the NFA goes down, things get rather interesting for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:05:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The courts will just look at precedent in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich, rule that the commerce clause grants the federal government the power to regulate machine guns, and the 10th amendment doesn't apply. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A local lawyer in my state says he's going to start working on nullifying the MG ban in our state via the 10th Amendment. The courts will just look at precedent in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich, rule that the commerce clause grants the federal government the power to regulate machine guns, and the 10th amendment doesn't apply. I don't see how they can ban a gun that we should be constitutionally allowed to own. I also don't see how they can tax a Constitutionally right. Why isn't anyone fighting back against the Govt using the Commerce Clause to take our rights away and force us to buy Healthcare, etc? That's where the work should be done is that stinking misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:21:17 PM EDT
[#29]
If the ATF gets disbanded, the NFA would just get handed over to the FBI correct? Nothing would change in theory regarding how things were done? Could someone explain how Hughes could be used to take down the NFA, someone mentioned it earlier but I didn't really understand the how.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:22:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the ATF gets disbanded, the NFA would just get handed over to the FBI correct? Nothing would change in theory regarding how things were done? Could someone explain how Hughes could be used to take down the NFA, someone mentioned it earlier but I didn't really understand the how. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_ATF_approved_post_1986_machine_guns_for_NFA_trusts__legal_action_pending__updated_9_18_14.html&page=72#i49468802 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:30:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see how they can ban a gun that we should be constitutionally allowed to own. I also don't see how they can tax a Constitutionally right. Why isn't anyone fighting back against the Govt using the Commerce Clause to take our rights away and force us to buy Healthcare, etc? That's where the work should be done is that stinking misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A local lawyer in my state says he's going to start working on nullifying the MG ban in our state via the 10th Amendment. The courts will just look at precedent in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich, rule that the commerce clause grants the federal government the power to regulate machine guns, and the 10th amendment doesn't apply. I don't see how they can ban a gun that we should be constitutionally allowed to own. I also don't see how they can tax a Constitutionally right. Why isn't anyone fighting back against the Govt using the Commerce Clause to take our rights away and force us to buy Healthcare, etc? That's where the work should be done is that stinking misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
I believe someone a few posts above you had some unflattering things to say about the intellectual honestly of certain courts. That's what it really boils down to. Ultimately the government controls who is allowed to challenge what, and when. The work being done here is important, but if the government really steps over the line then the reason it will have been important is because it's determining who has what when that happens, not because anyone is necessarily going to listen to the courts, or to the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:40:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Attacking misuse of the Commerce Clause will be a non-starter for this particular issue (NFA registry closure) becuase to put a chink in the .fedgov's ironclad Commerce Clause Catch-All will never be allowed to happen.
Prior to the .gov figuring out that they could pervert the Commerce Clause into meaning they can do/regulate/control/stifle anything they want, they were stuck with only the Constitutional powers that were given them by the Constitution. Activist Judges with the aforementioned Intellectual Dishonesty are willing to turn their cheek to see that their pet causes are allowed to continue by allowing the .gov to get away with their interperetation of the Commerce Clause. What was originally intended as a power to regulate commerce between the states (as in, to make regular in the event that our union wasn't so perfect after a while), has been turned into a blank check that has created a central Government that the Founding Fathers never intended. You'll never get a judge to threaten the .fedgov's primacy as a protector and provider in today's America. A LOT of water will have to run under the bridge before that happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:53:48 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Attacking misuse of the Commerce Clause will be a non-starter for this particular issue (NFA registry closure) becuase to put a chink in the .fedgov's ironclad Commerce Clause Catch-All will never be allowed to happen. Prior to the .gov figuring out that they could pervert the Commerce Clause into meaning they can do/regulate/control/stifle anything they want, they were stuck with only the Constitutional powers that were given them by the Constitution. Activist Judges with the aforementioned Intellectual Dishonesty are willing to turn their cheek to see that their pet causes are allowed to continue by allowing the .gov to get away with their interperetation of the Commerce Clause. What was originally intended as a power to regulate commerce between the states (as in, to make regular in the event that our union wasn't so perfect after a while), has been turned into a blank check that has created a central Government that the Founding Fathers never intended. You'll never get a judge to threaten the .fedgov's primacy as a protector and provider in today's America. A LOT of water will have to run under the bridge before that happens. See US vs Stewart |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 10:51:55 AM EDT
[#34]
From the Heller decision:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would requiresophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected right cannot change our interpretation of theright." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:13:16 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the Heller decision: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would requiresophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected right cannot change our interpretation of theright." That's the passage I was thinking of. I read that as saying that the question need not be answered in Heller, because even if it were determined that such weapons were not protected, it would not impact the interpretation of the 2A within the bounds of that decision. Therefore, the question of "Does the Second Amendment protect military weapons, including machineguns" has not been addressed by SCOTUS. The closest we've seen is Miller, which asserts that short-barreled shotguns are not protected, because they are not military weapons. The majority opinion in Heller was finely crafted to be sure that it didn't impact anything to do with the NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 11:48:48 AM EDT
[#36]
How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:22:56 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it?
