User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 1:17:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Ryan13]
[#1]
I thought this was interesting "Such was the situation then when, in 1934, I submitted to the Federal Congress a bill based upon the tax power and patterned upon the Harrison Narcotic Act. It came to be known as the National Firearms Act. The measure was not based on the commerce clause for the reason that traffic in firearms is not always interstate." |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 1:19:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Ryan13]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN: Look at the pdf, not only does he support the NFA he believes pistols should fall under it also. Fuck him. Maybe bock was thinking of someone else. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN: Originally Posted By Ryan13: Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN: Originally Posted By ziegenbock: It might help Nolo if somebody can find the Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings opinion (I really think this was testimony before them) to Congress on the NFA and how they can not ban them, under the second amendment. Judging by some of the other stuff that he wanted to do with firearms, I'm calling BS. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-5 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf Page 6(5) second answer. He sounds like a real winner Have you been watching youtube videos again? Look at the pdf, not only does he support the NFA he believes pistols should fall under it also. Fuck him. Maybe bock was thinking of someone else. I know, I read through a bunch of them. I just wanted to see what his testimony before congress actually said. He did testify. ETA: There was one where he basically said that if congress is unsure if something is constitutional or not then they should just pass it and let the courts sort it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 1:29:54 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryMachine guns thereby deliver "murderously effective firepower” and their high rate of fire can allow "a shooter to kill dozens of people within a matter of seconds." Henry, 688 F.3d at 640. Thus, it is generally accepted that "machine guns are more dangerous in their likely effects than are those guns that are in common use among law-abiding citizens.” Sounds like they are making the case for removing the exception for all domestic law enforcement use: After all abuses by law enforcement are well documented but rarely discussed dating back to when the FBI mowed down anyone around just to take out John Dillinger. Not my idea, but the Justice Dept position points that way to my way of thinking. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 3:59:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Judging by some of the other stuff that he wanted to do with firearms, I'm calling BS. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-5 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf Page 6(5) second answer. He sounds like a real winner Have you been watching youtube videos again? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
It might help Nolo if somebody can find the Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings opinion (I really think this was testimony before them) to Congress on the NFA and how they can not ban them, under the second amendment. Judging by some of the other stuff that he wanted to do with firearms, I'm calling BS. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-5 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf Page 6(5) second answer. He sounds like a real winner Have you been watching youtube videos again? CPT, that is NOT what I was looking for, like I said in my IM to you, I went to that site and looked for it myself. But thank you anyway. Also, what is up with your youtube question? Cummings was a fucking piece of shit, but he stated that only by congresses power to tax, were they able to pass the NFA. That they could not ban machine guns/silencers/SBS..etc, because of the second amendment. You come off as an asshole with your smart ass comment about youtube...where the fuck did that come from...really I don't give a fuck. It would be nice if you could have found it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:00:14 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
I tried looking for his testimony but could only find the NRA's. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
It might help Nolo if somebody can find the Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings opinion (I really think this was testimony before them) to Congress on the NFA and how they can not ban them, under the second amendment. Judging by some of the other stuff that he wanted to do with firearms, I'm calling BS. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-5 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf Page 6(5) second answer. He sounds like a real winner Have you been watching youtube videos again? Thank you Ryan for looking. Nolo could use this and show that the AG that got the NFA passed, stated that they could only tax and could not prohibit under the second. Keep looking 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:05:54 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
I know, I read through a bunch of them. I just wanted to see what his testimony before congress actually said. He did testify. ETA: There was one where he basically said that if congress is unsure if something is constitutional or not then they should just pass it and let the courts sort it out. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
It might help Nolo if somebody can find the Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings opinion (I really think this was testimony before them) to Congress on the NFA and how they can not ban them, under the second amendment. Judging by some of the other stuff that he wanted to do with firearms, I'm calling BS. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-5 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf Page 6(5) second answer. He sounds like a real winner Have you been watching youtube videos again? Look at the pdf, not only does he support the NFA he believes pistols should fall under it also. Fuck him. Maybe bock was thinking of someone else. ETA: There was one where he basically said that if congress is unsure if something is constitutional or not then they should just pass it and let the courts sort it out. Ryan, CPT thinks he found it, he didn't. We need to find his testimony or maybe it was written opinion on the NFA. Not the link that CPT found. It will not be on that Justice website. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:14:26 AM EDT
[#7]
I've got the request out to David Hardy. See if he has it.
