User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/24/2016 8:46:52 PM EDT
[#1]
I think there is half the issue is being ignored. The court said common use, and both words count. The distinction is use. I may use an AR for varmint hunting in the semi auto mode as a legitimate common use. Use of a fully automatic mode has no arguable common use in a civilian situation. So a court could easily counter argue that the allowance of semi-automatic versions of military model weapons, e.g. BAR, is acceptable in military match sports. But, a situation requiring full auto fire as a civilian does not qualify as common use.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2016 9:27:55 PM EDT
[#2]
Uh, no. If I possess it, it's in use, regardless of whether or not I actually make use of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2016 3:33:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Could easily be proven that they are ordinary military equipment, and that they would be useful in a militia role. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Amusingly, the Navy uses 17" Mossberg 500s. Which is a bit odd, given Miller.... You don't understand what Miller said. The case does not hold that short barrelled shotguns have no military use. The case stated that in the absence of any evidence that possession of a short barrelled shotgun has some relationship to a well regulated militia, the court could not say that the Second Amendment right applied to such a weapon. Given the procedural posture of the case the statement is a legal sleight of hand. The outcome of the case was predetermined before it ever began. Could easily be proven that they are ordinary military equipment, and that they would be useful in a militia role. Absolutely. We just listed 5 or so scenarios where a SBS is near ideal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2016 7:24:15 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Could easily be proven that they are ordinary military equipment, and that they would be useful in a militia role. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Adam-Wayne:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Amusingly, the Navy uses 17" Mossberg 500s. Which is a bit odd, given Miller.... You don't understand what Miller said. The case does not hold that short barrelled shotguns have no military use. The case stated that in the absence of any evidence that possession of a short barrelled shotgun has some relationship to a well regulated militia, the court could not say that the Second Amendment right applied to such a weapon. Given the procedural posture of the case the statement is a legal sleight of hand. The outcome of the case was predetermined before it ever began. Could easily be proven that they are ordinary military equipment, and that they would be useful in a militia role. You missed the important parts the first time. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2016 10:33:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoshAston:
Uh, no. If I possess it, it's in use, regardless of whether or not I actually make use of it. The problem is most don't possess one because of direct government intervention. It would be like gov't putting a $200 tax on all books in in the 30's then outright banning books except for gov't use that are printed after 86. Then we come full circle in 2016 and most of the population does not posses books, so the gov't argues they're not in common use therefore it's not unconstitutional for the gov't to ban books. |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 6/25/2016 10:38:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Given the procedural posture of the case the statement is a legal sleight of hand. The outcome of the case was predetermined before it ever began. Let me summarize the last few pages of argument for y'all. POLYTHENEPAM is pointing out here that the courts were too corrupt to answer the questions in Miller a logical way. Instead of giving a real answer, they did some bullshit tai chi and left us with something that's clear as mud. That mud ends up forming the basis for future cases, which is why TheSpaniard thinks that all of this is a really bad idea. He's saying they're just going to do more of the same nonsense and leave us even more "case law" headaches. Nolo doesn't think that's a reason not to keep trying for a solid resolution of some type. It's a difference of opinion of how to handle a blatantly corrupt court system. I don't think anyone who is capable of reading the second amendment without hyperventilating would come to the conclusion that machineguns shouldn't be protected. It's really not a question of a logical argument though. It's a question of whether or not our corrupt-ass judicial system will give any sort of resolution whatsoever when asked point-blank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2016 4:09:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NCUrk]
[#7]
P218P6NI....
