Tag: machineguns

Will Present Legal Arguments Undermine Future Efforts to Restore Second Amendment?

It’s taking care of our immediate needs. However, the Founders bequeathed us a constitution intended “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If this is all we concern ourselves with, what are we bequeathing to them? Semiautomatic firearm technology that’s already 140 years old…? In a world where technological developments and breakthroughs are being introduced seemingly exponentially, what new “terrible implements” will become standard issue in the next 140 years? [More]

In avoiding legal traps today, care must be taken not to catch ourselves in a more dangerous one tomorrow.

More Like a Slap Fight

Padilla and Kash Patel clash on gun ownership in America [Watch]

Did you see a clash?

I saw equivocation over easily answered questions.

No, prior restraints are not consitututional. It says “shall not be infringed.” Yes, every terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American.

But if he answered plainly, he’d never get confirmed?

If so, it’s because Republicans have consistently over the years avoided using their bully pulpits to articulate the reasons for the Second Amendment, so to most people they come across as something that intuitively goes against everything they’ve been “told.”

As long as that’s the case– as long as 2A advocacy is marginalized and relegated to a niche segment outside of the mainstream– treasonous Democrats like Padilla will be able to manipulate with words like “extreme”.

That’s why I’m not letting up on Trump’s unfulfilled campaign rhetoric and what he could do to start turning things around. That’s why I’ll keep calling it out each day that goes by where he ignores us.

[Via Herschel]

Tangentially-Related UPDATE

He can be clear when he wants to be. [More]

[Via Michael G]

Stop Peeing in the Pool

Poisoning the Second Amendment Court Record [More]

Herschel observers that “arguing for semi-automatic firearms because they aren’t fully automatic firearms and thus not in military use is the wrong tactic.”

“But we have to do things in increments,” some will argue back.

He realizes that. It’s for when we get to the make-or-break increment we should be worried about.

It’s similar to fears I’ve expressed about how relying on “in common use at the time” is a trap.

Homiecoming King

An arrest has been made in connection with the deadly shooting at Tuskegee University in Alabama, which killed an 18-year-old and left at least 16 people injured early Sunday. Jaquez Myrick, 25, of Montgomery, was charged with being in possession of a machine gun, according to authorities, who said he was found leaving the scene of the shooting. [More]

Lemme guess: It’s not registered on the NFRTR…

[Via Jess]

ATF Prosecutes Sheriff Over Using Department Guns at Public Machine Gun Shoot

Police designating themselves the “Only Ones” to be trusted with arms and claiming exemptions to infringements the people are subjected to invites corruption, and seeing officials “hoist with their own petard” hardly invites sympathy…So, it’s not unfair to wonder what’s in it for gun owners to come to Wendt’s defense? [More]

The greater danger is ATF subjectively assigning itself powers and having the courts agree with it.

A Key Point

Auto Key Card Case Appeal Says by ATF Standards Any AR-15 Could Be Considered a Machinegun [More]

Yeah, that’s the goal.

It’s also why some of us were arguing from the outset if anyone thought the bump stock ban was just about a stupid piece of plastic being a hill not worth dying on (meaning not even lifting a finger and disparaging those who did), they were missing the point.

A Bearable Opinion

Let’s hope historical analogues don’t come back to bite us. Rather than digging up what some colony did to infringe in special circumstances or older English law, put the focus on arguments put forth during ratification. We know what the founders meant, and there was nothing ambuiguous about it.

Anybody else having trouble digging up info on the defendant and his Glock switches? I’m wondering if what’s gun owners may be celebrating as a victory is actually part of an effort to turn the public against Bruen.

[Via WiscoDave]

Their Fudd Guns and Every Other Popular Implement of the Sportsman are the Privilege of an American

We are losing machine guns, folks, and we’re losing them every single day, and they’re never coming back most likely. [Watch]

As long as lawyers representing us continue to treat “in common use” as what’s commercially permitted instead of what’s deployed with, he’s right.

[Via Jess]

Machine Gun Charges Against Sheriff Recall Earlier Incidents and ‘Only Ones’ Elitism

But whether the top cops are innocent or guilty of charges is beside the real point gun owners should be concerned with. The militarization of police is what opens the door to exclusivity and enables corruption. And you’d better believe the officials and the deputies/officers they command would arrest any of us if they found us non-compliant with a “gun law.” The “Only Ones” hypocrisy reeks. [More]

Nice work if you can get it. The problem is, without a badge, you can’t, and therein lies the crux of police as “Only Ones.”

Point/Counterpoint

Dave, like so many others you are in error concerning Heller’s statement on the M-16. Scalia wrote that anyone who say’s M-16s and the like can be banned have de facto separated and nullified the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” from the operative “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.” [More]

He’s leaving out the big “but” that immediately follows:

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

Previously qualified as:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right…

I’ve posted this here because if I’m to get my other work done, I don’t have time to get embroiled in comments on AmmoLand, and besides, I get my say in the article and comments are for the readers.

And point of order…

Government Has Known from the Start There is a Right to Own Machineguns

“You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved.” [More]

Now, what are all those “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment” in Congress going to do about it?

We’re the Only Ones Supported Enough

“The community is very supportive and I am grateful they took the time to educate themselves on the process of how obtaining these firearms takes place,” Wendt told The Daily Beast in a Tuesday text message, confirming the reinstatement and the stipulation. “I wish journalists would do the same and realize this is an attack on the 2nd amendment and not just about me.” [More]

I’ll bite. If it’s about the Second Amendment, could I do it?

[Via Dan Gifford]

Verified by MonsterInsights