8th Circuit bans machine gun ownership
I knew this one was coming. It was inevitable, after the DC v. Heller decision.
In Heller, the Supremes said that the 2nd amendment's protection of our right to own and carry guns, did not extend to "dangerous or unusual weapons", or weapons not "in common usage". Leaving aside the question of how something that wasn't dangerous could be called a weapon at all, the "not in common usage" part left us ripe for a continuation of all the unconstitutional laws the anti-gun-rights people have been building up over the years.
In 1934 the government made a law saying that anyone buyig a machine gun had to pay a $200 tax (more than many such guns were worth back then) and go through and incredible amount of paperwork, waiting periods, etc. And this during a massive depression where people were earning $5/day if they were lucky enough to have a job at all. Later the govt banned the manufacture of machine guns, and banned any importation of them. As a result of all this, the supply of such items dwindled and prices skyrocketed.
And surprise, surprise! Today machine guns are "not in common usage" at all! Gee, who would have ever guessed THAT would be the result, eh?
And now we have the 8th Circuit deciding that since they are "not in common usage", due mostly to unconstitutional Federal laws over the years, its' OK to remove the 2nd amendment's protection of people who want to own them now - an even worse violation of the 2nd.
Only in America......!!
As I've said, the efforts of the anti-gun-rights people will remain unceasing. Every bit of this battle will have to be fought, as we wrest our rights back from them. This just openes another of the many fronts on which we have to fight.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/appea...endment_claim/
Appeals Court Rejects Militia Organizer's Second Amendment Claim
Posted 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal appeals court has ruled a man who organized his own militia did not have a Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun.
Hollis Wayne Fincher had argued that his Washington County Militia was a well-regulated militia that was protected by the amendment. A federal judge rejected his claim and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in an Aug. 13 opinion (PDF).
The 8th Circuit said in a footnote that Fincher loses under both his militia argument and under an argument he didn't make: that he has an individual right to own a machine gun under the Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The June 26 Heller decision said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home, but said the right "is not unlimited."
The 8th Circuit cited language in Heller that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and said a machine gun falls into that unprotected category. "Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use," the appeals court said.
The 8th Circuit opinion also said Fincher's militia was not affiliated with the state and not subject to protection as a well-regulated militia.
In Heller, the Supremes said that the 2nd amendment's protection of our right to own and carry guns, did not extend to "dangerous or unusual weapons", or weapons not "in common usage". Leaving aside the question of how something that wasn't dangerous could be called a weapon at all, the "not in common usage" part left us ripe for a continuation of all the unconstitutional laws the anti-gun-rights people have been building up over the years.
In 1934 the government made a law saying that anyone buyig a machine gun had to pay a $200 tax (more than many such guns were worth back then) and go through and incredible amount of paperwork, waiting periods, etc. And this during a massive depression where people were earning $5/day if they were lucky enough to have a job at all. Later the govt banned the manufacture of machine guns, and banned any importation of them. As a result of all this, the supply of such items dwindled and prices skyrocketed.
And surprise, surprise! Today machine guns are "not in common usage" at all! Gee, who would have ever guessed THAT would be the result, eh?
And now we have the 8th Circuit deciding that since they are "not in common usage", due mostly to unconstitutional Federal laws over the years, its' OK to remove the 2nd amendment's protection of people who want to own them now - an even worse violation of the 2nd.
Only in America......!!
As I've said, the efforts of the anti-gun-rights people will remain unceasing. Every bit of this battle will have to be fought, as we wrest our rights back from them. This just openes another of the many fronts on which we have to fight.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/appea...endment_claim/
Appeals Court Rejects Militia Organizer's Second Amendment Claim
Posted 5 hours, 28 minutes ago
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A federal appeals court has ruled a man who organized his own militia did not have a Second Amendment right to possess a machine gun.
Hollis Wayne Fincher had argued that his Washington County Militia was a well-regulated militia that was protected by the amendment. A federal judge rejected his claim and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in an Aug. 13 opinion (PDF).
The 8th Circuit said in a footnote that Fincher loses under both his militia argument and under an argument he didn't make: that he has an individual right to own a machine gun under the Supreme Court's recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. The June 26 Heller decision said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home, but said the right "is not unlimited."
The 8th Circuit cited language in Heller that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and said a machine gun falls into that unprotected category. "Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use," the appeals court said.
