He isn't saying that people support banning them, he's saying people support them being NFA items, requiring registration, extra paperwork, etc. The unacceptable bit is that the registry for new ones is closed, not that it exists in the first place.
United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
He isn't saying that people support banning them, he's saying people support them being NFA items, requiring registration, extra paperwork, etc. The unacceptable bit is that the registry for new ones is closed, not that it exists in the first place.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
I don't think they could define them as dangerous and unusual if they are forced to examine the law from the time period leading up to its passing. As the text states, any other examination would require circular reasoning where automatics are "dangerous and unusual" because the government have defined them such and made them illegal after the fact.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Let me clarify then; I haven't talked with any 2A advocates who agree with them being NFA items either, whether the registry is closed or not. Aside from one or two oddball leftist gun owners I've conversed with online, anyone I know who's a 2A advocate has had a very simple stance:
"Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed."
Doomsought
Well-known member
Do to the purpose clause of the second amendment, "dangerous and unusual" should only apply to weapons which the US military recuses to use on those grounds. This means biological and chemical weapons.
There are only to military forces directly mentioned in the United States constitution: the Navy and the Militia. Civilian access to machineguns and artillery has greater legal standing than the existence of the Army and air force.
Article 1, section 8, Clause 12 explicitly states that Congress has the power to raise an army.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Strictly speaking, that sounds like the ability to institute a draft and maintain the army for 2 year after its inception. In practice, the US government has generated the power to wage war forever illegally. The standing army was something the founders saw as the greatest threat to liberty and it is wholly unconstitutional to maintain it. But, you know, good luck ever getting that fixed.Article 1 - Section 8 - Clause 12 from the US Constitution said:
On topic though:
Dangerous and unusual doesn't apply there either. Strictly speaking biological and chemical weapons should be illegal because we've signed treaties restricting their use. 2nd amendment doesn't even come into play. Should they ever be rescinded they should be legal as well.
Strictly speaking, that sounds like the ability to institute a draft and maintain the army for 2 year after its inception. In practice, the US government has generated the power to wage war forever illegally. The standing army was something the founders saw as the greatest threat to liberty and it is wholly unconstitutional to maintain it. But, you know, good luck ever getting that fixed.
It's not unconstitutional, they're following the letter of the law by funding the army for the next two years and then appropriating more funds after that two year term. It's certainly bending the spirt of the rules, but adhering to the letter of the law, and since it's illegal to use the army for domestic law enforcement they're sticking with the spirit as well.
He's talking about normies, not hardcore 2A folks.
Hardcore 2A folks want all the laws to get fucked, aside from the ones keeping NICS going, because they're used to fuck with gun rights.
Normal ass people are like, "yeah, sure, some stuff can afford to be harder to get legally, that way criminals can't really get their hands on them."
That said, that shit is functionally irrelevant in a world where auto-key cards and 3D printed auto-sears exist.
NFA Lawsuit Explained
The lawyers suing over the NFA explain themselves:
TL;DR:
-First Amendment violations in terms of criminalizing expression (the autokey card and talking about it)
-No 2A organizations involved in funding the case
-They're sticking to that old lawyer "zealously advocate for your client" thinking
-They're friends of the client
-They're trying to force the government to uphold its burden to defend the NFA
-The autokey card is not a machinegun, but even if it was, the NFA is unconstitutional in general and as applied to the charges against the creator
-The challenges:
1. Facial challenge: statue is unconstitutional as written.
2. As-applied challenge: law is unconstitutional in this particular instance. (Fall back position.)
3. History and Tradition test against the NFA.
TL;DR:
-First Amendment violations in terms of criminalizing expression (the autokey card and talking about it)
-No 2A organizations involved in funding the case
-They're sticking to that old lawyer "zealously advocate for your client" thinking
-They're friends of the client
-They're trying to force the government to uphold its burden to defend the NFA
-The autokey card is not a machinegun, but even if it was, the NFA is unconstitutional in general and as applied to the charges against the creator
-The challenges:
1. Facial challenge: statue is unconstitutional as written.
2. As-applied challenge: law is unconstitutional in this particular instance. (Fall back position.)
3. History and Tradition test against the NFA.
Update on the Texas lawsuit over suppressors that don't cross state lines:
Article: Paxton v. Restaino (N.D. TX): Second amended complaint
"There is no historical tradition that can justify regulation of making firearm suppressors for non-commercial, personal use in Texas..."
