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
-
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![:(]
I disagree Jim.
Highball has the knack and refreshing ability to get straight to the point. He calls a spade a spade and makes no apology, nor should he be expected to.
You know as well as I do that strong feelings run deep in men like us, particularly when a debate over basic principals of the Constitution and Individual Liberty are being discussed/debated.
Grow a thicker skin if you are going to step out into these arguments like you have been doing.
You espouse things that are completely contrary to the beliefs of many. Expect a strong, often brutal response and don't let it get to you.
My .02 cents.0 -
Jeff,
As you know, I have been called everything in the book and some things not in the book, as have you![;)]
I don't scare off. But 'others' do! And even though you ALL deny it, we need the 'others', 3% will get you no where![:(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
As you know, I have been called everything in the book and some things not in the book, as have you![;)]
I don't scare off. But 'others' do! And even though you ALL deny it, we need the 'others', 3% will get you no where![:(]
Jim, you need to come to a realization that 'denial' is not an issue for me. I deny nothing. I merely hold to my beliefs and principals.
I see, I assess, I understand, I decide, I act. None of that consists of a denial, rather, it is informed judgment.
I simply do not want to dilute the critical distinction between what many preach as 'support' for gun-rights and 'support' for other 'freedoms' and that which is is the clear and simple 'bottom-line' of the issue when measured by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Founding Principals of Individualism.
Frankly, it baffles me that so many 'self-styled patriots' callously disregard this clear and simple 'measure', or 'yardstick' if you will, which so clearly puts into perspective the actions of the government and what many in society advocate for.
I want there to be no wiggle-room, no room to squirm, no room to obfuscate and no room to muddy the water of that clear distinction.
People need to have the facts placed in front of them about what the founding principals really mean, not the fuzzy, compromise version that so many are attempting to portray as righteous.
Once that bright line is drawn, then an informed decision can be made, to either attempt to fight a running battle in a reverse direction, like you advocate, or to draw a line and hold to it, regardless of PC, or conventional wisdom.
It is funny how your 'reality' changes, as does the bending, contorting, rear-guard action, that must be kept up in 'your fight', yet the 'bottom-line' of the founding principals, individualism and the Constitution never does.
Those who read this should ponder that point for awhile.0 -
quote:3% will get you no where!
Yet again..flatly denying that the Revolutionary War ever happened !!
And the man says that I have lost touch with 'reality'.
Oddly enough, he is right...I lost touch with HIS alternative universe many, many years ago...0 -
HB,
Please take your meds, then we can have a rational exchange![|)]
Jeff,
The Bill of Rights has not changed, but our world has. When they were written ours was rual conservative society. It is an urban liberal society now. Why do you deny this?? I now, you don't. You will have some absrtact return for the question. But if we (Those who beleive in the Bill of Rights) want to prevail we have to adapt to THIS world and fight these AH's on every front. We can't just fold our arms, put our back aginst the wall and say "By GOD that is the way it is becasue that what the Constitution says". You have to jump into the middle of them with both feet and try and make a difference. That is what I did, radio, TV, newpapers, and even senate hearings.
What has the 3% done to try and make some changes to the attitude of the other 97%, other than have pep rallies on this site?[?]0 -
HB,
Please take your meds, then we can have a rational exchange!
Jeff,
The Bill of Rights has not changed, but our world has. When they were written ours was rual conservative society. It is an urban liberal society now. Why do you deny this?? I now, you don't. You will have some absrtact return for the question. But if we (Those who beleive in the Bill of Rights) want to prevail we have to adapt to THIS world and fight these AH's on every front. We can't just fold our arms, put our back aginst the wall and say "By GOD that is the way it is becasue that what the Constitution says". You have to jump into the middle of them with both feet and try and make a difference. That is what I did, radio, TV, newpapers, and even senate hearings.
What has the 3% done to try and make some changes to the attitude of the other 97%, other than have pep rallies on this site?
By GOD, that is the way it is because that's what the Constitution says!
I like it. I am adding it to my sig line. Thanks Jim.[:D]0 -
No thank you WS, you proved my point![8D] 0 -
No, thank you WS, you proved my point![:D]
Must have missed it.0 -
You 'MISS' ALOT ws! Sorry could not resist that one!![}:)]
You admitted to me, and the world, that my assement of your position is correct, thus you proved my point. For being such a 'wordy' person, you seem to have a problem grasping what other say!!![;)]0 -
No Jim, I know exactly what you are saying. You stated that we cannot simply say, "The Constitution says what it says , and that's the way it is!" You stated that we must accept the reality that some regulation/restriction will always be present. You believe that we must "chip away" to get a right back that was ours to begin with.
I understand exactly what you are saying....
And you are wrong on all counts.0 -
ws,
What I am saying is the restrictions have gone way to far and we have to 'chip a way' at these restrictions, they won't go away by simply taking the stand you and some other have taken, unless you want to start an armed revolution and have a good chance of winning! Which I don't think will happen.
I thing this real easy to understand, right?[:)]0 -
Jim,
I understand the restrictions have gone too far, starting with the very first one.
I understand the 2nd Amendment right affirmed by the Constitution is absolute, unambiguous, and free from any intervention or intrusion designed to restrict or regulate it.
I understand the process to extract liberty's teeth will continue...
We shall have to wait.0 -
WS,
You can wait if you want. I will continue to fight these restrictions![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
WS,
You can wait if you want. I will continue to fight these restrictions![;)]
Jim, you SUPPORT many of those restrictions. Where then is the fight?
Is it a fight for different regulations and infringements than those we already had forced on us? Is it a fight for further 'privileges', which further dilute the peoples understanding and acceptance of the Bill of Rights and founding principals of individualism?
