Posted: 8/14/2012 6:29:55 PM EDT
|
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/08/09/11-30181.pdf
Defendant-Appellant Matthew Wayne Henry appeals his conviction for illegal possession of a homemade machine gun, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He contends that he has a Second Amendment right to possess a homemade machine gun in his home. We reject this argument because machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are unprotected by the Second Amendment. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008). Henry also argues that Congress did not
have the power to enact § 922(o)’s prohibition against possessing machine guns pursuant to the powers delegated to Congress in the Commerce Clause. That argument fails because we already have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes § 922(o)’s machine gun possession ban. United UNITED STATES v. HENRY 9037 States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm Henry’s conviction. |
|
However, the Court (in Heller) stated that the Second Amendment only protects the
right to own certain weapons, and that it “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” Id. at 625. Heller did not specify the types of weapons that qualify
as “dangerous and unusual,” but the Court stated that it would be “startling” for the Second Amendment to protect machine guns. Id. at 624. Since Heller was decided, every circuit court to address the issue has held that there is no Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun.3 We agree with the reasoning of our sister circuits that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not protected by the Second Amendment.An object is “dangerous” when it is “likely to cause serious bodily harm.” Black’s Law Dictionary 451 (9th ed. 2009). |
|
Quoted:
If they are "dangerous and unusual weapons" no law enforcement agency has any need for them what so ever. The FBI, Secret Service, and ATF should all go back to single action Colts.  yeah, that argument never flies with the .gov. there is a reason there are ALWAYS LE exemptions in firearms laws, and none of them have ever been overturned. |
|
Short of bombs, missiles, and biochemical
agents, we can conceive of few weapons that are more dangerous than machine guns. A machine gun is “unusual” because private possession of
all new machine guns, as well as all existing machine guns that were not lawfully possessed before the enactment of § 922(o), has been unlawful since 1986. Outside of a few government-related uses, machine guns largely exist on the black market. In short, machine guns are highly “dangerous and
unusual weapons” that are not “typically possessed by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627. Thus, we hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to machine guns. Moreover, because we conclude that machine gun possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protection, it is unnecessary to consider Henry’s argument that the district court applied the incorrect level of constitutional scrutiny in evaluating his claims. |
|
Quoted:
Machine guns are unusual because they're tightly controlled because they're unusual. Catch-22. Machine guns in and of themselves are not unusual. The US military and national guards have millions of machine guns. Plenty of people have trained and used them in military service A SAW chambered in 5.56mm cannot be more unusual than a 14 gauge shotgun |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they are "dangerous and unusual weapons" no law enforcement agency has any need for them what so ever. The FBI, Secret Service, and ATF should all go back to single action Colts. yeah, that argument never flies with the .gov. there is a reason there are ALWAYS LE exemptions in firearms laws, and none of them have ever been overturned. because the ones who shoot the family dog, raid the wrong homes and shoot people at point blank range in the head with a .223 are trustworthy enough to pocess such items. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Machine guns are unusual because they're tightly controlled because they're unusual. Catch-22. Machine guns in and of themselves are not unusual. The US military and national guards have millions of machine guns. Plenty of people have trained and used them in military service I think what I was trying to say is that machines guns weren't unusual in civilians hands until machine guns became heavily regulated and taxed out of the hands of people. Then the $200 tax became not much of a hurdle, so they made the guns themselves prohibitively expensive for the lower 87th percentile of the population through the '86 ban. If they want to make the remainder of the NFA stuff unusual as well, they could just raist the tax stamp to $2,000. Better get them while you can. |
|
I think what I was trying to say is that machines guns weren't unusual in civilians hands until machine guns became heavily regulated and taxed out of the hands of people .
I disagree. I don't think machine gun ownership was common prior to 1934 and that included the military. Most automatic weapons have been invented since 1934 Now short barreled rifles, 'AOWs' and shotguns are another story |
|
Quoted:
If they are "dangerous and unusual weapons" no law enforcement agency has any need for them what so ever. The FBI, Secret Service, and ATF should all go back to single action Colts.  Maybe not a good idea
guesmy embedfo suckeswith this one link www.break.com/index/fastest_gun_in_the_west.html 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: If they are "dangerous and unusual weapons" no law enforcement agency has any need for them what so ever. The FBI, Secret Service, and ATF should all go back to single action Colts. yeah, that argument never flies with the .gov. there is a reason there are ALWAYS LE exemptions in firearms laws, and none of them have ever been overturned. Well there shouldn't be an exemption for LEOs especially off duty ones. If only I had some Congress Critters in my pocket, every bill submitted for vote would have amendments overturning those exemptions and make such exemptions at the state level illegal. Then again those exemptions wouldn't be necessary because there would be other amendments slipped into those "Must pass it to read it" bills repealing the NFA.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: If they are "dangerous and unusual weapons" no law enforcement agency has any need for them what so ever. The FBI, Secret Service, and ATF should all go back to single action Colts. Maybe not a good ideaguesmy embedfo suckeswith this one link www.break.com/index/fastest_gun_in_the_west.html  http://www.break.com/index/fastest_gun_in_the_west.htmlAnd after 5 shots he has to reload(can't carry 6 in a old Peacemaker else you risk a ND) . Lets how long it takes him to get off 13 + 1 rounds. Not that civilian law enforment needs to carry that much ammo anyways. They should tell the perp in a stern voice to stop doing bad things and to lay on the ground or tap him with a glow rod.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they are "dangerous and unusual weapons" no law enforcement agency has any need for them what so ever. The FBI, Secret Service, and ATF should all go back to single action Colts. yeah, that argument never flies with the .gov. there is a reason there are ALWAYS LE exemptions in firearms laws, and none of them have ever been overturned. Well there shouldn't be an exemption for LEOs especially off duty ones. If only I had some Congress Critters in my pocket, every bill submitted for vote would have amendments overturning those exemptions and make such exemptions at the state level illegal. Then again those exemptions wouldn't be necessary because there would be other amendments slipped into those "Must pass it to read it" bills repealing the NFA. I don't think individual police officers can possess machineguns but I could be wrong |