http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com-END Of Script Attempt-
s/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/006129.html

Now I can see why the administration filed the opinion with the supreme court about the restrictions to the 2nd amendment.  This guy Haney has a good case!  People should be able to own machine guns.  Even the Miller ruling argued that the people should be able to own the type of firearms that would be used by the militia.  Of course the supreme court will contort logic and reason like the always do but they will look pretty silly in the process.

at least the guy is trying.....

[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com-END Of Script Attempt-
s/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/10th/006129.html [/url]

Try this[;D]

[url]http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/006129.html[/url]

Did you see that the defendant in this case walked into a police station and told them he had machine guns just so he would be arrested and could challenge the law?  This guy is nuts!

Maybe he could have just waited to get arrested and then challenge the law or help someone else challenge the law.  Going to jail to make a point (that you are going to lose) does not make sense.

Thank you for finding this, it was most informative...

Facinating.

Here's what jumped out at me.




1. 2A DOES NOT mention a "state militia." It merely refers to a militia being necessary for security of that state. The Militia Act of 1792 CLEARLY establishes BOTH a state milita (organized militia) and a NON-STATE militia, the "unorganized militia." 2A is referring to BOTH, either of which he CAN qualify for, one of which he DEFINITELY qualifies for. hence hi IS part of a militia, and this threashold, that he be part of a STATE militia, is bogus. He need only prove he is part of A militia, which is demonstrably true.

2. NO WHERE does 2A indicate that militia MUST be "well regulated" BY the state. NOWHERE. Only that it BE "well-regulated" - by someone, anyone. Since "well regulated" means trained and disciplined, is the court arguing that the state has neglected its responsibility to train and discipline the unorganized militia???

3. What present day militia doesn't use machine guns??? Are the Nat. Guard supplied only bolt action Mausers or something? Are the state guard given muskets today??? Machine guns are used by EVERY militia. This is a red herring.

4. His existence as part of the unorganized militia, by which he can be called upon by the governor of his state under the Militia Act of 1792, establishes the connection of his machine gun to his militia service.

This Haney guy has MONSTROUS cahones.  I hope his cahones just got bigger with the Justice Depts' recent pronouncement, and he appeals. Might as well - he gots 33 months to sit around and do nothing.

The courts on the hand have traded in their cahones for "precedents."

The appellate court in the Hanley case decided that the 2nd amendment only applies to those in an organized militia (the familiar position of the VPC crowd).  The court in Emerson concluded that individuals (as individuals) have 2nd amendment rights, but those rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.  The government now sides with the Emerson court's conclusion.

This difference among the appellate courts may give the Supreme Court the kick in the pants it needs to hear Emerson and Hanley (probally together).  If I was a betting man, I would bet that the Court would side with the Emerson court (individual rights) by a very close margin.

Of course, if the Court accepts that the 2nd Amend. applies to individuals, this does not mean that all gun laws are repealed.  It does mean they will come under closer scrutiny, especially where there are all out bans.  No way that Mr. Hanley will avoid his jail time becuase restricting manchine guns will always be considered a "reasonable restriction" by almost any court.

What a load of crap. My hats off to Mr. Haney. If I had the money, I'd fight all the dumbass laws.

$200 tax stamp plus background check reg, and finger prints... reasonable?? YES..

stoping the US citizen from owning one built after '86 reasonable?? NO..


Was there a great demand for these weapons while they were still fairly simple to own?
Or did the fact that the govt. said YOU can't have it make every one want to rush out and get one.?
how was it before the '86 law went in to affect .. I dont mean a month or two before I mean how was it ,,,say 1981.. did every one own 3.  

let me ask it another way..

must of the recent gunlaws are a feelgood reaction to some current event..

what/why did the 86 ban come along?

what happened .. did some one wake up in the morning and say...

Today I'll ban Machineguns...

was Sara Brady having an affiar with that guy at the time?

damn it why did it happen ,, someone has to know...

"A right delayed is a right denied."

IIRC, the Dems snuck it in at the very close (last order of business)of a session in the middle of the night that was proposed for attachment to the Gun Owners Protection Act that was seconded then was voted on by voice vote that Jim Wright said was in the majority THEN gavelled the session closed before anyone could call for a vote by mechanical device. We are talking about all of this taking place in the time span of about 20 seconds.