User Panel
Originally Posted By NorCal_LEO: We should call you Enola also in that case. You seem ... familiar. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By NorCal_LEO: Originally Posted By WinterSoldier: Originally Posted By Undefined: If the gun control fight were to be described as decades of trench warfare, this is equivalent of launching the Enola Gay on a course for the enemy's capital. The depth of my pleasure and satisfaction at being a tiny part of this is beyond my ability to express in words. I can only smile and remind myself that someday I will tell the tale to my son and his sons. It is a Enola Gay alright, and the name is fitting, because they are about to bent over and fucked up the ass, with no lube... We should call you Enola also in that case. You seem ... familiar. His enstrument the angus pepper shaker tambarine And I missed page 10pwnage |
|
"Stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here" -Cpt. John Parker
<------team Jack Bauer Official arfcom nickname- Jambalaya |
Hey, cool.
We're all neckbeards now. I'll give the guy credit for being clever enough to get people to send him free money. But anyone who thinks the he's going to overturn NFA34 or Hughes is living in another reality. More likely he'll do what his buddy did and create bad case law that will screw gun owners. The best we can hope for is that he'll be laughed out of court. All the way to the bank - thanks to contributions of neckbeards of course. View Quote |
|
A chance to cut is a chance to cure
Life Member: AR15.com, NRA, NYSRPA, SAF |
I am in. I am so proud to say I donated to the fund before the documents were filed. I am proud to see it was a reality and to be a part of this. I will continue to donate. Good luck and God speed. You have the People with you.
|
|
|
Well, here's to hoping for the best.
|
|
One of God's own prototypes...
|
Advanced Combat Rubber Raiding Craft Steerer
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By fish223:
Hey, cool. We're all neckbeards now. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By fish223:
Hey, cool. We're all neckbeards now. I'll give the guy credit for being clever enough to get people to send him free money. But anyone who thinks the he's going to overturn NFA34 or Hughes is living in another reality. More likely he'll do what his buddy did and create bad case law that will screw gun owners. The best we can hope for is that he'll be laughed out of court. All the way to the bank - thanks to contributions of neckbeards of course. I think he has this confused with the GOP. |
I can count to potato
|
Originally Posted By Blackheart_Actual: http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/14/142898/2833597-haters_fb62b5_2448292.gif View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Blackheart_Actual: Originally Posted By fish223: Hey, cool. We're all neckbeards now. I'll give the guy credit for being clever enough to get people to send him free money. But anyone who thinks the he's going to overturn NFA34 or Hughes is living in another reality. More likely he'll do what his buddy did and create bad case law that will screw gun owners. The best we can hope for is that he'll be laughed out of court. All the way to the bank - thanks to contributions of neckbeards of course. http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/14/142898/2833597-haters_fb62b5_2448292.gif Haters gonna hate?
I might have to steal that one. |
|
|
Aww yiss
|
|
DanTSX - "Acquiring better guns by burying the shitty ones behind you is the path to enlightenment."
LaRue customer for life! Stand with Rand |
Old School Tag
|
|
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed , limited, rescinded, interfered with, or prohibited by any decree of law, decision by court, or policy by the executive branch.
|
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Bumping this info. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By Plumber576:
WHY HASN'T THE DONATION LINK BEEN POSTED YET?! http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk Bumping this info. And again. We're still not there. You're better than this Arfcom. A few have given in the hundreds. Give till it hurts. |
|
It's happening!
|
|
|
if this thread prevents just one poster from sending their child to fsu, it's all been worth it -NoVaGator
|
Originally Posted By Undefined:
One does not discuss such matters in public. We are the good guys. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By NorthBridge:
Where I'm going with this, I think, is what happens if we get a ruling like mancow fears. What does it tell us, the citizen that knows that we are being denied our constitutional rights and are trying to go about correcting that peacefully? Where do we go from here? It's a spooky scenario. Not one that I would shrink from, but it's definitely thought provoking. I genuinely hope that reasonable people on the .gov side give that some serious thought. One does not discuss such matters in public. We are the good guys. I'm not saying, "if this isn't successful, we need to start rioting!" Like I said, it's tough for me to word it. |
|
|
So, to play a bit of devils advocate, I had some thoughts while reading through.
