[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.

[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?

[Joe Brower]