[suijuris]

The judge didn't say the defendant couldn't testify. He said the defendant couldn't argue to the jury that the law was unconstitutional, because that is a question of law for the judge (and the appellate courts).

If you research history you will find that prior to the enabling act of 1934 it was proper to argue the constitutionality of a law to challenge the jurisdiction of a court. From about 1912 up till 1934 there was an orchestrated effort to eliminate the ability by the sheeple to assert their constitutional rights.

[supercat]

He said the defendant couldn't argue to the jury that the law was unconstitutional, because that is a question of law for the judge (and the appellate courts).

What if the defendant had sought to argue that the firearms he had produced were of a type suitable for military use and thus, per U.S. v. Miller, Constitutionally exempt from NFA'34?

[Lurking Libertarian]

If you research history you will find that prior to the enabling act of 1934 it was proper to argue the constitutionality of a law to challenge the jurisdiction of a court. From about 1912 up till 1934 there was an orchestrated effort to eliminate the ability by the sheeple to assert their constitutional rights.

It is still proper to argue constitutionality. But it is argued to the judge, not the jury. This didn't change in 1934.