No right to bear unregistered machine guns, federal court says

[aquaman67]

NRA-ILA :: No right to bear unregistered machine guns, federal court says

[56FordGuy]

You can't manufacture new machine guns. You also can't make a short barreled rifle or shotgun, or own a suppressor without approval from the ATF.

Even if you aren't manufacturing a new machine gun, you can't own one as a private citizen unless it is registered. While the guy might've had good intentions, he broke the law, and they generally arrest you for that.

I hate it for him, but he should've checked into it before he started modifying rifles.

[Guest Muttling]

I concur with you Fordguy.

I was MORE astounded by his statement that we've only got 21 M-16s for 3500 gaurdsmen. Is that true? Do we have other rifles like M-14s for them?

[56FordGuy]

I concur with you Fordguy.

I was MORE astounded by his statement that we've only got 21 M-16s for 3500 gaurdsmen. Is that true? Do we have other rifles like M-14s for them?

I was under the impression that the State Guard (not the TN National Guard) was not armed at all. They were supposed to function as emergency responders due to natural disasters or the like. I could be wrong, though.

[56FordGuy]

The Mission of the Tennessee State Guard:

The purpose of the Tennessee State Guard is to provide a professional complement of personnel to support the

State mission of the Tennessee National Guard, by assisting the Tennessee Army National Guard

as a force multiplier, and at the direction of the Adjutant General, to assist civil authorities with

disaster relief, humanitarian causes, ceremonial service, religious and medical support

for the well being and safety of the citizenry of Tennessee.

From:

Tennessee State Guard

[Guest Muttling]

oh....Ok. As I understand it, they're expected to equip themselves.

[trblmkr13]

21 M-16's still seems off

[Photoguy67]

I have to agree with Hamblen, what part of "Shall not be infringed"? I just wish I had more money to give to him in his fight.

[Guest goomba]

I understand the "shall not be infringed" part... I agree. but he broke the law. no matter that the law can/should be considered unconstitutional.

It was also my understanding that the state guard was unarmed...

[56FordGuy]

I have to agree with Hamblen, what part of "Shall not be infringed"? I just wish I had more money to give to him in his fight.

I agree that the law is unconstitutional, but the way to fix it is not by breaking it anyway.

Our freedoms have been eroded piece by piece over many years, and I would argue that the best way to get them back is not to try to go for them all in one shot, but to build them back up, piece by piece. Have a problem with the NFA laws? Alright...first let's get suppressors off the list. They lessen hearing damage and noise pollution. Then we can work or short barreled rifles, etc, and work our way up the list. I think it's going to be a long, hard, expensive fight to get the NFA laws done away with, if it can even be done. Regardless, I don't think think breaking the law is a good stepping stone toward getting it changed.

[Metalhead]

To add to the suppressor argument, outdoor ranges have closed down due to noise conserns due to the residential areas that have built up near them. That's what happened to the Millersville outdoor range I believe.

Not that even if they are released from being NFA everyone will have one, but it couldnt hurt.

[Photoguy67]

You do not have to obey an unconstitutional law. Not that I am advocating you do that, but if you really believe the law to not be constitutional, then get it over turned.

[Jasongar8]

You do not have to obey an unconstitutional law.

Tell that you the guys serving time in federal prison for having unregistered machine guns. Or better yet, you try it and see how that works out for you.

[Photoguy67]

Tell that you the guys serving time in federal prison for having unregistered machine guns. Or better yet, you try it and see how that works out for you.

No thanks. biggest reason I don't is I don't think our existing courts truly understand how to read the Constitution. too many activist judges.

[Guest bkelm18]

You do not have to obey an unconstitutional law. Not that I am advocating you do that, but if you really believe the law to not be constitutional, then get it over turned.

Bwahahahahaha! Good luck with that one. Let us know what it's liked to be gang raped in federal prison.

[DaveTN]

You do not have to obey an unconstitutional law. Not that I am advocating you do that, but if you really believe the law to not be constitutional, then get it over turned.

You can’t get it overturned. We see that posted here all the time. “I would take it all the way to the Supreme Courtâ€. You don’t have that option. I know; I tried.

All 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment cases will stop at the Federal District Courts. Almost all of the Federal Districts courts have ruled that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> is not an individual right. Yes, I know in Heller they ruled ownership is an individual right; but they also ruled that the states can still regulate carry, or the right to bear. The Federal Districts will rule that way.

The SCOTUS picks and chooses what it hears. You can’t force them to hear a case.

[trblmkr13]

You can’t get it overturned. We see that posted here all the time. “I would take it all the way to the Supreme Courtâ€. You don’t have that option. I know; I tried.

All 2^nd amendment cases will stop at the Federal District Courts. Almost all of the Federal Districts courts have ruled that the 2^nd is not an individual right. Yes, I know in Heller they ruled ownership is an individual right; but they also ruled that the states can still regulate carry, or the right to bear. The Federal Districts will rule that way.

The SCOTUS picks and chooses what it hears. You can’t force them to hear a case.