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 5:11:33 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ziegenbock: Ryan, CPT thinks he found it, he didn't. We need to find his testimony or maybe it was written opinion on the NFA. Not the link that CPT found. It will not be on that Justice website. Nolo cited it in his lawsuit so I'm guessing he has it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 8:13:24 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
Nolo cited it in his lawsuit so I'm guessing he has it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Ryan, CPT thinks he found it, he didn't. We need to find his testimony or maybe it was written opinion on the NFA. Not the link that CPT found. It will not be on that Justice website.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 9:49:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Ryan, CPT thinks he found it, he didn't. We need to find his testimony or maybe it was written opinion on the NFA. Not the link that CPT found. It will not be on that Justice website. In this regard, Nolo is there anything we can do to help with research or anything else besides the go fund me and sitting on the side lines cheering. 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 11:57:32 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:23:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lohe:
In this regard, Nolo is there anything we can do to help with research or anything else besides the go fund me and sitting on the side lines cheering.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lohe:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Ryan, CPT thinks he found it, he didn't. We need to find his testimony or maybe it was written opinion on the NFA. Not the link that CPT found. It will not be on that Justice website. In this regard, Nolo is there anything we can do to help with research or anything else besides the go fund me and sitting on the side lines cheering.
+1. I figure going against DoJ's legions of lawyers, paralegals, and admin support, you need all the help you can get! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:49:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
+1. I figure going against DoJ's legions of lawyers, paralegals, and admin support, you need all the help you can get! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By Lohe:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
Ryan, CPT thinks he found it, he didn't. We need to find his testimony or maybe it was written opinion on the NFA. Not the link that CPT found. It will not be on that Justice website. In this regard, Nolo is there anything we can do to help with research or anything else besides the go fund me and sitting on the side lines cheering.
+1. I figure going against DoJ's legions of lawyers, paralegals, and admin support, you need all the help you can get! +87, Nolo, can you share the full testimony when you have time? Hardy had it, but said it was burred. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 9:06:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Any talk at the shotshow about this? Hell, I would be asking companies what they intend to do if the NFA was struck down. I have had hostile responses from some companies just mentioning sbr and these were from companies that could benefit from such a market.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 9:56:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: rockonmyfriend]
[#15]
Originally Posted By LuxorDeathbed:
Any talk at the shotshow about this? Hell, I would be asking companies what they intend to do if the NFA was struck down. I have had hostile responses from some companies just mentioning sbr and these were from companies that could benefit from such a market. Like sig, sig just got fucked in the ass by the ATF on their brace. I bet they're pissed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 10:05:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Finnbear]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
I know, I read through a bunch of them. I just wanted to see what his testimony before congress actually said. He did testify. ETA: There was one where he basically said that if congress is unsure if something is constitutional or not then they should just pass it and let the courts sort it out. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
It might help Nolo if somebody can find the Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings opinion (I really think this was testimony before them) to Congress on the NFA and how they can not ban them, under the second amendment. Judging by some of the other stuff that he wanted to do with firearms, I'm calling BS. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-5 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf Page 6(5) second answer. He sounds like a real winner Have you been watching youtube videos again? Look at the pdf, not only does he support the NFA he believes pistols should fall under it also. Fuck him. Maybe bock was thinking of someone else. ETA: There was one where he basically said that if congress is unsure if something is constitutional or not then they should just pass it and let the courts sort it out. IOW, when in doubt, fuck the people, and hope the courts eventually get it right. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 8:54:58 AM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 9:25:30 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
I know, I read through a bunch of them. I just wanted to see what his testimony before congress actually said. He did testify. ETA: There was one where he basically said that if congress is unsure if something is constitutional or not then they should just pass it and let the courts sort it out. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By Ryan13:
Originally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By ziegenbock:
It might help Nolo if somebody can find the Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings opinion (I really think this was testimony before them) to Congress on the NFA and how they can not ban them, under the second amendment. Judging by some of the other stuff that he wanted to do with firearms, I'm calling BS. http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches-5 http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2011/09/16/04-25-1938.pdf Page 6(5) second answer. He sounds like a real winner Have you been watching youtube videos again? Look at the pdf, not only does he support the NFA he believes pistols should fall under it also. Fuck him. Maybe bock was thinking of someone else. ETA: There was one where he basically said that if congress is unsure if something is constitutional or not then they should just pass it and let the courts sort it out. The original draft of NFA WOULD have covered handguns as well..it was changed because Pistols were already in common use, and they realized that the populace wouldnt sit still for that much regulation |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 9:27:25 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rockonmyfriend:
Like sig, sig just got fucked in the ass by the ATF on their brace. I bet they're pissed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rockonmyfriend:
Originally Posted By LuxorDeathbed:
Any talk at the shotshow about this? Hell, I would be asking companies what they intend to do if the NFA was struck down. I have had hostile responses from some companies just mentioning sbr and these were from companies that could benefit from such a market. Like sig, sig just got fucked in the ass by the ATF on their brace. I bet they're pissed. SIG put a warm feeling in my heart with their response. Now lets see if they have the balls and file in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 2:05:42 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 2:06:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LuxorDeathbed: SIG put a warm feeling in my heart with their response. Now lets see if they have the balls and file in court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LuxorDeathbed: Originally Posted By rockonmyfriend: Originally Posted By LuxorDeathbed: Any talk at the shotshow about this? Hell, I would be asking companies what they intend to do if the NFA was struck down. I have had hostile responses from some companies just mentioning sbr and these were from companies that could benefit from such a market. Like sig, sig just got fucked in the ass by the ATF on their brace. I bet they're pissed. SIG put a warm feeling in my heart with their response. Now lets see if they have the balls and file in court. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 2:53:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: pyotr_k]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Link? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By LuxorDeathbed:
Originally Posted By rockonmyfriend:
Originally Posted By LuxorDeathbed:
Any talk at the shotshow about this? Hell, I would be asking companies what they intend to do if the NFA was struck down. I have had hostile responses from some companies just mentioning sbr and these were from companies that could benefit from such a market. Like sig, sig just got fucked in the ass by the ATF on their brace. I bet they're pissed. SIG put a warm feeling in my heart with their response. Now lets see if they have the balls and file in court. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-statement-sig-sauer-atf-pistol-brace-ruling/ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/ttag-exclusive-sb-tacticals-statement-atf-pistol-brace-ruling/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 8:06:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mean_sartin]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
How does the SC ruling on the marijuana tax stamp in 1969 mesh with all of this? I haven't read that opinion but I heard something about it on TV or something once. A court would side step that like a motherfucker if was even remotely helpful to our case. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 9:28:28 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 4:38:15 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 5:14:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistorySeems like an extremely reasonable request for the court to grant. Is there concern about the ATF not following what they promised to.... oh. Yeah, good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 5:19:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJK07734:
The original draft of NFA WOULD have covered handguns as well..it was changed because Pistols were already in common use, and they realized that the populace wouldnt sit still for that much regulation Wow. I find it surprising that the good judge could switch his views about the law as much as he did. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 5:24:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryWait, did the guy(or guys) send back their guns and approved letters/stamps? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 5:30:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN: Wait, did the guy(or guys) send back their guns and approved letters/stamps? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN: Wait, did the guy(or guys) send back their guns and approved letters/stamps?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 5:43:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Wow. I find it surprising that the good judge could switch his views about the law as much as he did. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By AJK07734:
The original draft of NFA WOULD have covered handguns as well..it was changed because Pistols were already in common use, and they realized that the populace wouldnt sit still for that much regulation Wow. I find it surprising that the good judge could switch his views about the law as much as he did. I've always understood the removal of handguns from NFA had more to do with the bill not getting enough votes in congress as it was originally written. Remember, The people drafting NFA wouldn't have given a damn what the populace thought. Handguns being removed from NFA basically made SBR regulation pointless. I'm surprised that sometime in the last 80 years SBRs haven't been removed from NFA, especially with "pistol" ARs and such these days. |
|
|
|
AR, USA
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 5:44:26 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryWhy is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 5:49:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. Because it's not worth $30k unless it's transferable. At the moment, it's sure as hell not transferable. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 8:16:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Wait, did the guy(or guys) send back their guns and approved letters/stamps? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Wait, did the guy(or guys) send back their guns and approved letters/stamps? Yes. The lower was surrendered to the ATF. The Trust still has standing. Beats getting shot or arrested. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 8:16:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Because it's not worth $30k unless it's transferable. At the moment, it's sure as hell not transferable. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. Because it's not worth $30k unless it's transferable. At the moment, it's sure as hell not transferable. +1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 8:21:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote Historywhoa! so there was speculation if anyone actually manufactured one, I guess this guy did. or was it just a lower and FCG |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 8:38:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin: +1 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin: Originally Posted By dillehayd: Originally Posted By sheldonap90: Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. Because it's not worth $30k unless it's transferable. At the moment, it's sure as hell not transferable. +1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2015 9:10:12 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. because that is the "value" the ATF put on it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 9:30:34 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
because that is the "value" the ATF put on it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. because that is the "value" the ATF put on it. Wouldn't that be helpful in showing that gov't regulations placed on MG ownership are causing an extreme increase in price, placing them outside the financial scope of persons with average income ($51,939 for households in 2013), thus creating a defacto ban? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 10:35:52 AM EDT
[#39]
Expanding a bit on the last post.
What about comparing it to a poll tax. We all know that there are embeded taxes on the guns and ammo we buy. That would be like the standard poll tax that allows you to vote in state and local elections The tax on NFA would be like having an additional tax you have to pay to vote for Congress. And the cost of a machinegun would be like creating a fixed number of votes for President that goes to the highest bidder. There is no way that a scheme like that would be Constitutional. So why is this? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 10:36:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: pyotr_k]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xviperx420:
Wouldn't that be helpful in showing that gov't regulations placed on MG ownership are causing an extreme increase in price, placing them outside the financial scope of persons with average income ($51,939 for households in 2013), thus creating a defacto ban? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xviperx420:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. because that is the "value" the ATF put on it. Wouldn't that be helpful in showing that gov't regulations placed on MG ownership are causing an extreme increase in price, placing them outside the financial scope of persons with average income ($51,939 for households in 2013), thus creating a defacto ban? Is there any law that doesn't allow the government to restrict supply of goods? It's an interesting thought. Maybe if it's approached in the same way as a poll tax would be? High barrier to entry and all of that. EDIT Rereading what I wrote, I hang my head in shame. Let me rephrase. Is there any law that allows the government to restrict the supply of goods? If not, there's no basis for them to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:44:21 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
