Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 4/17/2010 7:39:03 PM EDT
The district court held that the Second Amendment does
not protect the right to possess the weapons at issue in this case: machine guns,
silencers, grenades, and directional mines.


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/20/08-10527.pdf
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 7:40:22 PM EDT
The weapons involved in this case are dangerous and unusual. McCartney’s
own expert testified that the machine gun is a dangerous weapon in light of the fact
that “it devastated entire populations in World War I.” And the possession of a
machine gun by a private citizen is quite unusual in the United States. The other
weapons involved in this case are even more dangerous and unusual than machine
guns. Silencers, grenades, and directional mines are not “typically possessed by
law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Heller 128 S. Ct. at 2815–16 (referring
to short-barreled shotguns), and are less common than either short-barreled
shotguns or machine guns. The weapons involved in this case therefore are not
protected by the Second Amendment.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 8:19:10 PM EDT
Tyrants, liberals, and pussies believe in a limited version of our RKBA, real Americans know better.

MG's and suppressors are common, there are tens of thousands in legal circulation.
MG's are now a fixed number commodity per the 922.(o) amendment of 1986.
Suppressors are in production and readily available, not even particularly expensive.
None of these are "Unusual", any person claiming they are committed perjury.
And yes, no matter what SCOTUS may pretend, we do have a right to them.
Our RKBA is not about duck hunting.

Grenades are DD's, and rare due to the NFA tax and their one-time nature, in addition to the near impossibility of finding a legal seller.
But they ARE legal to make, sell, or buy, so long as the lawful process is followed.

Directional (or other type) mines would also be DD's, also still legal to manufacture and own or sell with the proper licensing.

My own view is that the entire "License" scam is unconstitutional, but then I actually have an idea what "Infringed" means.
Link Posted: 4/17/2010 11:05:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 3:02:11 AM EDT
What should really get our blood boiling, is not the fact that the courts are willing to say these things, but that they no longer feel the need to use the pretense of taxation, and are now willing to usurp the right openly and directly.

My question is this: if there is one group of people polititicans would choose to push around, what amount of hubris or stupidity does it take to choose the group with machineguns and silencers?

Not that it matters much; the 9th is the most overturned circuit in the country.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:48:34 AM EDT
The 9th circuit is really a circus. The good part is, the 9th circuit dosent have ANY bearing on the other districts.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 9:07:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2010 9:08:14 AM EDT by freddd]
Originally Posted By RichardSIA:
Tyrants, liberals, and pussies believe in a limited version of our RKBA, real Americans know better.

MG's and suppressors are common, there are tens of thousands in legal circulation.
MG's are now a fixed number commodity per the 922.(o) amendment of 1986.
Suppressors are in production and readily available, not even particularly expensive.
None of these are "Unusual", any person claiming they are committed perjury.
And yes, no matter what SCOTUS may pretend, we do have a right to them.
Our RKBA is not about duck hunting.

Grenades are DD's, and rare due to the NFA tax and their one-time nature, in addition to the near impossibility of finding a legal seller.
But they ARE legal to make, sell, or buy, so long as the lawful process is followed.

Directional (or other type) mines would also be DD's, also still legal to manufacture and own or sell with the proper licensing.

My own view is that the entire "License" scam is unconstitutional, but then I actually have an idea what "Infringed" means.


Couldn't have said it better myself.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 12:03:37 PM EDT
The Ninth is my favorite.

By taking moonbat positions that often conflict with other Districts, they force USSC to hear cases many of which are then favorably decided and then have 50 state applicability.

I wish the Ninth had said not right to any guns of any kind in that opinion!
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:09:45 PM EDT
If silencers and machine guns are "unusual" why to they keep popping up in Hollywood movies?
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 1:47:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2010 1:47:32 PM EDT by cosmos556]
Didn't the 9th rule in favor of a convicted felon who made his own STEn MGs? They do have some odd rulings.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 3:22:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC:
If silencers and machine guns are "unusual" why to they keep popping up in Hollywood movies?


Look at the typical movie MG context, drug dealers and thugs using MG's against the poor out-gunned cops.

They pop up to shore up weak writing, and to reinforce the MG = BAD liberal stereotype.

Suppressors are basically unregulated in much of Europe, but heavily regulated here, you can thank Hollywood for that!

Back in the real world, guess who is exempt from the no new MG's ban, and does not have to pay the $200 NFA tax?
COPS! The cop shop can buy anything they want, but usually can get ex-Gov. MG's for FREE.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 3:27:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cosmos556:
Didn't the 9th rule in favor of a convicted felon who made his own STEn MGs? They do have some odd rulings.


Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

SCOTUS sent the case back for them to "Reconsider", and they wussed out.
So they ended up reinforcing the insane notion that EVERYTHING we do, buy, grow, or make, may be regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 6:49:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RichardSIA:
Originally Posted By CRC:
If silencers and machine guns are "unusual" why to they keep popping up in Hollywood movies?


Look at the typical movie MG context, drug dealers and thugs using MG's against the poor out-gunned cops.

They pop up to shore up weak writing, and to reinforce the MG = BAD liberal stereotype.

Suppressors are basically unregulated in much of Europe, but heavily regulated here, you can thank Hollywood for that!

Back in the real world, guess who is exempt from the no new MG's ban, and does not have to pay the $200 NFA tax?
COPS! The cop shop can buy anything they want, but usually can get ex-Gov. MG's for FREE.


I thought cops were not exempt but AGENCIES were??
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 9:19:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CRC:
Originally Posted By RichardSIA:
Originally Posted By CRC:
If silencers and machine guns are "unusual" why to they keep popping up in Hollywood movies?


Look at the typical movie MG context, drug dealers and thugs using MG's against the poor out-gunned cops.

They pop up to shore up weak writing, and to reinforce the MG = BAD liberal stereotype.

Suppressors are basically unregulated in much of Europe, but heavily regulated here, you can thank Hollywood for that!

Back in the real world, guess who is exempt from the no new MG's ban, and does not have to pay the $200 NFA tax?
COPS! The cop shop can buy anything they want, but usually can get ex-Gov. MG's for FREE.


I thought cops were not exempt but AGENCIES were??


The " Cop " dosen't own the gun. It's on a form5 and can legally be issued to the officer for official duties. Possession of the item is perfectly legal weather it's an M16, or a helicopter mounted minigun. ( yes I'm exaggerating, nobody keeps a helicopter in their garage )



Top Top