Jump to content

Conversion Question... Full Auto Questions are NOT APPROPRIATE!&#3


Recommended Posts

Actually, many states have passed Firearms Freedom Acts which, being as the laws are unconstitutional to begin with, allows citizens of said states to be exempt from laws violating the Second Amendment, as long as they remain intrastate.

 

So shouldn't this be somewhat of a viable discussion? If so and it needs to be in GD, instead of THE LAW move it please, if not i am sure this thread will be closed and I apologize for stirring the pot.

 

I am of the mindset that the laws are themselves illegal and in fact are an infringement, may be soon overturned, and I am 'protected' from them by my State Legislature...and the Constitution of the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the Hughes Amendment and the NFA, as passed, violate the second amendment, they are still the law until they are repealed by the legislature or thrown out by the court.

 

Also, while a lot of states have passed "Firearms Freedom Acts" on paper, they are only laws at the state level and the federal government recently threw out Montana's version of the law. These were passed mostly as feel-good measures for voters and unfortunately have had no real traction at all. In fact, at the signing of a lot of these "Firearms Freedom" acts the legislators themselves who drafted it, urged people not to go out and make any NFA items until the law is validated/invalidated at the federal level.

 

The federal government would still gladly go ahead and enforce the NFA on you, we've seen this recently as they threatened CA recently - if they passed Prop 19, they said they'd still attempt to enforce federal marijuana laws anyway until the courts stopped them.

 

So it all comes down to, how confident are you in your beliefs that the laws will soon be overturned. They won't be overturned anytime soon, even the most pro-gun of senators/reps won't even talk about machine guns/silencers and thanks to movies/TV the general populace, and even a large portion of hunters and shooters are aghast with terror at the mere mention of these words. Are you willing to bet ten years in federal prison, a quarter million in fines and permanent loss of firearms/voting rights and the ability to ever seek gainful employment again?

 

IMO, don't fuck with it. Either pony up for a stamp or wait and see if the NFA/Hughes is ever repealed (which I wouldn't hold my breath for) but at the end of the day it's all up to you.

Edited by Classy Kalashnikov
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I understand the point of the topic?

Last time I checked, we still had a first amendment which protects freedom of speech.

 

However if a knowledgeable LEO is ever in your house for whatever reason, or you show off to a girlfriend, then piss her off & she gets the police there & you are found with a template, AK type weapon & a FA FCG, you're facing time for constructive possession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.

 

I was unaware the subject might be taboo.

Shitty.

Knowledge is best acquired before it's use is required.

I posted how to make Tannerite in the free targets sticky. :angel:

 

Go ask on Bombshock.com or awrm.org if it is.

 

But be prepared to be around a bunch of really interesting fuckers & the feds that watch their every post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of TN, here's a letter the ATF sent them last year after passage of their act. They are not recognizing TN's act at all:

 

atfletter.jpg

 

 

 

"However because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply"

 

This statement, definitely defies the intentions of the founders and authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, if not the letter. The reason we are the "United States of America" is, before the existence of the USA the term "State" generally referred to an Independent, Sovereign Nation, and the intention of the drafters of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to have a loosely bound federation of sovereign "States" (ie Nations).

 

 

ALL actions of the BATF since they became more than a tax collection agency, and for the most part all the actions of the federal government for the last 140 years or so, give or take, have been in defiance of the true intention of the founders of the country,

and the drafters of the above mentioned papers, and as such the agents of government and its many extensions are in effect guilty of treason.

 

 

The ONLY way these "Firearms Freedoms Acts" can succeed would be if some extremely courageous State legislature and Governor were to enforce them by use of the state national guard, and we all know that aint gonna happen.

 

 

The irony is that every day people get charged with offenses by the BATF, an agency whose mere existence is in effect treasonous.

Edited by mav
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"However because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply"

 

I find this statement interesting, so I ask why has the DEA has not gone after the States that allow a person to grow and sell marijuana, if Federal Law supersedes State law? So why is it that California's high-cap magazine laws supersedes Federal Laws?