Considering that Miller and Heller will be the primary precedents that shape the outcome of this -- wouldn't it perhaps have been better to attempt to deconstruct the opinions presented in Heller rather than selectively using portions for support? For example: 10. The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L.Ed.2d. 637, 683 (2008). In addition, Heller also held that the Second Amendment guarantees not only an individual right to bear arms unconnected with militia service but that it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Id . at 582, 2792. View Quote When I read that, I start thinking, ok he just quoted Heller which also states, specifically on this matter, 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 those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the 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 were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra. .... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in 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 as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. 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 the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. View Quote Perhaps it would have been better to point out the cyclical fallacy in this position that renders void the protection of the amendment itself? They argue that the Second Amendment does not protect weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes -- specifically short-barreled shotguns. This is cyclical. How could law-abiding citizens own short-barreled shotguns for lawful purposes when they have been deemed unlawful? Using them for lawful purposes would inherently have made then non-abiding citizens by manner of sheer possession. In essence, they are saying they are justifiably illegal, because they are illegal to use legally. Furthermore, this cyclical justification again appears in the second paragraph, where they suggest that the militia would show up with weapons they lawfully owned -- thus it is justified to ban machineguns, because only legally owned guns are protected. However, if they were legal, would it not stand to reason that they would lawfully then show up with their lawful machineguns? What protection then does the Second Amendment actually grant in this interpretation? If only lawful weapons are protected -- then all you have to do is render no weapon lawful, and subsequently none are then protected. Or simply regulate the "lawful" mandate such that it is impossible to reasonably achieve..... the right is there to own and possess one, despite their being no ability to actually do so. It would effectually render no protection at all. I apologize for the bad construction of my opinion -- i'm a 3rd shifter and have been up a long, long time In any event -- I imagine Heller will be the crux of a big portion of this and the ability to deconstruct that weak premise is at the heart of it. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Limitations have always been in place on the 2nd dating back to common law. For some reason folks think there was just a free for all when it came to weapons back then but it was not that way. With that said about the only limitations there were concerned felons with firearms/weapons. There was a great thread here once with Eric The Hun and others discussing all of it. Wish I had saved the link. View Quote I care about how things were only within the context of considering how those facts can be used to expand human Liberty today. |
|
"It's hard to hear a wallet screaming over the sound of a pecker cheering"
--WinstonSmith "If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" --Solzhenitsyn |
Originally Posted By SonicRaT: So, to play a bit of devils advocate, I had some thoughts while reading through. Considering that Miller and Heller will be the primary precedents that shape the outcome of this -- wouldn't it perhaps have been better to attempt to deconstruct the opinions presented in Heller rather than selectively using portions for support? For example: When I read that, I start thinking, ok he just quoted Heller which also states, specifically on this matter, View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By SonicRaT: So, to play a bit of devils advocate, I had some thoughts while reading through. Considering that Miller and Heller will be the primary precedents that shape the outcome of this -- wouldn't it perhaps have been better to attempt to deconstruct the opinions presented in Heller rather than selectively using portions for support? For example: 10. The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L.Ed.2d. 637, 683 (2008). In addition, Heller also held that the Second Amendment guarantees not only an individual right to bear arms unconnected with militia service but that it "extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” Id . at 582, 2792. When I read that, I start thinking, ok he just quoted Heller which also states, specifically on this matter, |
|
|
Originally Posted By NorthBridge:
