How to make your Saiga Always Compliant with Valid US Gun Laws

[Bagels 10]

How to make your Saiga Always Compliant with Valid US Gun Laws. Well, to do so requires you first have a basic understanding of the law and the organization of our government under that law. The place to start is the constitution which as you know is the foundational set of laws that clearly defines how our nation's government is to function. It can only be changed through a " constitutional convention" process that is defined within and anything else is fiat, to respectfully ignore if possible. The constitution itself is not changed by a supreme court decision - but others in complete error may say otherwise, The Constitution is not changed by any branch of government acting outside of the limits set within. The constitution was written to be easily understood and if you have any questions, a dictionary of that time period can provide ample clarity. If additional insight is required, the letters and writings of the founders and those whom inspired them can provide this as can the documents which proceeded it such as the declaration of independence. No modern attorney, judge, politician, twisting language to fit their agenda is honestly interpreting, in fact such twisting is clearly an act of treason. Unconstitutional laws are not made constitutional by the Supreme Court, that is a fiction they want you to accept, nor does any administrative or legislative fiat override the constitution.

 

Some may say the founders could not even imagine a gun like a Saiga, and I say how ridiculous. Could any soldier trying to reload not try to imagine a gun that could be loaded more rapidly, that could fire repeatedly,.....ofcourse they did and the authors of the 2nd amendment had themselves witnessed a continuous improvement in weapon designs during their own lives.

 

So, How To Make Your Saiga Always Compliant with Valid US Gun Laws - Accept no infringement on your rights to keep and bear arms. If a constitutional convention is called, make sure that those attending know you will not accept anything less and remind them that they each swore the following:

 

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

 

To attack the inalienable rights is a violation of their oath and that it is the duty of those whom benefit from those rights to exercise them as defined.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated militia" is a militia made of citizens and being well regulated is suggesting they be practiced - so do so! It does not say these arms should only be held by those under a branch of government under regulations - that is intentional twisting of the meaning as the use of the word as defined in that time period is different - it means practiced.

 

"being necessary to the security of a free State" means that these armed citizens may need to use them to keep their state a land of freedom under the constitution when all else fails.

 

Now, I am not an attorney, but you do not need one. What you need is the intolerance of tyranny, lots of Saigas and ammo, and the heart of courage and justice to act if required for... the security of our free state.

[Remek 771]

You don't ever really need an attorney, when you are in the right. Your statements are 100% correct.

[macbeau 902]

According to some pundits, you'd need to weld the bolt to the trunnion and add a ramrod and flintlock ignition system, and store it in an approved shooting clubs approved gun locker....

That might make it CA compliant, with proper registration and permiting for FY 2016...

Maybe...

[mancat 2,368]

does this mean that I can build NFA firearms without registration because I believe I can?

[Remek 771]

No, it means you can, because 2A is 2A, regardless of what people say. Then again, I'd say its the wrong to push it, and would have ramifications that could actually lead to overturning 2A. Also, it might mean prison stints, or other, and your life would likely be ruined.

[mancat 2,368]

I agree with the idea of the OP in that almost every firearms law on the books is technically unconstitutional, but this is likely not a good legal defense should you find yourself in a jail cell awaiting trial for possession of numerous NFA items and 922r violations.

[Remek 771]

^^^ agreed. That is what I was trying to say. Moreover, I'd argue that if we suddenly had people shooting select-fire weapons everywhere, we'd receive a backlash beyond reason at this point. Tread lightly when the baby is sensitive (and I do mean baby, these are behaving like infants, so we must treat them with kid gloves, while being stern on our position).

[Ronin38 2,117]

I've always wondered why we can "plead the 5th", but we can never "plead the 2nd."

[macbeau 902]

I want "reasonable and common-sense" changes to the 3rd Amendment.

It would help cut runaway DOD spending. That, and what barrel-chested, freedom loving patriotic, American wouldn't welcome one (or more) of our brave warriors into our home?

I say it's put up or shut up time....

 

Macbeau sends...

I've always wondered why we can "plead the 5th", but we can never "plead the 2nd."

Read Miller V. U.S. (or U.S. V. Miler?)

It was tried with an SBS as the focus. (which was found to be unsuitable as a "malitia arm").

[Beretty 37]

My favorite part of the ruling is "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." Since a sawed off double barrel Stevens shotgun was never issued to military it didn't count as being PROTECTED by the 2nd Amendment. I want to know why my (imaginary) B.A.R. and M-16 are not protected.

[Remek 771]

My favorite part of the ruling is "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." Since a sawed off double barrel Stevens shotgun was never issued to military it didn't count as being PROTECTED by the 2nd Amendment. I want to know why my (imaginary) B.A.R. and M-16 are not protected.

 

I'd like to correct your misunderstanding. The court was saying that it is not on the record of the defense that the SBS was an arm utilized for military purposes in US v. Miller. The court cannot go outside what actual data they have been provided with, they would instead have had to send it back to the district court to start over. However, one guy was dead at that point, they had no attorney, and had to be appointed another one, and it was a useless ruling, except they WERE trying to say that all military-style arms were protected. Their statement was along the lines, therefore, that because no information was available as to the use of such weapon in a military setting, it had no protection under the second amendment, as much as their purview was allowed.

 

Unfortunately, the problem is in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which they side-tracked the previous court's rulings and brought in a new slant, the simple "self-defense" stance. Under it, they colored the decision in US v. Miller and stated that their view of "self-defense" was also consistent with their review process, as Miller discussed "common" use. They took the "military" out of it. Then the court stated that "unusual and dangerous" was the criteria to look at. They then found that handguns were the most common form of firearm for self-defense, and therefore it was protected under the second amendment. What this means, however, at least for the next ruling, is that there is no way logically to find that an AWB or 30-rd magazines are not protected. Not unless they are willing to overrule themselves, and this would lead to questions about impeachment of our justices. (note the dangerous part of "unusual and dangerous" does not need to be considered, because they did not consider it in Heller, so the test is not "unusual or dangerous", but it has to be both "unusual AND dangerous" (EMPHASIS added).

 

So, we are already staring down the barrel of a bad decision of the supreme court, but we are also looking at a situation that should have no logical effect to support any such bans at the very least.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Remek

[Bagels 10]

Just because we may understand the constitution and the intended meaning does not prevent those acting unconstitutionally from causing us problems, so you best think out the consequences (risk and reward) before choosing to ignore the fiat. Sadly, In lower courts judges tend to make rulings not based on the constitution, but simply on past rulings. This in effect creates a type of legislation and while you can appeal , when if and when you reach the supreme court that is charged with being the final court of appeals, a court that does in theory use the constitution in making their rulings, they may choose not to hear your case or worse yet, make a clearly unconstitutional ruling.

 

It was once said, "There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order". And if you get exhaust the others and get to the last box, know that those who live by the sword usually die by sword.