You are a curious character, extremely strong willed, confident in your position, albeit flat wrong on these bottom-line constitutional issues, but curious nonetheless.0 -
No, Jeff, I support very few restrictions. The fewer the better. What I do is except the reality of the situation, which is 'there are going to be some restrictions' weather we like it or not, but the fewer the better.[:)] 0 -
I support very few restrictions.
I support none. They are an affront to any American who loves freedom and liberty.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
No, Jeff, I support very few restrictions. The fewer the better. What I do is except the reality of the situation, which is 'there are going to be some restrictions' weather we like it or not, but the fewer the better.[:)]
From you own previous statements, you support restrictions/bans (?) on Full-autos and you support the privilege of CCW permitting by government.
What others do you support, out of simple curiosity?0 -
Jeff,
What I did say is. We have to try and prevent criminals from walking in and legally buying a WMD over the counter. I don't think the current insta-check system should be in affect for non-WMD's, but should be in effect for WMD's.
You can laugh and make smart-ass remarks if you want, but I have seen the carnage these casue if in the wrong hands. Will this COMPLEATLY stop them from being obtained and used by criminals, no. But it will help! Will it help to make the non-2nd Amendment people happy? I don't know, but as I said we WILL have some restrictions so we have decied what is exceptable and which aren't. Here is were we part company. You will only except 'no restrictions'. This is why I think you will be very disapointed, becasue this will NOT HAPPEN, EVER![:)]0 -
This is gonna be a very long thread![:0] 0 -
What I did say is. We have to try and prevent criminal from walking in and legally buying a WMD over the counter. I don't think the current insta-check system should be in affect for non-WMD's, but should be in effect for WMD's.
You can laugh and make smart-ass remarks if you want, but I have seen the carnage these casue if in the wrong hands. Will this COMPLEATLY stop them from being obtained and used by criminals, no. But it will help!
Jim,
What is your definition of a WMD?0 -
No it's not Marc. I head south tomarrow morning and will be off the box except to check e-mail. While at home I am very busy finishing the house. Besides we have dial up on one line, so can you say SLOW!
I will be back in two weeks and no doubt we will find something to 'discuss'. If not this something else. I like to think I have found some 'friends' to discuss things with.[;)]0 -
In a nut shell, Full auto and/or crew served weapons! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
In a nut shell, Full auto and/or crew served weapons!
People CAN'T buy crew served weapons NOW.
Full auto's are currently restictive in price. Only the "wealthy" can afford to buy them legally.
Criminals are getting full auto's in hand NOW, while the average citizen can't. NO LAW will stop the criminal element from obtaining them, other than public hanging.
Jim, you DO realize, ANY of us COULD create a REAL WMD, but DON'T because we are LAW ABIDING. The info and supplies are out there, for those whom seek it.
CRIMINAL control works effectively. Gun control over the law abiding, only makes US a easy target.0 -
quote:Originally posted by freemind
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
In a nut shell, Full auto and/or crew served weapons!
People CAN'T buy crew served weapons NOW.
Full auto's are currently restictive in price. Only the "wealthy" can afford to buy them legally.
Criminals are getting full auto's in hand NOW, while the average citizen can't. NO LAW will stop the criminal element from obtaining them, other than public hanging.
Jim, you DO realize, ANY of us COULD create a REAL WMD, but DON'T because we are LAW ABIDING. The info and supplies are out there, for those whom seek it.
CRIMINAL control works effectively. Gun control over the law abiding, only makes US a easy target.
Already been there,.......done that with Jim.
Didn't work.
Seems like a nice guy, but blinded by one event in his life, which I admit must have not been pleasant.
Doesn't change what the real subject matter is though.
He has come up with a new description though,.......WMD,......hmmm?0 -
A machine gun is NOT a Weapon of MASS Destruction. Talk about twisted logic. For someone who alledgedly lives in reality, you have no clue. Though I'm sure that Sarah Brady would agree with you completely. Doubt that anyone else here would agree with you. 0 -
Actuly Mark, most, if not all, belt feed machine guns are crew served weapons![:)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
OH NO, Personal attacks again, I am appauld, NOT. I expect it from people have no real argument!!![;)]
Actuly Mark, most, if not all, belt feed machine guns are crew served weapons![:)]
CREW SERVED means TWO or MORE people are REQUIRED to make a weapon system OPERATE.
What makes YOU think I CAN'T carry, set up, and shoot a belt fed FA myself?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
OH NO, Personal attacks again, I am appauld, NOT. I expect it from people have no real argument!!![;)]
Actuly Mark, most, if not all, belt feed machine guns are crew served weapons![:)]
Jim,.......please.
You seem like a nice enough guy. Don't put words in my mouth.
Previously I mentioned to you about M-16's, as compared to a SAW.
M-16's are not belt fed, nor are Ak-47's,........I am certain you are aware of this.
I also brought up the idea of a Brown Bess being considered a CSW back in the day. You do realize that some simply reloaded for the shooters,......right?
I am beginning to wonder if you are simply having fun here, or have another purpose.
You don't seem to be able to stick to what an individual poster has said.
Edit: I though the major event that influenced you was a criminal that converted an AK to full auto?
Do YOU call that a crew served weapon?0 -
Marc,
Well I guess it is my old military experance rearing it's ugly head. Even though I used a M-60 ALOT by myself, it is considered, by the military, as 'crew served' weapon.
If it matters to you, which it don't, I do not consider the three round burst as full auto as the ATF does.
It would not matter how I define a WMD (for this application) as you do not beleive in any restrictions.[;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
119 comments