Not sure how to word this, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway. Everyone participating in this, whether it be actively or through donations and/or moral support, wants to have the freedom to exercise the rights that we already constitutionally have and are trying to do so peacefully and within the existing channels of our established legal system. To me, that is huge. To take the point a bit further, what mancow posted on page 6 highlighted the chasm between the govt and us. I couldn't agree more. A few posts later, mancow makes another thought provoking post. Where I'm going with this, I think, is what happens if we get a ruling like mancow fears. What does it tell us, the citizen that knows that we are being denied our constitutional rights and are trying to go about correcting that peacefully? Where do we go from here? It's a spooky scenario. Not one that I would shrink from, but it's definitely thought provoking. I genuinely hope that reasonable people on the .gov side give that some serious thought. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By NorthBridge:
Not sure how to word this, but I'm going to give it a shot anyway. Everyone participating in this, whether it be actively or through donations and/or moral support, wants to have the freedom to exercise the rights that we already constitutionally have and are trying to do so peacefully and within the existing channels of our established legal system. To me, that is huge. To take the point a bit further, what mancow posted on page 6 highlighted the chasm between the govt and us. Originally Posted By mancow:
If this whole thing isn't a prime example of rule by fiat nothing is. They literally define and mold the law at will as seen fit to their benefit with no mention of even a remedy to account for the demand of surrender of the rifle (if it had been purchased). A high school government student could see the violations. It's the simplest evidence that there is no true rule of law anymore. I couldn't agree more. A few posts later, mancow makes another thought provoking post. Originally Posted By mancow:
Like anything else, "for the children". Case closed...next! (as in Scalia's comment on limitations in Heller). That's what scares me. Where I'm going with this, I think, is what happens if we get a ruling like mancow fears. What does it tell us, the citizen that knows that we are being denied our constitutional rights and are trying to go about correcting that peacefully? Where do we go from here? It's a spooky scenario. Not one that I would shrink from, but it's definitely thought provoking. I genuinely hope that reasonable people on the .gov side give that some serious thought. We are pursuing this and other actions through the court. We're fighting to elect representatives that better protect our rights. We're endeavoring to educate the electorate of their birthright as Americans and the danger posed to it by those representatives' actions. We're doing all we can to instill in the next generation a true understanding and appreciation for human Liberty. The time has not come to gather arms and organize a fighting force - and thank Almighty God for that. We are waging a long campaign of ideological warfare, yes - but we're doing so within our own American family. If there comes a point where there is no option but to fight in a literal sense, I have no doubt that many will answer that call. I trust that there will always be those willing to pledge their blood and treasure to the cause of righteousness should it be necessary to do so. |
|
"It's hard to hear a wallet screaming over the sound of a pecker cheering"
--WinstonSmith "If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" --Solzhenitsyn |
Originally Posted By Undefined:
One does not discuss such matters in public. We are the good guys. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By NorthBridge:
Where I'm going with this, I think, is what happens if we get a ruling like mancow fears. What does it tell us, the citizen that knows that we are being denied our constitutional rights and are trying to go about correcting that peacefully? Where do we go from here? It's a spooky scenario. Not one that I would shrink from, but it's definitely thought provoking. I genuinely hope that reasonable people on the .gov side give that some serious thought. One does not discuss such matters in public. We are the good guys. I agree - you don't fight with family at the point of a gun. |
|
"It's hard to hear a wallet screaming over the sound of a pecker cheering"
--WinstonSmith "If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" --Solzhenitsyn |
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
I care about how things were only within the context of considering how those facts can be used to expand human Liberty today. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Limitations have always been in place on the 2nd dating back to common law. For some reason folks think there was just a free for all when it came to weapons back then but it was not that way. With that said about the only limitations there were concerned felons with firearms/weapons. There was a great thread here once with Eric The Hun and others discussing all of it. Wish I had saved the link. I care about how things were only within the context of considering how those facts can be used to expand human Liberty today. All the rulings even from the 9th circuit all deal with the historical intent of the 2nd amendment. So with that pretty much the only restrictions were for those who were felons, mentally ill and slaves. If you wanted to own a cannon you could without government permission. As a free man your only limitation was the amount of money you could spend. |
|
I AM DARREN WILSON
