filthygovemploye 64 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) http://www.ca9.uscou...09/11-30181.pdf anyone know if the NRA or something was helping represent him? seems like they should no? i mean, he could have bought one for 15k, but maybe he didnt have that. now, i guess its your right to buy or sell what you want, at whatever prices. take diamonds for example. everyone cant afford em, but, there is no constitutional right to them either.... food for thought and by all of us, i mean, if most gun owning americans willy nilly chose to pick and choose which laws we would obey, ala congress folks, they couldnt prosecute us all for playin with MG's.... Edited August 10, 2012 by filthygovemploye Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zenman223 460 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 No, they would figure out a way to lock us ALL up. Changing the laws is the only way and that is a huge uphill battle in itself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MT Predator 2,294 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Does filthygovemploye mean you work for the BATFE? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I dont know much about law, but reading that docket I find this: " [4] In short, machine guns are highly “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not “typically possessed by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627. Thus, we hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to machine guns. Moreover, because we conclude 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." Last I checked, law abiding citizens do own machine guns, they just have to jump through more hoops and BS than a lot of us can afford, but they do own them. So thats kinda a false statement. I'd appeal just based off that arguement, and I'd get Nugent as my lawyer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I do find it hypocritcal that they deem a machine gun "unusal" because they originally prohibited it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
U.S. Pratorean 1,234 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Hmmm, yeah and one day, maybe not to far off semi automatic longarms with over 5 round capacity magazines will be deemed unusual and not typically owned by law abiding citizens. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrThunder88 912 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Clearly, the only protection for the guns we have now is to buy more guns. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MT Predator 2,294 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Clearly, the only protection for the guns we have now is to buy more guns. +1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 The clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the militia (common Citizen) can arm themselves with the same weaponry as the common soldier. The 'militia' was meant to be the total body of able Citizens. The weapon of the common soldier was the Brown Bess musket. Before we ever had a standing army, militias commonly owned military muskets and even cannon, for the common defense. Even the Navy was superseded by privateers - armed ships that were privately owned. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolverine 10,360 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 http://www.ca9.uscou...09/11-30181.pdf anyone know if the NRA or something was helping represent him? seems like they should no? i mean, he could have bought one for 15k, but maybe he didnt have that. now, i guess its your right to buy or sell what you want, at whatever prices. take diamonds for example. everyone cant afford em, but, there is no constitutional right to them either.... food for thought and by all of us, i mean, if most gun owning americans willy nilly chose to pick and choose which laws we would obey, ala congress folks, they couldnt prosecute us all for playin with MG's.... What a surprise! They prosecuted the guy for constructing a machine gun. What did he expect? Good luck getting the NRA to take up this case. I have little sympathy for him. As for gun owners all converting their guns to full auto, you go first and we'll see how that works out for you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 My recreational "blow a bunch of ammo frivolously" side wants the fun switch, but my practical side tells me the lack of one isn't going to affect the outcome of my survival if shit goes bad. A semiauto Saiga 12 with buckshot has more firepower than most subguns. Nine 00 pellets multiplied by 20 rounds equates to 180 rounds out of a subgun. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 A semiauto Saiga 12 with buckshot has more firepower than most subguns. Nine 00 pellets multiplied by 20 rounds equates to 180 rounds out of a subgun. Dont say that too loud, the gov might hear ya and add shotguns to the ranks of AKs and ARs with their "hi-cap" mags Quote Link to post Share on other sites
getitat 609 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Hello "Should we trust our government with fully automatic weapons?" -Anon. -guido 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 No matter how onerous the law - or even unconstitutional it may be - DO NOT BREAK THAT LAW! They may not have the moral authority, or the Constitutional authority to put you in jail - BUT- they have the ABILITY to do so! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulcan16 971 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) I smell a troll. Edited August 10, 2012 by Jetmech 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eric Pate 478 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 Was this guy trying to challenge federal law under the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act? (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/) If so, it would be nice if the state of Alaska would help defend him seeing as how they passed a bill which theorhetically makes this legal under state law. Yeah, yeah, I know the FFA was just political posturing and it would never happen but I'd still love to see a state defend its citizens against the fed. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
termite 463 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 FA is FUN AS HELL, but the pocket gets empty pretty damn quick. I used to have fun at the fun store with the toys, but when the wife started seeing my CC bills for ammo, she put the stops to that, faster than the guns run. All FA is good for is shits, giggles, trying to write your name in the bank and suppressive fire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted August 10, 2012 Report Share Posted August 10, 2012 I'd like to have a FA, but probably couldn't afford to feed one. All the IRA needed was a screwdriver to obtain their weapons. If we ever get invaded, there will be shit tons of fully automatic weapons and great equipment to choose from. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 That's what this little pistol was for.... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
filthygovemploye 64 Posted August 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 My recreational "blow a bunch of ammo frivolously" side wants the fun switch, but my practical side tells me the lack of one isn't going to affect the outcome of my survival if shit goes bad. A semiauto Saiga 12 with buckshot has more firepower than most subguns. Nine 00 pellets multiplied by 20 rounds equates to 180 rounds out of a subgun. I'd like to have a FA, but probably couldn't afford to feed one. how aboot a 22lr MG? my point is thatthis guy obviously wasnt robbing banks or knocking over 7-11s. so no harm, no foul. and as far as suggesting construction, its a mental exercise as to how we could get rid of cumbersome laws... not trying to rock the boat, but if ya are in, you are in. if ya wanna ban stuff like bloomberg, perhaps ya are on the wrong forum? we all know that no-ones ever committed a crime with a legal class 3 weapon (save teh cop/mac10/informant incident) so, whats fearsome or scary aboot a crime that NEVER happens? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted August 11, 2012 Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 not too keen on your hypertext link OP. great way to spook the shit out of people. duh! full autos should be legal as should hand grenades but they aren't right now. hollyweird has fucked our chances of getting autos on the shelves again. That's what this little pistol was for.... I'd feel liberated if an allied country dropped a bunch of cheap pistols on us and said have at her..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
filthygovemploye 64 Posted August 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) please explain the concept of non hypertext links... Edited August 11, 2012 by filthygovemploye Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.