No right to bear unregistered machine guns, federal court says

[Worriedman]

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

McDonald vs. Chicago will answer that, for good or ill. If SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd Amendment to the States, it will be hard to deny an individual Right to gun ownership, if it goes the other way, this nation is doomed.

[JayC]

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

I agree, but in the case of the 1986 act, that is the federal government limiting your ability to purchase/own firearms, so it's right inline with Heller... It's not a states right issue, but a straight 2nd amendment/10th amendment issue... IMHO more likely to result in being ruled unconstitutional...

You can't argue anyway shape or form the act doesn't seriously limit your ability to buy a full auto firearm and the restriction is completely federal just like in Heller.

It's probably wishful thinking, but I can't see how you rule it's an individual right but at the same time this one type of firearm can be banned... If that was the case then why can't you ban handguns which is exactly what Heller ruling spoke to.

[1gewehr]

It's really quite simple. The 2nd amendment very clearly protects the right of the citizenry to acquire, own, and carry weapons suitable for militia use. That is, weapons currently suitable for military use. this was very clearly spelled out in US v Miller. In that case, the reason the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld was because the nobody bothered to show the Supreme Court that a short-barreled shotgun had military use. Any halfway competent attorney could have dredged up hundreds of accounts of shortened shotguns being carried by Us soldiers for use in trench combat and prisoner guarding duties.

Any honest court would have to agree tht the original intent, clear language, and historical record all support the free and open sale, transport, and ownership of machine guns just like any other firearm. Do I think it will happen? About as likely as Obama abolishing the income tax.

[JayC]

Also keep in mind that Miller is a 1 sided case, only the government showed up to give arguments before the court.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NFA is a bad law, and most of it should be ruled unconstitutional. One can only hope that the same judges that voted for Heller will take this case and vote similairly again.

It's really quite simple. The 2nd amendment very clearly protects the right of the citizenry to acquire, own, and carry weapons suitable for militia use. That is, weapons currently suitable for military use. this was very clearly spelled out in US v Miller. In that case, the reason the 1934 National Firearms Act was upheld was because the nobody bothered to show the Supreme Court that a short-barreled shotgun had military use. Any halfway competent attorney could have dredged up hundreds of accounts of shortened shotguns being carried by Us soldiers for use in trench combat and prisoner guarding duties.

Any honest court would have to agree tht the original intent, clear language, and historical record all support the free and open sale, transport, and ownership of machine guns just like any other firearm. Do I think it will happen? About as likely as Obama abolishing the income tax.

[1gewehr]

Also, I would like to add that NO 'pro-gun' organization has given ANY help to Richard Hamblen. The NRA has not even graced him with a reply to a request for assistance.

While I am an NRA member, it is NOT because they do anything to to stop or repeal gun control. EVERY Federal firearms act was written with help from the NRA. The NRA has never repealed a single firearms law. I have written the NRA to suggest that the Hamblen case would be an excellent opportunity to clear up once and for all the EXACT meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I haven't heard from them either.

[DaveTN]

Also, I would like to add that NO 'pro-gun' organization has given ANY help to Richard Hamblen. The NRA has not even graced him with a reply to a request for assistance.

While I am an NRA member, it is NOT because they do anything to to stop or repeal gun control. EVERY Federal firearms act was written with help from the NRA. The NRA has never repealed a single firearms law. I have written the NRA to suggest that the Hamblen case would be an excellent opportunity to clear up once and for all the EXACT meaning of the 2nd Amendment. I haven't heard from them either.

When I was charged with having a gun in my car in Illinois, I wanted to fight it by claiming my 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment rights. I asked the NRA for help and they said they don’t help anyone charged with a crime.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

i think we all knew how this would end

[wjh2657]

I know Richard personally and have had to watch him go through this battle.

There are problems with some of his arguments that will preclude any "yes you are right " decisions as to his arming for the purpose of militia duty.

I also am in the State Guard. The State Guard is not a militia and the argument of arming for the militia under the USC doesn't wash. The State Guard has nothing to do with the militia, which would be raised at the county level ad hoc and then only in case of invasion or threat thereof. The TNSG is a standing department of the Tennessee Military Department and is an adjunct to the Army National Guard and Tennessee Emergency Management Agency in any manner that the TAG might direct. It serves many functions but none of them require the TNSG to be armed. As such our CGs, long before this episode, directed that we were not to carry arms.

I EDC with a TN HCP, but I disarm when I don my TNSG uniform, as directed by command authority.

Edited January 17, 2010 by wjh2657