The truth really sucks

[Guest Muttling]

You can’t get it overturned. We see that posted here all the time. “I would take it all the way to the Supreme Court”. You don’t have that option. I know; I tried.

All 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment cases will stop at the Federal District Courts. Almost all of the Federal Districts courts have ruled that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> is not an individual right. Yes, I know in Heller they ruled ownership is an individual right; but they also ruled that the states can still regulate carry, or the right to bear. The Federal Districts will rule that way.

The SCOTUS picks and chooses what it hears. You can’t force them to hear a case.

The Supreme Court doesn't HAVE to hear an appeal that is taken to them, however...

The individual described in the OP's news article (Richard Hamblen) IS appealling this case to the Supreme Court. I don't think he'll win or that he is likely to have his case heard, but he can certainly make the attempt.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Muttling

[DaveTN]

The Supreme Court doesn't HAVE to hear an appeal that is taken to them, however...

The individual described in the OP's news article (Richard Hamblen) IS appealling this case to the Supreme Court. I don't think he'll win or that he is likely to have his case heard, but he can certainly make the attempt.

He can certainly try.

It appears he may have the NRA helping with his bills. (But I would be interested to know if that is true.)

“Whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use,†said the three-judge panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals.

That’s pretty clear cut and has already been addressed by the SCOTUS. I don’t see them hearing it on a 2<SUP>nd</SUP> argument, unless his attorneys have some other reason they think the Court may hear it.

[Guest grimel]

I understand the "shall not be infringed" part... I agree. but he broke the law. no matter that the law can/should be considered unconstitutional.

It was also my understanding that the state guard was unarmed...

So, how do we fix an unconstitutional law?

[tntnixon]

He can certainly try.

It appears he may have the NRA helping with his bills. (But I would be interested to know if that is true.)

That’s pretty clear cut and has already been addressed by the SCOTUS. I don’t see them hearing it on a 2<SUP>nd</SUP> argument, unless his attorneys have some other reason they think the Court may hear it.

It was my understanding that the NRA was not backing him, but I could be wrong about this.

As for the taking a case to the Supreme Court discussion, I actually have some experience when it comes to that (my stepfather, representing my mother, won a case in the SCOTUS). To get a case heard before the SCOTUS, you usually have to have a situation where the Courts of Appeals are applying Federal law unevenly in different circuits. The SCOTUS sees it's role as correcting rulings by lower courts that disagree with one another unless you're dealing with a completely new area of the law. To my knowledge, MG ownership and manufacturing has not been ruled legal in some circuits and illegal in others, thereby the SCOTUS is unlikely to take the case because they'll consider the law evenly applied.

[DaveTN]

So, how do we fix an unconstitutional law?

It has been deemed not unconstitutional by the highest court in the land. Only the SCOTUS is higher; they are the interpreters of the Constitution. If they decide to stand silent; all is well and the Constitution is working.

Life is not fair.

State Legislators can change a law at the state level, and Congress at a Federal level.

Edited January 2, 2010 by DaveTN

[Kelemvor]

Do what you think is right. Your country will strip you of your freedom and humanity if your "right" doesn't align with theirs, but that is your choice. This is the way the world has always worked.

[JayC]

He can certainly try.

It appears he may have the NRA helping with his bills. (But I would be interested to know if that is true.)

That’s pretty clear cut and has already been addressed by the SCOTUS. I don’t see them hearing it on a 2^nd argument, unless his attorneys have some other reason they think the Court may hear it.

Dave,

I'm not aware of any 2nd, 10th or 14th Amendment challenge to the 1986 act that has made it to SCOTUS, and you cite the case in question?

The 1934 NFA tax is going to be much harder to argue is unconstitutional, although some provisions of the NFA clearly are... Seems to me being forced to wave your 4th amendment rights to search to get a NFA tax stamp is clearly a violation for example. It's hard to argue that taxing is something the government can't do, and Miller seems to confirm it. Although there was some question raised in Miller as to whether a firearm that was in use by the military may have exempted it from the NFA all together...

But the 1986 amendment banning the registration for new full autos does seem to be a clear violation for our right to bar arms, and individual right under the 2nd Amendment which SCOTUS ruled in Heller.

Keep in mind that this case is more likely to get heard and ruled on in a favorable light than the Chicago case, because the NFA and 1986 acts are federal restrictions on the ownership of firearms, which has been ruled an individual right...

We can only hope this gets taken up by SCOTUS.

One way or another we're likely to know where we stand in the next 12-18 months on firearms and the Constitution. If SCOTUS removes our God given right for self defense, and right to property... Then I question whether the republic is completely lost to reform.

[cybernorris]

But the 1986 amendment banning the registration for new full autos does seem to be a clear violation for our right to bar arms, and individual right under the 2nd Amendment which SCOTUS ruled in Heller.

Keep in mind that this case is more likely to get heard and ruled on in a favorable light than the Chicago case, because the NFA and 1986 acts are federal restrictions on the ownership of firearms, which has been ruled an individual right...

At least one court is on record limiting that individual right to DC (and probably Guam, Puerto Rico, etc)... unless I missed something.