Fed Court Strikes Down Machine Gun Ban

07 February 2025, 19:52

Aspen Hill Adventures

I wonder how this will go?

A federal court in Mississippi has ruled that the federal ban on machine guns lacks historical precedent and is therefore unconstitutional.

The decision in United States v. Brown marks the second time a court has struck down such a ban, raising questions about the future of automatic firearm regulations in the U.S.

More here

07 February 2025, 19:59

ledvm

I believe that is the correct position. It will be unpopular to 1/2 the public...but true. We will see how politics influences the courts from here on out. I am sure my stalker Joshua will be along to tell me how wrong I am.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Lane Easter, DVM

A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House

No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991.

07 February 2025, 20:16

TomP

It was a tax, not a ban, same as with marijuana.
Require a tax stamp, and somehow not print any stamps or make them prohibitively expensive.
Our state law is a real ban, and might not be constitutional.

07 February 2025, 21:15

Mike Mitchell

I didn't read it carefully but I don't understand the "unusual" prong of the analysis.

So, if there are 740,000 hand grenades in circulation, any law banning hand grenades is unconstitutional because, while dangerous, they are not deemed "unusual"?

It's a goofy standard.

07 February 2025, 21:41

LHeym500

Sine you asked,

The NFA specifically has been upheld constitutional twice.

Heller and McDonald specifically reasserted the NFA as constitutional. Justice Scilla focused on weapons in general use are protected by the incorporated right.

So, yes the holding and you are wrong. Not because of what I like nor want, but because of the legal standard created by controlling precedent.

I hope S. Ct., does not adopt this bastardized interpretation of Heller/McDonakd. The S. Ct., to do so will have to rewrite those precedents.

08 February 2025, 04:26

Jefffive

This nonsense "historical precedent" standard is untenable, or any technology not in use at the Founding cannot be regulated.

Speed limits were not in force in the 1770s.

All regulations relating to airplanes would be unconstitutional.

It's absurd.

08 February 2025, 04:31

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by Jefffive:
This nonsense "historical precedent" standard is untenable, or any technology not in use at the Founding cannot be regulated.

Speed limits were not in force in the 1770s.

All regulations relating to airplanes would be unconstitutional.

It's absurd.

trump would like a word about the 14th, fifi -- oh, and the 1st -- i am certain that they didn't think about the internet and highspeed printers in the 1780s through 1791 (do try to get educated about the constitution, fifi .. you are ALWAYS wrong on anything past a 3rd grade level)

08 February 2025, 17:13

ledvm

quote:
I hope S. Ct., does not adopt this bastardized interpretation of Heller/McDonakd. The S. Ct., to do so will have to rewrite those precedents.

Precisely why I hope they do.

Going down the wrong path over and over and calling it precedent and finally defaulting stare decisis is not intelligence…it is the definition of insanity.

09 February 2025, 00:33

frankinthelaurels

Just what we need, it'll bump up the mass numbers beautifully. Fucking sick..

09 February 2025, 02:37

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
Just what we need, it'll bump up the mass numbers beautifully. F*cking sick..

Frank(screaming)inthe laurels loves drug dealers, terrorist, murders, rapist, and illegal aliens more than the rule of law-- in his blind hatred of one man, he's willing to ignore the rule of law ---

but hey, you do you, boo

09 February 2025, 04:20

TomP

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I didn't read it carefully but I don't understand the "unusual" prong of the analysis.

So, if there are 740,000 hand grenades in circulation, any law banning hand grenades is unconstitutional because, while dangerous, they are not deemed "unusual"?

It's a goofy standard.

We have the "Any Other Weapon" criteria as well, which nearly a ban on improving civilian weapons.
Our goal should be responsible free citizens instead of restricting options to the lowest common denominator.

09 February 2025, 06:20

Scott King

quote:
Originally posted by TomP:

Our goal should be responsible free citizens instead of restricting options to the lowest common denominator.

But we don't even try do we?

The evolution of the M16 is the easy example. The high capacity magazine military rifle has been altered and modified and remodeled into a thousand different models.

My favorite is the argument that it's a handgun. Switch this that and the other part out, shave it, shrink it, put a grip on it and we all grin, nod our head and tell each other it's just like a .38 Special, only different.

It's a Sporting Rifle! Baloney. I haven't seen an AR yet that compares in utility or usage as a Sporting Rifle to my 7x57 or -06, not to mention my 9.3 or 458. There's a guy here that used a 375 Raptor to shoot a nice big brown bear 13 times! Thirteen shots! Funniest part is he was proud of it. Should have been ashamed.

If our goal was responsible citizens, gun associations would be out front with gun safety for the public, gun security for the public and self regulation in industry and gun manufacturing.

Chris Kyle was a fine American I have no doubt and the Hint for Osama Binladen a great story and show, but neither should be the model for sitting in a duck blind or walking deer trails.

09 February 2025, 06:25

Mike Mitchell

quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by TomP:

Our goal should be responsible free citizens instead of restricting options to the lowest common denominator.

But we don't even try do we?

The evolution of the M16 is the easy example. The high capacity magazine military rifle has been altered and modified and remodeled into a thousand different models.

My favorite is the argument that it's a handgun. Switch this that and the other part out, shave it, shrink it, put a grip on it and we all grin, nod our head and tell each other it's just like a .38 Special, only different.

It's a Sporting Rifle! Baloney. I haven't seen an AR yet that compares in utility or usage as a Sporting Rifle to my 7x57 or -06, not to mention my 9.3 or 458. There's a guy here that used a 375 Raptor to shoot a nice big brown bear 13 times! Thirteen shots! Funniest part is he was proud of it. Should have been ashamed.

If our goal was responsible citizens, gun associations would be out front with gun safety for the public, gun security for the public and self regulation in industry and gun manufacturing.

Chris Kyle was a fine American I have no doubt and the Hint for Osama Binladen a great story and show, but neither should be the model for sitting in a duck blind or walking deer trails.

Wisdom.