The 8th Circuit opinion also said Fincher's militia was not affiliated with the state and not subject to protection as a well-regulated militia.
0
-
ws,
I have to disagree. In the 26 years 'on the street' I know of only one 'criminal' use of a FAW, and it was an illegally converted AK.
The carnage this guy caused when he cut loose in a bar 'full auto' can not be compared to what would have happened with a '700 Rem'. (But I did put a stop to it with just one shot from my 870[;)])
Again, the reality of the issue.
We live in the world/nation with people who do not see eye to eye on this issue. If you and others thing you are going to anywhere at all WITHOUT CONSIDERING the others you are badly mistaken. Again, the reality of this situation.
Compormise is a part of reality you refuse to admitt or accept, thus you are denying the reality of the situation. I don't like it any better than any of you, I know it WILL happen becasue it is part of the real world we live in.[V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
ws,
I have to disagree. In the 26 years 'on the street' I know of only one 'criminal' use of a FAW, and it was an illegally converted AK.
The carnage this guy caused when he cut loose in a bar 'full auto' can not be compared to what would have happened with a '700 Rem'. (But I did put a stop to it with just one shot from my 870[;)])
Again, the reality of the issue.
We live in the world/nation with people who do not see eye to eye on this issue. If you and others thing you are going to anywhere at all WITHOUT CONSIDERING the others you are badly mistaken. Again, the reality of this situation.
Compormise is a part of reality you refuse to admitt or accept, thus you are denying the reality of the situation. I don't like it any better than any of you, I know it WILL happen becasue it is part of the real world we live in.[V]
So some guy goes bananas with an illegal weapon, but you want restrictions on legal weapons? How is that accomplishing anything but hampering the law-abiding while doing nothing to the criminal? People don't see eye to eye on the issue, but you're trying to compare apples to oranges here. Criminal access to weapons is not in the same league as lawful access, and you have even admitted that no law will have an effect on criminal misuse of firearms.
So tell me again how these laws are doing anything to curb crime? If they only apply to those least inclined to criminal activity, they are functionally useless, and any talk of compromise on the isse is purely a "feel good" maneuver. If people cannot accept the facts because they don't have the testicular fortitude to look the truth in the face they cannot be helped and all they are is sheep looking for a shepard.0 -
OK, I will AGAIN![:(] The reality is we have to consider the views of others in this country. NOT EVERYONE SEES THINK AS YOU DO! Many others ask, 'do we need FAW's to defend our selves or to hunt with?'
Well the answer is no we don't. Do we NEED to have the 'right' to own them? The answer is YES we do. Now how are WE going to do this and still consider ours views (reality agian). We need to see, as best we can with as little restriction as possible, that those who have showen by their felony criminal history are not able to just walk in pay and walk out with a FAW. We can do this with the existing system we have in place. Will it stop criminals from getting FAW LEGALY? Yes it will. Will it stop them from ever get them, no it will not. Remember, (I say again) there are very few if any 'always or nevers' in the real world. Will this compermise stop you from obtaining a FAW legaly, not unless you have a felony criminal history. (As I have stated MANY times I am opposed to the DV restriction if it si not a felony).
This 'everything or nothing' stance has never worked in the 'real' world EVER. Why would it work now???[?]0 -
Jim,,,,,26 years on the street and only ONE incident of a criminal using a FAW. Thats not bad. It's even a better argument for allowing the law abiding, non-criminal citizen to purchase and possess such weapons when you factor in the weapon you talked about was an illegal CONVERSION rather than a factory FAW. I know your trying to argue for the beenifit of keeping some weapons restricted. But so far your reasoning has done nothing but bolster the no restriction platform. The criminal in your case used an illegally converted ak-47. NOT a purchased full auto weapon. Any criminal can do that. One of the easiest rifles to convert is a ruger ranch rifle. So should they be restricted as well? because they MIGHT be converted by a criminal? I'm in California. The Terminator banned ALL rifles that use the .50 bmg round because they MIGHT be used in a crime. What BS is that? Made no sence what so ever. But that is the reality of this state. Bad law aimed at law abiding citizens that has ZERO effect on any crime or criminal in the state. Someone here said that the 1934 ban on FAW was needed to address a problem at that time. Really? Well unless I am mistaken, not one CRIME family, (ie Capone, Luciano, Shultz, ect. ect.), turned in their Thompsons. So what problem was addressed? Was it the problem of law abiding citizens owning FAW's? Because the ban did address that. 0 -
[V]Picture this. Me beating my head aginst the wall, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!!![:(]
I give up, you keep scaring the folks away and I'll keep trying to get them back.[V]
Nuff said![:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
[V]Picture this. Me beating my head aginst the wall, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again!!![:(]
I give up, you keep scaring the folks away and I'll keep trying to get them back.[V]
Nuff said![:)]
Jim,.....I think some of us are beating our heads against the wall also![:0]
You don't seem to understand that the unconstitutional regulations, forms, fees, taxes,.......etc., have ZERO effect on "crime."