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated. |
Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner:
Originally Posted By capnrob97:
Originally Posted By WinterSoldier:
Originally Posted By ejeviking:
Here to say GO NOLO!I wonder what them fellers over at SG are saying now? They are still saying Nolo is a fraud, just a very skilled one..Fuck Those Assholes.. Unicorn I posted over there in response... One of the major things I just thought of and posted over there is the fact that these guys dont seem to get the idea that the ATF approved this and then later retroactively refused it and demanded their stamp back and the surrender of the NFA item if it had been manufactured. Lets say this gets shot down and the SCOTUS refuses to hear Nolo's case... What keeps the ATF from later deciding to retro actively refuse previously approved Form 4's and their attached NFA items and demand the stamp back and the surrender of the NFA item? I'm sure that idea will be poo poo'd out of the thread....but seriously, where does it end? This Admin and the left in general doesnt like guns. They damn sure dont like FA guns. Think some other leftist wont get elected and try to pull that stunt if this is allowed to exist? I never would have thought that anything like Fast and Furious would happen, yet it did and the public at large is generally unconcerned that it did.... |
|
Chaos, confusion, despair....my work is done here. Murphy
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants? Madcap72 |
|
Originally Posted By MaxxII:
This x 87. How often do we see someone post that they dont want to be the test case? Mr Hollis, you are THE test case. Sir, Should you find yourself in St Louis for whatever reason, I'd be honored to buy you drinks of your choice. You're the very definition of a Patriot. You are standing up to the Leviathan. This is something many profess to be willing to do, but few are actually able and willing to do when the opportunity arises. You have my respect and admiration Sir, (for whatever that is worth). I've risked my life for my Country while serving as an infantry Marine, and I'm currently a police officer here in StL, so I know something about risking it all for what you believe is right. Actually, I feel this requires even more bravery than anything I've dealt with since I have always had either other Marines, or other Police to call for backup if something got nasty. This is just you and Nolo (so far) against the US Government. I realize you and Nolo did not ask for this, but 100 years from now, people will read about this case and know your names. You gentlemen are true heroes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By MaxxII:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Nolo is doing a great thing, but do not forget Mr. Hollis. What he is doing is the very meaning of bravery, as you know the defendant in this case is going to make his life a living hell for a long time to come. If you're reading this, Mr. Hollis, please know that you are one hell of a brave man and you have our support. This x 87. How often do we see someone post that they dont want to be the test case? Mr Hollis, you are THE test case. Sir, Should you find yourself in St Louis for whatever reason, I'd be honored to buy you drinks of your choice. You're the very definition of a Patriot. You are standing up to the Leviathan. This is something many profess to be willing to do, but few are actually able and willing to do when the opportunity arises. You have my respect and admiration Sir, (for whatever that is worth). I've risked my life for my Country while serving as an infantry Marine, and I'm currently a police officer here in StL, so I know something about risking it all for what you believe is right. Actually, I feel this requires even more bravery than anything I've dealt with since I have always had either other Marines, or other Police to call for backup if something got nasty. This is just you and Nolo (so far) against the US Government. I realize you and Nolo did not ask for this, but 100 years from now, people will read about this case and know your names. You gentlemen are true heroes. Absolutely true. |
|
|
Originally Posted By justinjluke:
State law trumps federal, unless it regards taxation for federal so there is like 6k pages of ins and outs... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By justinjluke:
Originally Posted By cone256:
Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:
Sooo...if we can win a federal lawsuit testing the constitutionality of full auto guns...how the hell can ANY state ban semi-auto "assault weapons?" Ahem...NY...Ahem Cuomo...Ahem unSAFE act..Ahem NYC who bans about 95% of the long guns suitable for self defense. That's a good question. Perhaps it could help those of us in anti-freedom states State law trumps federal, unless it regards taxation for federal so there is like 6k pages of ins and outs... And the Constitution trumps State law which is where this is being attacked. |
|
Chaos, confusion, despair....my work is done here. Murphy
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants? Madcap72 |
Chaos, confusion, despair....my work is done here. Murphy
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants? Madcap72 |
Chaos, confusion, despair....my work is done here. Murphy
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants? Madcap72 |
In on 10?