Looks like we've got a 1-2 punch against the NFA going:
It'd be interesting to see someone sneak this in as an amendment to a larger bill, but I think that the most important thing about it is that someone is actually trying to do it.
Article: I’ve been sitting on news about the introduction of a bill for several days waiting for more details to come out. On July 15th, 2022 HR 8399 – To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the National Firearms Act was introduced by Congressman Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina. The bill, which rolled out without any press release or fanfare, is finally available.
...
While such a piece of legislation does not have a chance of being passed in both chambers of Congress, and signed by the Biden-Harris administration, it’s still nice to see some of our representatives push such measures forward. Most of the so-called “gun control” laws we have today were introduced several times or sat in waiting for the right opportunity to have them ushered into the spotlight. In some cases the right crisis needed to occur in order to push such bills into committees and subsequently to the floors of Congress. Not that something like that would happen today.
It'd be interesting to see someone sneak this in as an amendment to a larger bill, but I think that the most important thing about it is that someone is actually trying to do it.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Honestly, all you need for massive gun control repeals is one good president to go "I am the commander of the United States Militia and fuck you!"
A president can sue congress for making the militant impotent, and it will go strait to the supreme court with the issue of military weapons at play.
He can also just order the national guard to open up some old armories full of machineguns, and go door to door gun give-aways: he is issueing weapons to Members of the militia.
This would also be a huge distraction for any other reform he is doing through congress or by appointing special prosecutors to hunt down corruption.
Mmm... not really?
I think a president could just toss all gun import restriction executive orders and the ATF's mandate to enforce some regulations, but you need the court or the legislature to kill the existing laws.
There's a reason there's a separation of powers in the Constitution.
Doomsought
Well-known member
You didn't even read the rest of my post, where I was elaborating on how.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Hmm, there might actually be a very limited and tenuous precedent for that.
www.recoilweb.com
Barton did get charges of unlawful gun discharge dropped on the grounds that Joe Biden has recommended firing a Shotgun into the air and he was just following that advice. This could be stretched readily to cover "I have an illegal machine gun because the President told me to keep it in my garage."
I'll note they still managed to get Barton in the end, for not complying fast enough with the officers sent to arrest him for following Biden's advice though.
Charges dropped against Jeffrey C. Barton
Read: Charges dropped against Jeffrey C. Barton from David Reeder on August 25, 2014 for Recoil.
Barton did get charges of unlawful gun discharge dropped on the grounds that Joe Biden has recommended firing a Shotgun into the air and he was just following that advice. This could be stretched readily to cover "I have an illegal machine gun because the President told me to keep it in my garage."
I'll note they still managed to get Barton in the end, for not complying fast enough with the officers sent to arrest him for following Biden's advice though.
Doomsought
Well-known member
The president is the commander and chief of the militia, this means not only can he issue the militia orders, but also that he can issue the militia supplies. This makes any attmepts of law enforcement to stop it military sabatauge.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I genuinely don't know, is the President actually spelled out as commander and chief of the militia anywhere? And does he have the power to override national and state laws in that capacity?
No, or at least hopefully not. If so, then Biden could argue that the adult population needs to serve active duty now (as head of the militia), and then force them to get vaccinated just as a starter. This leads to bad places, I bet. Which is why I doubt it, but then IANAL, so I could be straight wrong here.
No he is only the commander and chief of federal forces.
For instance, he has no control over state guard.
And he can only control National Guard when title 32 is put into effect. And even the the governors have ti allow it somewhat.
So no he is not in charge of the milita..
@Abhorsen that would be the draft
For instance, he has no control over state guard.
And he can only control National Guard when title 32 is put into effect. And even the the governors have ti allow it somewhat.
So no he is not in charge of the milita..
@Abhorsen that would be the draft
Yes, but the draft, as horrible as it is, can only be done subject to Congress' authorization:
Section VIII
It has pre-authorized it for selective service, but that isn't all of the US Adult population.
It also goes further into the militia stuff for those interested.