A criminal with murderous intent, will use ANY means possible to carry out his goal,.....nothing will stop him.
All your idea does is cause honest citizens to jump through hoops, and opens doors for further loss of our rights.
Sounds like you are using the political mantra of "saving one child", and it is worth it all. That has never worked.
The scene that you ran into certainly sounds terrible, and I am glad you were able to stop it, BUT,........you stopped it, not any inane gun laws. The person converted an AK, which is quite simple to do.
Point being, what is the difference if that sick individual had purchased one already full auto, or converted it himself illegally?
Same horrible result,.........he converted a semi himself, so your registrations would not have had ANY affect on the ONE situation you experienced in all those years involving a FAW.
Keep in mind that this is from a person that really has no desire to own one, even minus the paperwork, and fees![8D]0 -
Wrong, I UNDERSTAND IT ALL TO WELL, but I also understand that the more people we chase away from our side, the worse it will get![V] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Wrong, I UNDERSTAND IT ALL TO WELL, but I also understand that the more people we chase away from our side, the worse it will get![V]
OK,......I think I understand what you are getting at now.
You are saying that unless we continue to enact more and more "feel-good" laws, that make the dumbazz sheep out there feel a FALSE sense of security,..........regardless of the FACTS, and the Constitution, that they will scream for more and more gun control.
Is that correct?0 -
Can you hear that?? That is my head beating aginst the wall![;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
OK, I will AGAIN![:(] The reality is we have to consider the views of others in this country. NOT EVERYONE SEES THINK AS YOU DO! Many others ask, 'do we need FAW's to defend our selves or to hunt with?'
Well the answer is no we don't. Do we NEED to have the 'right' to own them? The answer is YES we do. Now how are WE going to do this and still consider ours views (reality agian). We need to see, as best we can with as little restriction as possible, that those who have showen by their felony criminal history are not able to just walk in pay and walk out with a FAW. We can do this with the existing system we have in place. Will it stop criminals from getting FAW LEGALY? Yes it will. Will it stop them from ever get them, no it will not. Remember, (I say again) there are very few if any 'always or nevers' in the real world. Will this compermise stop you from obtaining a FAW legaly, not unless you have a felony criminal history. (As I have stated MANY times I am opposed to the DV restriction if it si not a felony).
This 'everything or nothing' stance has never worked in the 'real' world EVER. Why would it work now???[?]
Jim,......this was what I was going by.
I think it matches fairly closely to what I said.
Point it out real clear for me if I am wrong![:D]0 -
Simple. Everyone does not have the same EXACT beleifs you do. Acording to HB it's 3% who share this view. What can this 3% do to change things??? Zero, nota, nothing (by themselves)
Fact is the other 97% will be makeing the 2nd Amedment decissions for YOU![V] This the reality of the situation. Denial will not change this fact![xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Simple. Everyone does not have the same EXACT beleifs you do. Acording to HB it's 3% who share this view. What can this 3% do to change things??? Zero, nota, nothing (by themselves)
Fact is the other 97% will be makeing the 2nd Amedment decissions for YOU![V] This the reality of the situation. Denial will not change this fact![xx(]
See,......I was correct! No need to have banged your head.
In other words, for us to keep more "sheeple" from going to the "anti" side,.......we need to agree to unconstitutional laws, and "bans" even, to keep a portion of the other 97% on our side.
Can't do that,.....not me.
I have spoken to a number of folks, and actually changed their prejudiced opinions about the laws being made for the purpose of feeling good.
I don't really believe it is that difficult to point out what I did above,........that criminals are not going to obey laws. That is why they are criminals.
I know there are a ton of truly stupid folks in this country, that are afraid of their own shadow, but making policy to suit them is not the answer for me.
Ban cars while we are at it,.......they result in a very high rate of death per user. Much higher than firearms.