|
|
"I'd vote for a Magic 8 Ball or a Chia Pet before casting a vote for Lindsey Graham." ~Brohawk
Proud member of Team Ranstad. |
In on 10!
|
|
Glocks & ARs - wife can't figure out how many you have cause they're all BLACK. BRD & BPD...a sad, sad combination....especially the dreaded SBR BRD! And even worse - the almost always terminal FA SBR BRD w/can!!!
|
Originally Posted By: noob5000000
" I stood up, yelled in a forceful tone "YOU WILL NOT LOOK AT MY ERECTION!", and in my head I was thinking DISENGAGE! DISENGAGE! as I closed all the porn tabs. " |
Aw sheeeeeyit
|
|
|
Originally Posted By MaxxII: This x 87. How often do we see someone post that they dont want to be the test case? Mr Hollis, you are THE test case. Sir, Should you find yourself in St Louis for whatever reason, I'd be honored to buy you drinks of your choice. You're the very definition of a Patriot. You are standing up to the Leviathan. This is something many profess to be willing to do, but few are actually able and willing to do when the opportunity arises. You have my respect and admiration Sir, (for whatever that is worth). I've risked my life for my Country while serving as an infantry Marine, and I'm currently a police officer here in StL, so I know something about risking it all for what you believe is right. Actually, I feel this requires even more bravery than anything I've dealt with since I have always had either other Marines, or other Police to call for backup if something got nasty. This is just you and Nolo (so far) against the US Government. I realize you and Nolo did not ask for this, but 100 years from now, people will read about this case and know your names. You gentlemen are true heroes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By MaxxII: Originally Posted By Undefined: Nolo is doing a great thing, but do not forget Mr. Hollis. What he is doing is the very meaning of bravery, as you know the defendant in this case is going to make his life a living hell for a long time to come. If you're reading this, Mr. Hollis, please know that you are one hell of a brave man and you have our support. This x 87. How often do we see someone post that they dont want to be the test case? Mr Hollis, you are THE test case. Sir, Should you find yourself in St Louis for whatever reason, I'd be honored to buy you drinks of your choice. You're the very definition of a Patriot. You are standing up to the Leviathan. This is something many profess to be willing to do, but few are actually able and willing to do when the opportunity arises. You have my respect and admiration Sir, (for whatever that is worth). I've risked my life for my Country while serving as an infantry Marine, and I'm currently a police officer here in StL, so I know something about risking it all for what you believe is right. Actually, I feel this requires even more bravery than anything I've dealt with since I have always had either other Marines, or other Police to call for backup if something got nasty. This is just you and Nolo (so far) against the US Government. I realize you and Nolo did not ask for this, but 100 years from now, people will read about this case and know your names. You gentlemen are true heroes. Most people talk a lot, few are up for the moment. Mr. Hollis shows a great deal of courage in doing this.
|
|
|
You would have to be daft to attack Tennessee - Aimless
Deniability and a hog farm are wonderful things to have. - Naamah Politics leaves armpit stains on your soul - Naamah Remember Jeff Reed |
In on ten!
|
|
Ego civis Ameicae et voluntas non obsecundans.
"Furor fit læsa sæpius patientia." - Publilius Syrus. |
Originally Posted By Undefined:
And we're off! http://www.examiner.com/article/lawsuit-challenges-federal-machine-gun-ban?cid=rss View Quote |
|
|
I've been watching this for a while. I'm a broke college student but I'm down to give a little.