fear |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:25:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
fear Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it?
fear The fear of losing the next election.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:29:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: fear Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it? fear Power and corruption, I think. The political class has a lot of members that believe they have a divine right to rule (or are chosen by destiny / history / the inevitability of the dialectic / whatever). They also believe, as much of the mandarin class (the bureaucrats), that they are oh so smart - smarter than you and I in every way. This is also true of the idiots in Hollyweird -that because they are pretty or can act they're are superior to the commoners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:34:48 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:57:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Power and corruption, I think. The political class has a lot of members that believe they have a divine right to rule (or are chosen by destiny / history / the inevitability of the dialectic / whatever). They also believe, as much of the mandarin class (the bureaucrats), that they are oh so smart - smarter than you and I in every way. This is also true of the idiots in Hollyweird -that because they are pretty or can act they're are superior to the commoners. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it? fear Power and corruption, I think. The political class has a lot of members that believe they have a divine right to rule (or are chosen by destiny / history / the inevitability of the dialectic / whatever). They also believe, as much of the mandarin class (the bureaucrats), that they are oh so smart - smarter than you and I in every way. This is also true of the idiots in Hollyweird -that because they are pretty or can act they're are superior to the commoners. Exact same reason they will never give themselves term limits
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:07:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fear of losing the next election.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it?
fear The fear of losing the next election.... Fear of the IRS auditing you every year, from now until you die. Fear of the ATF counting the number of US-made parts on your SKS and coming up one short. Fear of the DEA deciding you've used too much electricity this month and must be hosting a grow op. Fear that the local cop that pulls you over will find the $5k you have in your purse, on your wya to buy a car. Ultimately, rightful fear of an immortal government that is armed, trained and staffed with dollars taken you and borrowed against the property of your children. A government that is concerned - barely - only with appearance of legitimacy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:14:24 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<a href="http://s43.photobucket.com/user/avidshooter/media/Mobile%20Uploads/raoul_duke.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e376/avidshooter/Mobile%20Uploads/raoul_duke.jpg</a> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it?
fear <a href="http://s43.photobucket.com/user/avidshooter/media/Mobile%20Uploads/raoul_duke.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e376/avidshooter/Mobile%20Uploads/raoul_duke.jpg</a> This is bat country! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:35:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it?
They don't ignore the documents. They don't have to. The Constitution as written is was an obstacle to fulfilling their agenda. The courts have obligingly "interpreted" the Constitution in a way that removes it as an obstacle. Therefore the politicians are happy to comply with the new improved (that is, gutted) version of the Constitution. Always remember that in a legal system where the word "penalty" means "tax", anything can be constitutional.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 2:44:13 PM EDT
[#45]
I was going to post a downer, it costs about $1300 to feed a minigun for one minute
Then I realized how fucking awesome that would be! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 3:59:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Might want to avoid the 9th Circuit. They've already ruled on a similar question with regards to 921(a)(1).
Read pages 9 - 14 of the ruling |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:51:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Submitted Form 1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 4:58:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might want to avoid the 9th Circuit. They've already ruled on a similar question with regards to 921(a)(1). Read pages 9 - 14 of the ruling 5th is the best place for such a case. Hopefully Nolo and I'm assuming his clients being from MS puts the cases he's workingon into their purview. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:22:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
5th is the best place for such a case. Hopefully Nolo and I'm assuming his clients being from MS puts the cases he's workingon into their purview. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Might want to avoid the 9th Circuit. They've already ruled on a similar question with regards to 921(a)(1). Read pages 9 - 14 of the ruling 5th is the best place for such a case. Hopefully Nolo and I'm assuming his clients being from MS puts the cases he's workingon into their purview. I wish Wiener were still on the bench in the 5th. His dissenting opinion in Ardoin was very favorable to our goals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 5:30:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How in the world can elected politicians completely ignore the very documents that legalize their election to service and entitle them to money for it?
Because they have more guns than you. |
|
|
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.
