Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 06/07/2007 6:00:37 AM PDT by shortstop
Hey, there was great news out of Washington, D.C. yesterday.
The federal government announced that it had posted the entire National Firearms Act Handbook on the Internet. Now, this 10 megabyte document is there for you to read any time you want.
Send your Thank You cards to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
On a government website yesterday, we learned – and I quote – “The Handbook is an essential document for understanding and complying with the National Firearms Act.”
Well, aren’t we some lucky people. The overseer has decided to post the rules of the plantation right there on the front door of the big house.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a good citizen. I obey the law, and I specifically obey the National Firearms Act.
But I also denounce it, and I look forward to a day when its artificial and un-American constraint on my Second Amendment rights is gone.
The National Firearms Act – as you probably know – was passed in 1934 and has grown like a cancer since. It led to the horrific Supreme Court ruling found in the case of United States versus Miller, a decision that said the Second Amendment gives rights to the government, but not to you and me.
That decision, of course, was wrong. But it has hung like a millstone around the neck of the Second Amendment for almost 70 years.
And so the National Firearms Act Handbook – so thoughtfully available on the Internet – is not a convenience, it is a constraint. It is a reminder that civil liberty can be restricted by government, that constitutional guarantees aren’t so guaranteed after all, and that we are not as free as the Founding Fathers intended us to be.
Could you imagine the federal government issuing a handbook outlining the rules for exercising free speech, or freedom of religion? Can you imagine the uproar if a reporter had to get a license from the government before he could exercise freedom of the press?
And yet the Second Amendment, with its liberties, is routinely restricted and extinguished, and this new online handbook is nothing but an irksome reminder of that fact.
As a citizen, I will obey this law. But I will also work and fight the rest of my life to change it.
Because it is wrong. And no amount of lawyers or politicians or reporters is ever going to convince me of anything different.
A chained man is not free.
And a limited freedom is not a freedom.
The National Firearms Act is now on the Internet, which is ironic because, from where I stand, it shouldn’t even be on the books.
Ping
10 Megabytes of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Might help if the author had read US v. Miller
How is publishing a handbook on a 73-year-old law “walking on the Second Amendment again?”
A limited freedom is a freedom "infringed".
Now just where have I heard that phrase?
I was wonder the same thing, guess some people can never get enough hype.
Spud guns are "destructive devices" that need the $200.00 transfer tax.
..snipet...
Also, combustionalble gas is "a firearm" if the Tech branch says so. (Don't hold breath),
Finally, my favorite, soda cans taped on a .22 or a pillow on your handgun to muffel the noise needs to be registered.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
It says nothing about the Second Amendment as conferring an individual vs. collective right. All it said, basically, is that without any evidence being presented that a sawed-off shotgun is a military weapon, the defendant could not rely on the second amendment to protect his right to possess said sawed-off shotgun.
Actually, if you take the Court's reasoning to its logical conclusion, it appears to state that rocket launchers and surface to air missles are protected, while sawed-off shotguns are not.
Thanks, interesting conclusion.
The requested URL /firearms/nfa/nfa_handbook/index.htm was not found on this server.
Typical......I am a bit worried about the spud gun ruling. Got any links?
Reading the opinion is helpful, as there is a lot of stuff in it that gives everything context. The link I provided previously contains a comprehensive collection of primary documents that relate to this case.
Here's the bottom line of the opinion:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
It is important to know that at the time the court made this ruling, the accused was already dead, and his lawyer did not see fit to argue the case before the court, so there was no rebuttal made to the government's case. If you read the above carefully, you'll see that the reason the court ruled against Miller was because no evidence had been submitted to the court showing that a sawed off shotgun was useful as a military weapon. (Despite the fact they'd been used extensively in WWI - hence the name "trench gun".) It is entirely reasonable to assume, that given the court's reasoning, that they'd have O.K'd the firearm had they been aware of its use. Interestingly, this cuts directly against many gun-grabbers and their fellow travellers' claims that full-auto machine guns and "assault weapons" aren't protected.
I personally disagree with part of the court's reasoning, in that I think just about any firearm you'd care to name is covered by the Second Amendment because they can all be put to military and personal use regardless of what they might initially have been designed or marketed for. If you read the opinion, you'll note that though they spoke of 'militia weapons', whether or not Mr. Miller was a part of a formal militia group was not at issue.
Other than abortion and Freedom of the Press, what right is unlimited?
Free Speech: content-neutral restrictions are easily passed, and Hate Crime laws are often content-specific.
Free Exercise: can't have prayers at school convocations, etc.
Assembly: time/place/manner restrictions are common.
Marriage is considered a fundamental right, but you're limited to one gender in your choice (not saying it's good or bad, only that it is expressly a limitation).
Every right is pretty much restricted when you're in jail, or can be restricted if you're a minor.
“Page not found”....??
From a legal standpoint, it might have been reasonable for the Supreme Court to take "judicial notice" of the usefulness of a short-barreled shotgun. That might have allowed them to unequivocally uphold the lower court's dismissal.
But the legal matter before the court had to do with deciding how the scope of the Second Amendment would be determined, given that the scope was other than as worded in the Second Amendment; that is, that all arms are protected from infringement.
It would certainly NOT be the case that the Supreme Court would expect every case involving each particular type of arm to come before the Court. The Supreme Court, as a matter of law, would be expected to detail how the lower courts were to make such determinations.
I get that page but none of the links open. Strange.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.