a hard rain gonna fall one day
The ATF is the worst among a bunch of out of control gubmint agencies. They should be disbanded, and most of their JBTs sent to jail.
Posted on 08/21/2008 1:33:43 AM PDT by neverdem
In one of the first lower court rulings since the Supreme Court handed down the weakly-worded Heller Decision, a government restriction on firearms has been upheld.
Steven Mullenix, a federal firearms licensee (FFL), was denied permission to import German WWII replica rifles by the notoriously anti-gun Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). The BATFE used arguments from the 1968 Gun Control Act to argue that the replica BD-44 held no "sporting purpose" and therefore Mr. Mullenix could not legally import them.
In return Mullenix sued the BATFE for infringing upon his right to keep and bear arms, calling their ruling "arbitrary and capricious."
Just a few short days after the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller Case -- the supposed victory for the Second Amendment --the North Carolina Circuit Court used Justice Scalia's own words to uphold the BATFE's restriction on firearms importation.
The lower court agreed with the BATFE's findings that the firearms Mr. Mullenix wanted to import were not "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."
They went on to restate the Heller Decision language that the Second Amendment wasn't unlimited, and that the government has the right to restrict or ban any type of firearm, stating that the right only applies to certain types of firearms.
Clearly, the ripples of the Heller Decision will be felt for years to come. Unfortunately we can only speculate on the future unintended consequences of this weak decision.
This much we do know: the Heller Decision is far from a victory for gun owners. It is already being used successfully to infringe upon the rights of gun owners across the county.
Read the full lower court ruling in Mullenix v. BATFE here. pdf link
For all the latest Heller Decision related news, click here:
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/truthaboutheller.shtml
No, and don't expect McCain to do anything either.
oh I don’t.
ain’t but one thing gonna clean up that sorta problem
a hard rain gonna fall one day
or folks just may roll over
Not that I'm aware of. This is the last that I read.
Lower courts make all sorts of "interpretations" of "fresh" Supreme Court cases. The Real Test is what the appeals court or the Supreme Court itself will do.
a hard rain gonna fall one day
The ATF is the worst among a bunch of out of control gubmint agencies. They should be disbanded, and most of their JBTs sent to jail.
Should have argued that the BATFE had no statutory authority granted to it by the Constitution as their very existence violates Art 6 para 2, Amd 2, and Amd 10.
Oh boy, Liz Michael is not going to like that one bit.
along the same lines but a bit different and written by TM
http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/
She wouldn’t? Why? I just read her page...again. seems like she and I are theoretically in agreement.
She doesn’t advocate violence, nor do I.
She states that it will happen. I state that it will be interesting of it does.
Added to my “wish list”.
read a couple chapter on line and itll be a done deal...did fer me...
The problem is purposeful misinterpretation, as in "that view is inconvenient to the idea of the Vanguard of the Proletariat leading the masses to a Socialist utopia."
Still, we're headed in the right direction and in a generation or two, we may be able to shoot back in life threatening situations outside our homes.
Sooner than that - many states have adopted the "Castle Doctrine" and even expanded it to other places that are similar to a home, like your car. Come to Texas, and if someone is legitimately threatening you then you can safely (from a legal perspective) end the threat on a permanent basis anywhere except in a very few places (where, even here, we aren't "allowed" to carry).
Historians will look back and wonder why we didn't exercise our right sooner.
Fear. That and really crappy judges and a bunch of authoritarian, paternalistic officials who weren't stopped by the populace (i.e. it all goes back to fear, or Kim DuToit's "Pussification of the Western Male").
I noticed that Miller speaks to militarily useful weaponry, whereas the GCA speaks of hunting weaponry. So by one standard we can’t have firearms not suitable for hunting protected, and by another we can’t have firearms not suitable for the military to use. I guess this leaves us a few single shot 22’s. Oh wait, you say the Resistance in Nazi Occupied Europe...
Well, the GCA was based on the Nazi Weapons Law, so that particular piece of Congressional excrement has a big target on its back in the wake of Miller and Heller.
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.