Page 218 Post 6 Nailed It, |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2016 9:27:48 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JustAnotherJerkoff:
Let me summarize the last few pages of argument for y'all. POLYTHENEPAM is pointing out here that the courts were too corrupt to answer the questions in Miller a logical way. Instead of giving a real answer, they did some bullshit tai chi and left us with something that's clear as mud. That mud ends up forming the basis for future cases, which is why TheSpaniard thinks that all of this is a really bad idea. He's saying they're just going to do more of the same nonsense and leave us even more "case law" headaches. Nolo doesn't think that's a reason not to keep trying for a solid resolution of some type. It's a difference of opinion of how to handle a blatantly corrupt court system. I don't think anyone who is capable of reading the second amendment without hyperventilating would come to the conclusion that machineguns shouldn't be protected. It's really not a question of a logical argument though. It's a question of whether or not our corrupt-ass judicial system will give any sort of resolution whatsoever when asked point-blank. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JustAnotherJerkoff:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Given the procedural posture of the case the statement is a legal sleight of hand. The outcome of the case was predetermined before it ever began. Let me summarize the last few pages of argument for y'all. POLYTHENEPAM is pointing out here that the courts were too corrupt to answer the questions in Miller a logical way. Instead of giving a real answer, they did some bullshit tai chi and left us with something that's clear as mud. That mud ends up forming the basis for future cases, which is why TheSpaniard thinks that all of this is a really bad idea. He's saying they're just going to do more of the same nonsense and leave us even more "case law" headaches. Nolo doesn't think that's a reason not to keep trying for a solid resolution of some type. It's a difference of opinion of how to handle a blatantly corrupt court system. I don't think anyone who is capable of reading the second amendment without hyperventilating would come to the conclusion that machineguns shouldn't be protected. It's really not a question of a logical argument though. It's a question of whether or not our corrupt-ass judicial system will give any sort of resolution whatsoever when asked point-blank. Heck of a first post. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 10:54:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Heck of a first post. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By JustAnotherJerkoff:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Given the procedural posture of the case the statement is a legal sleight of hand. The outcome of the case was predetermined before it ever began. Let me summarize the last few pages of argument for y'all. POLYTHENEPAM is pointing out here that the courts were too corrupt to answer the questions in Miller a logical way. Instead of giving a real answer, they did some bullshit tai chi and left us with something that's clear as mud. That mud ends up forming the basis for future cases, which is why TheSpaniard thinks that all of this is a really bad idea. He's saying they're just going to do more of the same nonsense and leave us even more "case law" headaches. Nolo doesn't think that's a reason not to keep trying for a solid resolution of some type. It's a difference of opinion of how to handle a blatantly corrupt court system. I don't think anyone who is capable of reading the second amendment without hyperventilating would come to the conclusion that machineguns shouldn't be protected. It's really not a question of a logical argument though. It's a question of whether or not our corrupt-ass judicial system will give any sort of resolution whatsoever when asked point-blank. Heck of a first post. It sure was. On another note, you know what I don't see on this page? The donation link. https://hellerfoundation.org/product/donation-2-2/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 11:13:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Has any court ever articulated what a dangerous weapon is? Or why a machine gun is one? Unless I missed it, the judges in Watson didn't bother and pretty much just declared it as self-evident. Same with Marzarella. This object is inherently dangerous? To whom (operator or society)? How so? Just wondering if this has been covered somewhere and I've overlooked it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2016 11:35:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JustAnotherJerkoff:
Let me summarize the last few pages of argument for y'all. POLYTHENEPAM is pointing out here that the courts were too corrupt to answer the questions in Miller a logical way. Instead of giving a real answer, they did some bullshit tai chi and left us with something that's clear as mud. That mud ends up forming the basis for future cases, which is why TheSpaniard thinks that all of this is a really bad idea. He's saying they're just going to do more of the same nonsense and leave us even more "case law" headaches. Nolo doesn't think that's a reason not to keep trying for a solid resolution of some type. It's a difference of opinion of how to handle a blatantly corrupt court system. I don't think anyone who is capable of reading the second amendment without hyperventilating would come to the conclusion that machineguns shouldn't be protected. It's really not a question of a logical argument though. It's a question of whether or not our corrupt-ass judicial system will give any sort of resolution whatsoever when asked point-blank. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JustAnotherJerkoff:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Given the procedural posture of the case the statement is a legal sleight of hand. The outcome of the case was predetermined before it ever began. Let me summarize the last few pages of argument for y'all. POLYTHENEPAM is pointing out here that the courts were too corrupt to answer the questions in Miller a logical way. Instead of giving a real answer, they did some bullshit tai chi and left us with something that's clear as mud. That mud ends up forming the basis for future cases, which is why TheSpaniard thinks that all of this is a really bad idea. He's saying they're just going to do more of the same nonsense and leave us even more "case law" headaches. Nolo doesn't think that's a reason not to keep trying for a solid resolution of some type. It's a difference of opinion of how to handle a blatantly corrupt court system. I don't think anyone who is capable of reading the second amendment without hyperventilating would come to the conclusion that machineguns shouldn't be protected. It's really not a question of a logical argument though. It's a question of whether or not our corrupt-ass judicial system will give any sort of resolution whatsoever when asked point-blank. 