 

So I am convinced that the Feds only uphold the laws that they feel like upholding...........

 

I do not believe that it is a sin on any forum to talk about FA weapons, but it would be a big no no to discuss the how tos'....

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Classy you can speculate all you want but the fact remains that the laws are unconstitutional. And of course did you have doubt that the bully bulldogs would come in to push their weight around?

Edited by beefcakeb0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Classy you can speculate all you want but the fact remains that the laws are unconstitutional. And of course did you have doubt that the bully bulldogs would come in to push their weight around?

 

Is it unconstitutional? "YES", but when you out number the Gov 100+ to 1 would you not feel threatened and do whatever you could constitutionally or not to try to even the (big) odds?

 

If we had a perfect Government and society we would not be having this discussion, but things are not the way we wish they where.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Beef, all the feel-good rhetoric in the world ain't going to keep the ATF from sending you to club fed for a decade. Like said above, is it wrong? Of course. But does it happen anyway? You bet your ass it does.

 

 

Very true just ask David Olofson..... He was sent to jail over a malfunction...... This guy was a recent honorably discharged Iraq War vet, in the reserve, and he is serving 3 years......... http://gunowners.org/op0850.htm

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel good rhetoric? thats all it is to you ?

what a waste

 

 

Still doesn't mean it won't be corrected one day...and in fact the states have also passed laws protecting the people against FED intervention. As much bs faith you had in the Mcdonald case and this is how you think about the STATES rights. If you had any doubt that the ATF who is not a legislature, would try to pull the same fucking stunt you are naive. The courts may prove me right eventually, you can sit back and be a smart ass about it now but when it happens I am sure you will jump right on board...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel good rhetoric? thats all it is to you ?

what a waste

 

 

Still doesn't mean it won't be corrected one day...and in fact the states have also passed laws protecting the people against FED intervention. As much bs faith you had in the Mcdonald case and this is how you think about the STATES rights. If you had any doubt that the ATF who is not a legislature, would try to pull the same fucking stunt you are naive. The courts may prove me right eventually, you can sit back and be a smart ass about it now but when it happens I am sure you will jump right on board...

 

Hey bud, it's no sweat off my back.

 

Why don't you go construct a machine gun and see how far the "TN Firearms Freedom Act" will protect you :lolol:

 

Just let me know what prison they send you to, and I'll write you often!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we get all revisionist history on the Framers' intent, consider the actual text of the constitution.

 

While the preamble is not a grant of substantive power, it gives some purpose and meaning for the rest of the constitution, and places it in context.

 

The preamble:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

The supremacy clause:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

The necessary and proper clause:

 

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

Four years later, the bill of rights was ratified, which contained the first 10 amendments.

 

The tenth amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Read together, the framers gave the Feds the authority to make laws necessary to carry out their delegated powers, and those laws trump state laws.

 

As far as selective enforcement of the law goes - law enforcement is driven by policy and practical considerations. The Court has given Congress a lot of authority in its interpretation of the commerce clause, which allows the Feds to regulate damn near anything that plausibly could affect interstate commerce or that moves in interstate commerce (including guns). This has happened through a long process of court decisions that were decided on the practical effects of the underlying individual issues, and has grown into a bit of a monster (depending on your point of view on each individual policy issue).

 

The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but what is an arm? It's not defined in the constitution. Heller and McDonald say that it's a weapon in common ownership used for lawful purposes. But that's not the constitution, that's the court's interpretation. Where should the line be drawn? At semi-automatic arms, automatic arms, or nuclear arms? Heller and McDonald say that the second amendment is about self-defense, but some restrictions on weapons procurement are reasonable. Neither case gives an exhaustive list of those restrictions.