Big props to anyone and everyone involved. |
|
|
Is it true there are only nine says left to get to 50k?
|
|
"Stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon. But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here" -Cpt. John Parker
<------team Jack Bauer Official arfcom nickname- Jambalaya |
I miscalculated. Today is payday, not next week. So we're now $100 closer.
|
|
Sometimes winning is not an available option and your failure is a given. The question, then, becomes how high of a price you will extract from your enemies for the privilege of destroying you.
|
Awesome! Give 'em hell! I'll be kicking in some next week.
|
|
"He had the right hand of the devil strapped tightly to his side."-The Last Cowboy
|
Every one i this forum should kick in $10. I put up $50.
I know...not a team member...but that's next. This is the best $10 gamble you can make...if you lose...you're out $10...if we win...happy switches for all. DO IT. |
|
|
taggage
|
|
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
|
Certified mail went out today with copies of the complaint and summons to B Todd Jones and Eric H. Holder, Jr.
|
|
|
Help restore ALL of our gun rights - Donate at
http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk |
David Codrea: Lawsuit challenges federal machine gun ban
Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been named defendants in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the federal machine gun ban.
A complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division. Plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986. “By imposing such a ban on an entire class of weapons, the statutes and regulations exceed the power of the United States,” the complaint states. It makes its case by citing violations of Article I of the United States Constitution, the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and “principles of federalism and dual sovereignty. ...snip... Representing Hollis is Mississippi attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh, reported on earlier this month in this column when he started a crowdfunding effort to finance this legal effort. This case represents the “first complaint,” Stamboulieh notes on the GoFundMe page he established that, with nine days left to attain its goal at this writing, has raised $37,505 toward a $50,000 goal. View Quote |
|
"Bureau of Alcohol, Snuff, Firearms and Explosives" Google translator. @Everrest
|
Originally Posted By Undefined:
And we're off! http://www.examiner.com/article/lawsuit-challenges-federal-machine-gun-ban?cid=rss View Quote FEH |
|
|
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
I agree - you don't fight with family at the point of a gun. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By NorthBridge:
Where I'm going with this, I think, is what happens if we get a ruling like mancow fears. What does it tell us, the citizen that knows that we are being denied our constitutional rights and are trying to go about correcting that peacefully? Where do we go from here? It's a spooky scenario. Not one that I would shrink from, but it's definitely thought provoking. I genuinely hope that reasonable people on the .gov side give that some serious thought. One does not discuss such matters in public. We are the good guys. I agree - you don't fight with family at the point of a gun. My thoughts have more to do with the message it sends than what to do about it. Sure, they're related but it's a separate topic. |
|
|
I'm killing that link because of the info on that form...krp
What does NTXT mean over on that forum? I'm confused. |
|
Chaos, confusion, despair....my work is done here. Murphy
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants? Madcap72 |
View Quote That is how you do a 20K post. Tear 'em up Nolo. |
|
In memory of my son Sean James, born 6/25/97. Died 9/16/13.
We will be reunited in heaven. |
"It's hard to hear a wallet screaming over the sound of a pecker cheering"
--WinstonSmith "If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" --Solzhenitsyn |
|
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
99% sure it's "no text". Synonymous with "[nt]" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
Originally Posted By MaxxII:
I'm killing that link because of the info on that form...krp What does NTXT mean over on that forum? I'm confused. 99% sure it's "no text". Synonymous with "[nt]" That appears to be the case since the 3 posts on that thread that have NTXT in the title dont have text, they are just the title as a response. Thanks. |
|
Chaos, confusion, despair....my work is done here. Murphy
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants? Madcap72 |
Would like to see where this goes!
|
|
|
I may be perpetually angry, but only because simpletons keep paying for lobbyists to kiss politicians asses right before they fuck me in mine-Undefined
|
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.