Facts are called facts, because that is exactly what they are.
Feelings do not have a chance to enter into them.
We need to spread "facts."[;)]0 -
You sir, are preching to the choir!!![;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
You sir, are preching to the choir!!![;)]
You are a 'convevtional' warrior, I am an 'unconventional' warrior.[:)]0 -
quote:You are a 'convevtional' warrior, I am an 'unconventional' warrior
Really.
Pretty unconventional, all right..unbarring and opening the back gate for the entrence of the enemy into the walled city.
Agreeing to gun laws is absolutly no different.
The reason that you anti-gunners won't admit the REAL reason for the Second Amendment is pretty simple.
You either feel the Beast is too powerful to beat..or you feel taking up arms against the Beast is subversive to the nth degree.
The INSTANT one understands the meaning of and purpose of the Second Amendment is the instant that one understands that allowing government to control weapons is insane.
Lacking that knowledge..then gun controls is very palatable to the ignorant.0 -
HB,
You and ws should be speech writers! For whom I don't know sinse you say you are 3%er's! (so you say)
Give it a rest, as I said before. I use to say the same thing your are now. I heard you. I get it. I am sorry you will not see your dreams come true!!![V]0 -
Highball,,,,,,I understand where Jim is coming from. You and I both understand that paperwork and background checks do nothing to stop crime in any significant way. Jim is, (I think), trying use some reverse logic on the Anti-Gunners. Lets us have our guns and we will relent some of our conveinence in obtaining our guns. He thinks this will sway more of "them" to "our" side because it makes us look reasonable. Well reason soon falls in the face of tyrrany. (excuse the spelling). Again. You and I know that.
Personally, I would prefer that Felons not have legal access to guns. Having served their time or not. Primarily violent felons. But I understand the idea that they have served their time and should be given a fresh start. Here's a thought for that. Once out, off parole, And have shown themselves to be a productive member of society. OK. Let them go ahead and buy guns. BUT. IF they decide to use those legally purchased guns for more violence and wanton mayham and someone else dies by their hand, (not in self defence), Then they move to the front of the execution line and are put to death 2 weeks after conviction. Fair??0 -
quote:BUT. IF they decide to use those legally purchased guns for more violence and wanton mayham and someone else dies by their hand, (not in self defence), Then they move to the front of the execution line and are put to death 2 weeks after conviction. Fair??
Ohh, indubitably.
Now we are getting someplace. Actually, the vicious animals we see committing the crimes we see today would NEVER leave a prison...vertically...in a sane world.
They would be hung by the neck till DEAD...the FIRST time. The less vicious would work rock piles till they decided they wanted to be good citizens.
Released, they would indeed GET the chance to be citizens again...and if, as you stated, they crossed the line again..well, the house would fall on them.
Continually repeating offenders would be dealt with in a manner that would leave no doubt we as a Society are FED UP with criminals and their crimes.0 -
originally posted by Jim Rau:
I am sorry you will not see your dreams come true!!![V]
Jim,
Do you honestly believe some of us feel an all-out shooting war would be a dream? It wouldn't. It would be an absolute nightmare. Many would perish; both good and evil.
However, there is a very simple solution. If those, whose powers are derived from the consent of the governed, would abide by the Constitution of this Republic, repeal any and all laws in contradiction to it, and cease the encroachments upon our individual liberties, all would be well.
I am also realistic, and know the vermin currently in power understand exactly what they are doing. They have no regard for the Constitution and the limits it prescribes for them. They have made it common practice to far exceed those boundaries, and venture into territory where they have no business; restricting and/or regulating our individual liberties. They do this with the goal of securing absolute power. What's sad is this sinister plot is working. Why?
Several reasons.
#1 - The majority of Americans have become lazy and apathetic. They are too busy focusing on what is most important; themselves. They have no time to be bothered with trivial issues such as individual liberty, besides, if daddy government says it's for our good, then it must be true.
#2 - The majority of Americans can't/won't think for themselves. They prefer to let Hannity, Limbaugh, the MSM, or the 'establishment' do their thinking for them. They have become bleating sheep. A prime exmaple of this is the 2008 Presidential race. This year, we had a candidate who stood 100% on the Constitution. The majority said "Nay". So be it. They will get exactly what they asked for. At times like this, I can't help but ask myself, "Where have all the Individualists gone"?