Expanding a bit on the last post. What about comparing it to a poll tax. We all know that there are embeded taxes on the guns and ammo we buy. That would be like the standard poll tax that allows you to vote in state and local elections The tax on NFA would be like having an additional tax you have to pay to vote for Congress. And the cost of a machinegun would be like creating a fixed number of votes for President that goes to the highest bidder. There is no way that a scheme like that would be Constitutional. So why is this? The poll tax argument only goes so far. Votes, unlike guns and ammo, are not a commodity produced by the public. Things like a sales tax that reflect the fact that the trade in guns is commerce are always going to stand, I suspect. The comparison of a fixed number of MG's to a fixed number of votes does have some merit worth exploring, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:46:12 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
Expanding a bit on the last post. What about comparing it to a poll tax. We all know that there are embeded taxes on the guns and ammo we buy. That would be like the standard poll tax that allows you to vote in state and local elections The tax on NFA would be like having an additional tax you have to pay to vote for Congress. And the cost of a machinegun would be like creating a fixed number of votes for President that goes to the highest bidder. There is no way that a scheme like that would be Constitutional. So why is this? Not all rights are viewed equally by the Courts. Some are viewed as more fundamental than others. And even with respect to the most sacrosanct rights there have always been limitations and exceptions. Take for instance the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment (I'm avoiding the establishment clause because it will get the argument side-tracked). The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law impeding the free exercise of religion. Pretty simple. Pretty basic. Taken literally, any law that impeded the exercise of a sincerely held religious belief would be Unconstitutional. Yet Congress and the state make a myriad of laws which impede the free exercise of religion. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith. You yourself raise the idea of a poll tax. The reason those are Unconstitutional is that they impact a fundamental right (often times in a discriminatory fashion). But the even in that context, the fundamental right has been historically restricted. There a long standing prohibitions on felons being able to vote. Applying that in the context of the Second Amendment it is clear that the Courts likewise do not construe it without limitation. More to the point, the Courts do not seem willing to accord the Second Amendment in the same sacrosanct way they view other rights. The fundamental problem with this case, and the reason I think you are in for a big let down, is that the Courts are likely to be inherently biased against finding a fundamental right to possess or manufacture a machine gun. My view has nothing to do with whether the arguments are meritorious. My view is based upon the optics of it and trying to convince a judge, and then a panel of judges on appeal, that there is a fundamental right to posses a machine gun. I think that is a bridge too far for most judges regardless of whether they are right or wrong. And the problem is that judges can be the most disingenuous persons on the planet when they want to reach a result. I have seen it countless times. One last thing. I would love for this suit to prevail. I don't currently own any machine guns. I just don't see it happening. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:49:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pyotr_k:
Is there any law that doesn't allow the government to restrict supply of goods? It's an interesting thought. Maybe if it's approached in the same way as a poll tax would be? High barrier to entry and all of that. EDIT Rereading what I wrote, I hang my head in shame. Let me rephrase. Is there any law that allows the government to restrict the supply of goods? If not, there's no basis for them to do so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pyotr_k:
Originally Posted By xviperx420:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By sheldonap90:
Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. because that is the "value" the ATF put on it. Wouldn't that be helpful in showing that gov't regulations placed on MG ownership are causing an extreme increase in price, placing them outside the financial scope of persons with average income ($51,939 for households in 2013), thus creating a defacto ban? Is there any law that doesn't allow the government to restrict supply of goods? It's an interesting thought. Maybe if it's approached in the same way as a poll tax would be? High barrier to entry and all of that. EDIT Rereading what I wrote, I hang my head in shame. Let me rephrase. Is there any law that allows the government to restrict the supply of goods? If not, there's no basis for them to do so. Sure...the interstate commerce clause. It shouldn't apply in this case as the MG never traveled interstate. It wasn't an MG when it traveled from PSA to the plaintiff, it was an "other" which was regulated (e.g. shipped to an FFL and transferred on a 4473) as such. The only realistic constitutional means ATF would have for regulating the lower further would be if the plaintiff intended to offer the MG for interstate sale. Note the shouldn't there. It's a doozie! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:54:08 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Sure...the interstate commerce clause. It shouldn't apply in this case as the MG never traveled interstate. It wasn't an MG when it traveled from PSA to the plaintiff, it was an "other" which was regulated (e.g. shipped to an FFL and transferred on a 4473) as such. The only realistic constitutional means ATF would have for regulating the lower further would be if the plaintiff intended to offer the MG for interstate sale. Note the shouldn't there. It's a doozie! You seem to recognize the problem since you emphasize the word "shouldn't." The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the ability of Congress to regulate activity occurring completely within the borders of a state so long as it has some very thin and conceivable (some might say contrived) nexus to interstate commerce. It is not an argument that will get any traction and it distracting from stronger arguments. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:20:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Not all rights are viewed equally by the Courts. Some are viewed as more fundamental than others. And even with respect to the most sacrosanct rights there have always been limitations and exceptions. Take for instance the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment (I'm avoiding the establishment clause because it will get the argument side-tracked). The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law impeding the free exercise of religion. Pretty simple. Pretty basic. Taken literally, any law that impeded the exercise of a sincerely held religious belief would be Unconstitutional. Yet Congress and the state make a myriad of laws which impede the free exercise of religion. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith. You yourself raise the idea of a poll tax. The reason those are Unconstitutional is that they impact a fundamental right (often times in a discriminatory fashion). But the even in that context, the fundamental right has been historically restricted. There a long standing prohibitions on felons being able to vote. Applying that in the context of the Second Amendment it is clear that the Courts likewise do not construe it without limitation. More to the point, the Courts do not seem willing to accord the Second Amendment in the same sacrosanct way they view other rights. The fundamental problem with this case, and the reason I think you are in for a big let down, is that the Courts are likely to be inherently biased against finding a fundamental right to possess or manufacture a machine gun. My view has nothing to do with whether the arguments are meritorious. My view is based upon the optics of it and trying to convince a judge, and then a panel of judges on appeal, that there is a fundamental right to posses a machine gun. I think that is a bridge too far for most judges regardless of whether they are right or wrong. And the problem is that judges can be the most disingenuous persons on the planet when they want to reach a result. I have seen it countless times. One last thing. I would love for this suit to prevail. I don't currently own any machine guns. I just don't see it happening. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Expanding a bit on the last post. What about comparing it to a poll tax. We all know that there are embeded taxes on the guns and ammo we buy. That would be like the standard poll tax that allows you to vote in state and local elections The tax on NFA would be like having an additional tax you have to pay to vote for Congress. And the cost of a machinegun would be like creating a fixed number of votes for President that goes to the highest bidder. There is no way that a scheme like that would be Constitutional. So why is this? Not all rights are viewed equally by the Courts. Some are viewed as more fundamental than others. And even with respect to the most sacrosanct rights there have always been limitations and exceptions. Take for instance the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment (I'm avoiding the establishment clause because it will get the argument side-tracked). The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law impeding the free exercise of religion. Pretty simple. Pretty basic. Taken literally, any law that impeded the exercise of a sincerely held religious belief would be Unconstitutional. Yet Congress and the state make a myriad of laws which impede the free exercise of religion. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith. You yourself raise the idea of a poll tax. The reason those are Unconstitutional is that they impact a fundamental right (often times in a discriminatory fashion). But the even in that context, the fundamental right has been historically restricted. There a long standing prohibitions on felons being able to vote. Applying that in the context of the Second Amendment it is clear that the Courts likewise do not construe it without limitation. More to the point, the Courts do not seem willing to accord the Second Amendment in the same sacrosanct way they view other rights. The fundamental problem with this case, and the reason I think you are in for a big let down, is that the Courts are likely to be inherently biased against finding a fundamental right to possess or manufacture a machine gun. My view has nothing to do with whether the arguments are meritorious. My view is based upon the optics of it and trying to convince a judge, and then a panel of judges on appeal, that there is a fundamental right to posses a machine gun. I think that is a bridge too far for most judges regardless of whether they are right or wrong. And the problem is that judges can be the most disingenuous persons on the planet when they want to reach a result. I have seen it countless times. One last thing. I would love for this suit to prevail. I don't currently own any machine guns. I just don't see it happening. Thanks for the insight! And I would be SHOCKED if we win this. Very pleasantly so, but still shocked, and for the same reasons you state. That said, the more things that happen like this, the closer folks get to saying screw your laws. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:23:30 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