For what it is worth I think we should continue to pursue ever available court case and legal arguement. There is an ethical obligation to exhaust all nonviolent means of change, even if you know they will fail, before considering more direct avenues of redress. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 8:01:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher:
Amusingly, the Navy uses 17" Mossberg 500s. Which is a bit odd, given Miller.... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By Loremsk: Don't forget shipboard use too. We issued Mossberg's out of the armory for certain duty assignments. Amusingly, the Navy uses 17" Mossberg 500s. Which is a bit odd, given Miller.... USCG uses 12" M870's. That's not including the breaching shotguns we have. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 6:33:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MKSheppard]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
We need to know where the Judiciary stands. Right now we don't. We can guess and we can speculate but we don't know. SCOTUS has been punting some incredibly EASY and IMPORTANT 2A cases and taken some arbitrary and seemingly unimportant cases and giving us victories. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2016 6:49:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gamma762]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
You don't understand what Miller said. The case does not hold that short barrelled shotguns have no military use. The case stated that in the absence of any evidence that possession of a short barrelled shotgun has some relationship to a well regulated militia, the court could not say that the Second Amendment right applied to such a weapon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Amusingly, the Navy uses 17" Mossberg 500s. Which is a bit odd, given Miller.... You don't understand what Miller said. The case does not hold that short barrelled shotguns have no military use. The case stated that in the absence of any evidence that possession of a short barrelled shotgun has some relationship to a well regulated militia, the court could not say that the Second Amendment right applied to such a weapon. SCOTUS does not do fact finding. No fact finding on this question of law was done in the original presentation of the case. Miller was a remand to the lower courts to accomplish the requested fact finding. The ruling says, literally, that there is no evidence available on a point they found important, so collect some evidence and get back to us. Had the case continued, I think it would have been trivial to collect evidence of usefulness in the role that was described. As we know, no additional proceedings were held on the remanded case as the appellants were deceased. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 9:01:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Miller was a remand to the lower courts to accomplish the requested fact finding. The ruling says, literally, that there is no evidence available on a point they found important, so collect some evidence and get back to us. Had the case continued, I think it would have been trivial to collect evidence of usefulness in the role that was described. As we know, no additional proceedings were held on the remanded case as the appellants were deceased. If only, if only... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 12:55:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MKSheppard:
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:02:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades:
the way they get around this is that none of the federal records (4473, bound book, NICS call in, etc) are used to populate the feds system. HI is using its state records (which are records that are not required to be maintained under this chapter) to populate the fed system. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack_Of_Some_Trades:
Originally Posted By MKSheppard:
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. Plus HI volunteered, they were not required. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 1:38:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Had the case continued, I think it would have been trivial to collect evidence of usefulness in the role that was described. As we know, no additional proceedings were held on the remanded case as the appellants were deceased. Only one defendant was deceased. Layton pleaded guilty, as both defendants had tried to do the first time they appeared. The judge rejected the attempted guilty pleas, thus setting up the case. In 1940 Layton was "sentenced" to 5 years probation. The case was a set up from the very beginning. Your attempt at spliting legal hairs in defense of this judicial fraud fails. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/28/2016 10:37:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MKSheppard:
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. ^^This^^ the last 2 paragraphs of Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt… http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf “Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. Unless the Court abides by one set of rules to adjudicate constitutional rights, it will continue reducing constitutional law to policy-driven value judgments until the last shreds of its legitimacy disappear. Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is “a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.” Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1182 (1989). I respectfully dissent.” WSJ editorial states ‘Justice Thomas is accusing his colleagues of lawlessness’… X |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 2:08:44 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mrX001:
WSJ editorial states ‘Justice Thomas is accusing his colleagues of lawlessness’… He has good cause to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 9:57:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fattyfat:
http://byt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mic-Drop.gif Quote HistoryOriginally 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 **** 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2016 10:40:07 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By frugal_prepper:
I think there is half the issue is being ignored. The court said common use, and both words count. The distinction is use. I may use an AR for varmint hunting in the semi auto mode as a legitimate common use. Use of a fully automatic mode has no arguable common use in a civilian situation. So a court could easily counter argue that the allowance of semi-automatic versions of military model weapons, e.g. BAR, is acceptable in military match sports. But, a situation requiring full auto fire as a civilian does not qualify as common use. But Miller affirmed that the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the people have arms necessary to serve effectively as a militia. Arms that would contribute towards the common defense. As in a militia situation. Not a typical civilian situation i.e. hunting or sport shooting. Given that pretty much every single military in the world uses a select-fire rifle for their primary arms, and Miller specified a clear example of what would be protected (ordinary military equipment), full auto would be protected. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:02:17 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:13:25 PM EDT
[#24]
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! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:23:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
So... This could be used to "infringe" our First Amendment Rights if we're using anything other than a Gutenberg style manual press? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Originally 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! No. That right is completely different as it protects unpopular speech, unlike the second, which only protects popular products. So, computers = popular, therefore protected. /sarcasm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:23:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RevDeadCorpse: So... This could be used to "infringe" our First Amendment Rights if we're using anything other than a Gutenberg style manual press? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RevDeadCorpse: Originally 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!   |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:36:54 PM EDT
[#27]
It's almost as if the 2 courts coordinated their responses.
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:45:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Disappointing...but everything coming out of the courts these days is.
Thanks for keeping on with the fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:54:40 PM EDT
[#29]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:58:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: No. That right is completely different as it protects unpopular speech, unlike the second, which only protects popular products. So, computers = popular, therefore protected. /sarcasm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 3:59:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic: That's different. These are weapons of war. Can't you feel the feelz?! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:03:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Advance]
[#32]
Never mind
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:09:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: EagleArmsHBAR]
[#33]
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! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:12:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Disappointing but expected. I look forward to the result of the en banc petition.
Donation Link once more. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:13:42 PM EDT
[#35]
The upshot is that it does seem to suggest that AR15's are in "common use."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:17:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
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 **** Quote HistoryOriginally 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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:21:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By whiskerz: What the ATF did there I see Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:21:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007:
The upshot is that it does seem to suggest that AR15's are in "common use." 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:22:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Ah the old "not in common use because they're banned, so it;s OK to ban them" argument. The failure of logic astounds me.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:27:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: POLYTHENEPAM]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:32:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheTaxMonkey]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:38:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
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. If this is news to you, you are very late to the party.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:42:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
If this is news to you, you are very late to the party.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
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. If this is news to you, you are very late to the party.
Not really. We were holding onto a shred of hope with the Court throughout most of the 20th century where we could expect some "reasonable" opinions out of the court. Now we know that time has past. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:49:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
So... This could be used to "infringe" our First Amendment Rights if we're using anything other than a Gutenberg style manual press? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RevDeadCorpse:
Originally 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! They used circular reasoning to explain why circular reasoning is bad. Just amazing. Their statement that Texas prohibits MG's...it's really disappointing as it's just simply not reality. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:50:46 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
We were holding onto a shred of hope with the Court throughout most of the 20th century where we could expect some "reasonable" opinions out of the court. The triumph of hope over experience. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:54:50 PM EDT
[#46]
No offense guys, but who didn't see that coming.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:55:25 PM EDT
[#47]
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:57:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Disappointing, but tomorrow is another day (and another appeal, no doubt).
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:59:22 PM EDT
[#49]
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? Freud·i·an slip noun noun: Freudian slip; plural noun: Freudian slips An unintentional error regarded as revealing subconscious feelings. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2016 4:59:55 PM EDT
[#50]
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? 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. |
|
|
|
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.