 

So what is a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms? Just like the age of consent or the drinking age, an arbitrary line was drawn based on policy considerations. It may be silly that a person can consent to sex on their 18th birthday but not the day before, but that line had to be drawn somewhere to help prevent your 14 year-old daughter from getting knocked up by some 25 year-old creep.

 

It may be silly that a person can't have a fully automatic weapon, but could still spray bullets indiscriminately into a crowd with a semi-auto or snipe with a bolt action, but I'm still glad the average Joe isn't allowed to have easy access to grenades/tanks/nuclear weapons.

 

The NFA is not per se unconstitutional just because its somewhat arbitrary but reasoned conclusions may be ill-advised. When we're talking about undefined terms where the scope of "arms" when written is not the same as it is today, constitutionality is necessarily subject to interpretation.

Edited by Dudethebagman
Link to post
Share on other sites

reasonable restriction

 

Those words, in relation to this subject, almost never mean reasonable as most of us would define it. They are usually used to try to veil extreme unreasonableness.

 

 

 

but I'm still glad the average Joe isn't allowed to have easy access to grenades/tanks/nuclear weapons.

 

 

Very few "average Joe's" could afford a tank, and even less a nuke, but what about being an "average Joe" makes me less trustworthy than someone in the employ of government?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those words, in relation to this subject, almost never mean reasonable as most of us would define it. They are usually used to try to veil extreme unreasonableness.

 

 

Who is us? What would us think in X circumstance with YZ factors? I think it's ridiculous that i have to take my shoes off to get through airport security, but I understand the concern.

 

In Heller, the examples the court gave for "reasonable" restrictions meant firearms restrictions for felons and the mentally ill. However, it could go as far as anyone who has had a civil restraining order filed against them by an angry spouse trying to get leverage in a divorce. My point is that it's hard to make absolute distinctions that fit every circumstance like a glove, but it's necessary to draw the line somewhere.

 

But yeah, 922r and a lot of other gun laws are ineffective at making people safer and generally ridiculous. I follow it anyway because going to prison over a pistol grip would also be ridiculous and isn't really that restrictive.

 

Very few "average Joe's" could afford a tank, and even less a nuke

 

True, but most could afford explosives if they wanted to kill indiscriminately when they go off their meds. There are plenty of crazy bastards out there. I'm glad people don't have easy access to explosives when they're angry. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity." Some restrictions make the average person more free, not less free. Laws against robbery and rape, for example. The laws aren't completely effective, but they surely dissuade plenty of potential robbers/rapists. Some kind of balance needs to be struck between government sponsored violence due to lack of adequate civilian defenses (Tiananmen Square, Kent State) and random wacko violence due to opportunism and convenience (Timothy McVeigh, Al Qaeda).

 

 

what about being an "average Joe" makes me less trustworthy than someone in the employ of government?

 

Oversight, checks and balances. Theoretically, a pre-employment background check could show that you're not Osama bin Laden or something. Still, plenty of people in power abuse their authority. But what better option is there? Governments happen for a reason. Someone's going to take control. Who would you rather have in control of the truncheon, some Afghan-style strongman/warlord, or someone at least nominally accountable to the democratic process? I'd prefer to have my own way all the time too, but that's not realistic because it would trample on someone else's rights. Personally, I resent cops because I think most of them are zealots and bullies, but it's better than the alternative. I'd rather have zealots and bullies put into a system where they are accountable and organized toward some democratic end rather than just freelancing toward their own ends. I don't like how every cent of my tax dollars gets spent, but I put up with it because I do like having roads, fire departments, sanitation, and clean drinking water.

 

That's definitely not to say that we should totally depend on the government and have no contingency plan. The second amendment is part of the checks and balances built into the constitution.

 

I just don't think it's time to give up on the political process yet. The constitution and the rule of law it provides have worked pretty well so far. An entire nation of bitching, name-calling people blaming each other and threatening violence is not any kind of long term solution to our problems. No system is perfect, but there will be a system. The new boss could be worse than the old boss.

Edited by Dudethebagman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...