You seem to recognize the problem since you emphasize the word "shouldn't." The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the ability of Congress to regulate activity occurring completely within the borders of a state so long as it has some very thin and conceivable (some might say contrived) nexus to interstate commerce. It is not an argument that will get any traction and it distracting from stronger arguments. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Sure...the interstate commerce clause. It shouldn't apply in this case as the MG never traveled interstate. It wasn't an MG when it traveled from PSA to the plaintiff, it was an "other" which was regulated (e.g. shipped to an FFL and transferred on a 4473) as such. The only realistic constitutional means ATF would have for regulating the lower further would be if the plaintiff intended to offer the MG for interstate sale. Note the shouldn't there. It's a doozie! You seem to recognize the problem since you emphasize the word "shouldn't." The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the ability of Congress to regulate activity occurring completely within the borders of a state so long as it has some very thin and conceivable (some might say contrived) nexus to interstate commerce. It is not an argument that will get any traction and it distracting from stronger arguments. Wickard v FIlburn is a HORIBBLE decision along the lines of Dred Scott. Both of these cases are examples of why I am a firm believer in jury nullification. IMO, there is no way the Founders intended to allow less than 10 people have the final say so in what is or is not Constitutional. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 12:50:36 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd: Sure...the interstate commerce clause. It shouldn't apply in this case as the MG never traveled interstate. It wasn't an MG when it traveled from PSA to the plaintiff, it was an "other" which was regulated (e.g. shipped to an FFL and transferred on a 4473) as such. The only realistic constitutional means ATF would have for regulating the lower further would be if the plaintiff intended to offer the MG for interstate sale. Note the shouldn't there. It's a doozie! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd: Sure...the interstate commerce clause. It shouldn't apply in this case as the MG never traveled interstate. It wasn't an MG when it traveled from PSA to the plaintiff, it was an "other" which was regulated (e.g. shipped to an FFL and transferred on a 4473) as such. The only realistic constitutional means ATF would have for regulating the lower further would be if the plaintiff intended to offer the MG for interstate sale. Note the shouldn't there. It's a doozie! Peasant, Don't you understand that commerce restricted to a single state does in fact impact interstate commerce because it encourages intrastate commerce over interstate commerce. Therefore, we must use the interstate commerce clause to restrict intrastate commerce....for the children. Signed, tyrannical judges more interested in government power than freedom and the Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 4:59:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chadnutz:
Peasant, Don't you understand that commerce restricted to a single state does in fact impact interstate commerce because it encourages intrastate commerce over interstate commerce. Therefore, we must use the interstate commerce clause to restrict intrastate commerce....for the children. Signed, tyrannical judges more interested in government power than freedom and the Constitution. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chadnutz:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Sure...the interstate commerce clause. It shouldn't apply in this case as the MG never traveled interstate. It wasn't an MG when it traveled from PSA to the plaintiff, it was an "other" which was regulated (e.g. shipped to an FFL and transferred on a 4473) as such. The only realistic constitutional means ATF would have for regulating the lower further would be if the plaintiff intended to offer the MG for interstate sale. Note the shouldn't there. It's a doozie! Peasant, Don't you understand that commerce restricted to a single state does in fact impact interstate commerce because it encourages intrastate commerce over interstate commerce. Therefore, we must use the interstate commerce clause to restrict intrastate commerce....for the children. Signed, tyrannical judges more interested in government power than freedom and the Constitution. True we are peasants and should stfu, but may I offer up this one objection to the interstate/ intrastate argument? There is ZERO commerce taking place. (Post '86) To peasants that is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 8:19:05 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: because that is the "value" the ATF put on it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By sheldonap90: Why is it only listed as being worth $100? if it is indeed a converted lower they are $30,000 on the current market. Big numbers look better than small numbers. because that is the "value" the ATF put on it. |
|
|
|
AR, USA
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 11:45:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: sheldonap90]
[#50]
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
What if I told you, the BATFE allows certain people to keep post 1986 machine guns? So when to we get the answer to this teaser? 
|
|
|
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.