#3 - The American people have let it happen. That's right; we, the people, have let it happen. According to the Constitution, the power rightfully belongs to us. We have willingly let the transfer of that power occur. What have those who received that power done with it? They have abused it, just as the Founders envisioned they would. They realized how quickly corruption can set in. They were right; it has.
However, the Founders were a pretty wise bunch of guys. To ensure no government or entity ever tried to strip this power from the people, they made certain that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Unless this long trail of abuses and usurpations ceases, you, and everyone else, will quickly gain an understanding of why the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, sportsmen, or self-defense.0 -
It's been fun guys. But my head can only take so much hitting the wall. You do what you must. I will do what I must.
45,
You can't arange for them to go to the head of the line, more wishful thinking. As much as I hate to admit it (that damn reality again), the death penaly will probably go away altogether in the not to distant future. I can face reality, much I do not like what I see.[V] Many here refuse to face reality becasue they can't handle the pain! [V]0 -
Jim,, I never said it would or even could happen. I said I would "like" to see a something like that. It would be a great solution to felons with guns. But your right, it will never happen. Might be offensive to someone. 0 -
Well lets go right back to where this all statred, you all stand and defend your 'ideals' I will work at implimenting those changes you and I want. But I will do this in the 'real' world.[:)] 0 -
Meaning what exactly Jim? That because we are unwilling to compromise that we are somehow not in the real world? Yes we have except the law of the land. For now. Doesn't mean we have to like it. I know guys that have things hidden away for a rainy day. And just because you are willing to go along with whatever comes down you think your the more enlightened one? 35 years ago if you told someone that their rifle would one day be banned and illegal because of the way it looked they would laughed you out of town. Today, it's a reality. Why? Because to many people said "well, if it will make us safer". Then they banned "High Cap" magazines. Yes they came back in most of the country. But not in California. Neither did the evil black rifle. So I'm guessing that at some point they will step over a line that the American gun owner will not back down too or shy away from. Then all hell will break loose. And the true meaning of the 2nd Admendment will be known to all. 0 -
quote:So I'm guessing that at some point they will step over a line that the American gun owner will not back down too or shy away from. Then all hell will break loose. And the true meaning of the 2nd Admendment will be known to all.
That, 45Long, is the REAL 'reality' that Jim refuses to face.0 -
HB,
3% is not reality!!![xx(]0 -
quote:Jim Rau
Senior Member
USA
1244 Posts
Posted - 08/31/2008 : 10:03:23 AM
HB,
3% is not reality!!!
There mouths a man that would 'speak' for the Second Amendment..and would hope that I would silence my tongue.
There speaks a man so utterly ignorant of his OWN HISTORY as to mouth those words in red above;
For the ONLY reason he is allowed to continue his diatribe of selling out America is BECAUSE OF 3 % of the people in 1776;
Those men that took WEAPONS in hand and went to war.
Those 3% were supported by LESS then 30 % of the people in this country...HARDLY the majority he insists upon having before mustering the courage to demand justice for the Second Amendemnt.
There is THE clear, unambiguous dividing line between an anti-gunner and a supporter of this country.
MY "Reality" IS those 3 % that fought and died...KNOWING that people like you would come along and sell them out. They did it anyway.0 -
There speaks a man (HB) who beleives personal insults will further OUR cause. He is a real liablility to those of us who REALLY care about the gaining support for the RTKABA![:(] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
There speaks a man (HB) who beleives personal insults will further OUR cause. He is a real liablility to those of us who REALLY care about the gaining support for the RTKABA![:(]
YOUR brand of support, Jim, is the same support the Brady bunch gives. We don't need the likes of you to "support" the second amendment. I bet you sympathized with the Tory's too.0 -
Grow up! Or should I say wise up![xx(]
You make good entertainement, but do nothing to support the 2nd Amendment![:(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Grow up! Or should I say wise up![xx(]
You make good entertainement, but do nothing to support the 2nd Amendment![:(]
Wise up?
You are the one talking from BOTH sides of your mouth.
I do more to support the constitution than you could HOPE to do.
What? You think throwing a few bucks here and there, and your work is finished? How utterly foolish.
While I support NOT having drunk people on the road, I don't comprimise freedoms by banning cars and alcoholic drinks. I support putting offenders behind BARS. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah, such an ardent supporter you are Jim. Are your lips sewed together in the middle, to make speaking from BOTH sides of your mouth easier?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
119 comments