[Vanity] US vs. Mathew Henry (9th circus machine gun (922(o)) ruling). Future USSC ruling next year

9th circus court of appeals ^ | 8 AUG 12 | Dcbryan1

[DCBryan1]

Quick read of 9th Circuits 18 USC 922(o) ruling and commerce clause re: 2nd amendment. For you legal types, think the USSC will look at or overturn? What about Sclias recent comments? Think they might look at Ann overturn Miller (1934) case?

[DCBryan1]

Bang!

[DCBryan1]

Bang!

[Dead Corpse]

However, the Court stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to own certain weapons...

Actually, the Second merely states, "shall not be infringed". So, the Court is wrong in it's narrow definition.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Could be an interesting case.

[Dead Corpse]

However, the Court stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to own certain weapons...

Actually, the Second merely states, "shall not be infringed". So, the Court is wrong in it's narrow definition.

I hate typing on an iPad...

[El Gato]

We reject this argument because machine guns are “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are unprotected by the Second Amendment. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008).

What good would a weapon that was not dangerous be? As to being unsual, almost all federal police forces, and of course the US Military, are armed with several different types of machine guns. The Texas Highway Patrol even has boats armed with M249s in shielded mounts.

They have 6 of them in fact.

More info and pictures at this link

Henry also argues that Congress did not have the power to enact § 922(o)’s prohibition against possessing machine guns pursuant to the powers delegated to Congress in the Commerce Clause. That argument fails because we already have held that the Commerce Clause authorizes § 922(o)’s machine gun possession ban.

That's even more idiotic. The Second Amendment is just that, an amendment. By the nature of amendments, they change the basic document where it conflicts with them. The use of the commerce clause, or any other part, such as the power to tax, to infringe on the right of the people protected by the second amendment is thereby forbidden.

[El Gato]

Also, how can the interstate commerce clause have anything to do with a device manufactured and possessed in a single state?

[Loyal Sedition]

“A machine gun is “unusual” because private possession of
all new machine guns, as well as all existing machine guns
that were not lawfully possessed before the enactment of
§ 922(o), has been unlawful since 1986.
Outside of a few government-related uses, machine guns largely exist on the
black market.”

BS! there are an estimated 250,000 legal machine guns in circulation among the civilian, non law-enforcement population. (Exact numbers are not known out ATf as the registrations are confidential tax information).
So they are NOT “Unusual” outside Kalifornia.
They ARE much more “Unusual” in the black market, even most dumb criminals know they will get few breaks if the use a machine gun in their crime.

“[4] In short, machine guns are highly “dangerous and
unusual weapons”(WRONG, as noted above) that are not “typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” (WRONG AGAIN, as noted above) Heller, 554 U.S. at 625,627.
Thus, we hold that the Second Amendment does not
apply to machine guns. (NOT an issue prior to 1933, cannon, machine guns, SBR and SBS were all common and unregulated)
Moreover, because we conclude (Wrongly!) that machine gun possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protection, it is unnecessary to consider Henry’s argument that the district court applied the incorrect level of constitutional scrutiny in evaluating his claims.
II.

---

(There is a reason the Fed. Gov. had to create an NFA tax in order to “Regulate” machine guns, it was the only way they could side-step the second amendment in 1933 (NFA Act of 1934).

This is clearly not the best possible case to overturn 922.(o), but the ruling illustrates again that the 9th Circus is a bunch of clowns.
I am sure any other court would also have twisted logic and reason into knots in order to not admit the unconstitutionality of 922.(o), but at least they would have done a more professional job of it.

For the record, after MANY years of study, in my lay opinion, the NFA-34 and 922.(o) are both absolutely unconstitutional!
You can learn A LOT about them and their history by searching the archives at NFAOA.org

[TXnMA]

“D” in ESL?

[publiusF27]

Also, how can the interstate commerce clause have anything to do with a device manufactured and possessed in a single state?

Back in the early 2000's, the 9th Circuit said that a homegrown cannabis plant for personal medical use was NOT interstate commerce in the Raich case. At about the same time, in the US v Stewart case, they also said that a homegrown machine gun for personal use was NOT interstate commerce.

Both cases went to the SCOTUS. They took the Raich case first and held the Stewart case. The SCOTUS reversed the 9th and said that a homegrown cannabis plant for personal medical use actually IS interstate commerce. They then sent the US v Stewart case back to the 9th with a note that said, "See Raich and try again."

The 9th complied, and redecided the case, this time concluding that Stewart's machine gun was, in fact, interstate commerce. Both opinions by Kozinski are worth reading.

For those who think Scalia will save us, go and review what he wrote in concurrence with the Raich case.

[Joe Brower]

[marktwain]

You are exactly correct. Scalia screwed us and the Constitution over royally with the Raich case. I think it was mostly because he thought he had to come up with a way to continue the war on some drugs. The ruling was pure insanity, and basicly grants the federal government power over every aspect of our lives.

[BCR #226]

Congressional records from 1933 and 1934 need to be submitted as evidence, as well as US v. Miller. Also, how can they be considered unusual and such since every military and Government in the world use them?

The only reason they are “unusual” in private hands is due completely because of a restriction placed by the Government. This was addressed in Heller when the court commented on the lack of availability of handguns to the citizens of DC was because of a restriction placed on them by the Government.

There is a strong move to remove 922 (o) from the books. It’s going to happen sooner rather than later, but it’s going to happen. What I’d like addressed by the Court is equal application under the color of law. That alone will eliminate many Government exemptions in law and it’ll strike down laws like LEOSA and such.

The MG ban is a dead duck. The desperation by the anti’s and the lower courts to keep it in place will not work. One way or another that ban is going away. My message to the anti’s is this... Let the ban go away. If you don’t, we’re taking the NFA and a few other laws down for our troubles.

[Durus]

The NFA has to go as well. Along with the 1968 gun control act. They are clear infringements.

[BCR #226]

Absolutely. I’m working with Mr. Rich Heller of the Heller v. DC case to do exactly that. Donations are appreciated at www.hellerfoundation.com if you want to help.

We want the MG ban gone. We offered to not go after the NFA, sporting purpose, importation, and the BATFE if they repeal it. Since they haven’t, once we file, it’ll be to late, we won’t back down. They get rid of the ban, we won’t drop a Heller bomb on them with the other stuff. What other people do, we can’t control. But we won’t do it.

They won’t be prepared for the scope of the case we’re going to bring. Let’s just say we’ll have more than 5 plaintiffs and one heck of a strong argument.

[MileHi]

The Miller court found that they could not say Millers short barreled shotgun was protected by 2A because they had no evidence that it was a normal militia weapon.

A machine gun is clearly a normal militia weapon, so how is it not protected by 2A?

[Durus]

I will definitly donate. Thanks for your efforts!

I encourage everyone (that has already donated to FR) to help out in any way they can.

[Durus]

That was the arguement used in the lower court that won. It was not brought up in the USSC because the plantiffs were not represented.

[BCR #226]

I agree. The Miller case was an illegal decision by SCOTUS however since there was no representation by defense. It is a case that must, at some point, have a re-hearing at SCOTUS with defense represented.

The way the prosecution won was also shady as hell too. The prosecutor should burn for eternity for that. I doubt he realized, or maybe he did, just what that poor judgement on his part has wrought.

[MileHi]

It was not brought up in the USSC because the plantiffs were not represented.

The defendant was not represented in the hearing because he was dead so his counsel did not show up. That is why the Court said that they had no evidence regarding the shotgun, because none was presented.