9th Makes best statement to date

[BGutzman]

OK admittedly I’m something of an idealist on gun rights.... But seriously the NFA in my opinion is far from being undefeatable... I can see the court would rule they have the right to tax but how a tax would somehow limit production seems a stretch especially in order for there to be a tax you must have viable weapons...

Further the 2A says Arms and if you want to be specific this seems to indicate all manner of weapons. I have even read that it was known that there were a very few custom muskets in the revolutionary war that apparently fired multiple rounds in a Roman candle sort of fashion. Seems like they must have had a side chamber to hold a small powder charge that acted as a fuse but thats just my guess...

In any case its clear that these arms were intended to be used as weapons of war, weapons of war would seem to include all manner of full and semi auto firearms....

Now if only the SCOTUS can make another decison that spells this all out without waiting another 100 years.... honestly shame on them for not having sorted this all out long ago...

 

[Tom Servo]

Now if only the SCOTUS can make another decison that spells this all out without waiting another 100 years.... honestly shame on them for not having sorted this all out long ago.

Actually, it's not their fault we've never been able to bring the right case to justify addressing this. Most appeals for NFA violations are brought by guys we just don't want representing us, and cases that don't ask the right questions in the right context.

 

[Jim March]

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and the writings of Jefferson, Madison and others talks about citizen arms as a counter-balance against state and/or federal force. That tosses all the arguments about "proper weapons" right the heck out.

BUT, I don't view this as all that important. Reason being, I believe that in an insurgency situation, a good scoped bolt-gun in a real rifle caliber will be of much more use than an M4 with "da switch". A really good AR-10 variant in 308NATO/Win with a heavy barrel and a good scope might be even better, if it can reach out to 800yds or so - and the very best can. But a big mag won't mean a whole lot when the goal is "hit and run".

This is nothing new. We hurt the British the worst when we did hit-and-run with Kentucky Longrifles against their shorter-range, faster reloading Brown Bess smoothbores. We didn't hang around for them to reload in most cases - we got off one aimed shot at 200 yards they couldn't answer, they charged, we ran away. History could easily repeat itself.

Anybody who thinks a pitched battle with US forces on American soil would be a good idea is nuts. Long range rifles are the last practical gasp of the real 2nd Amendment. Fortunately the people who own and actually master such critters are serious martial artists and don't tend to go off half cocked mentally. That's a good thing. If things get bad enough to bring that crowd out to play, or even a small subset of that crowd, America would be a really ugly place to try and be a dictator to.

Remember: Saddam Hussein allowed a surprisingly large number of people personal ownership of full-auto AK-47s in Iraq. But he flat banned *anybody* having scoped bolt-guns - very few if any of his military had access to those and zero legally in private channels.

He wasn't *totally* nuts.

 

[maestro pistolero]

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and the writings of Jefferson, Madison and others talks about citizen arms as a counter-balance against state and/or federal force. That tosses all the arguments about "proper weapons" right the heck out.

BUT, I don't view this as all that important. Reason being, I believe that in an insurgency situation, a good scoped bolt-gun in a real rifle caliber will be of much more use than an M4 with "da switch". A really good AR-10 variant in 308NATO/Win with a heavy barrel and a good scope might be even better, if it can reach out to 800yds or so - and the very best can. But a big mag won't mean a whole lot when the goal is "hit and run".

My Armalite AR10-T 20" shoots under 1 MOA. It will ding a 30-inch steel plate all day at 960 yards (the furthest distance available on our silhouette range). Of course, I'm 'bagged in' and shooting Federal Gold Match Sierra Match King 175 gr.

This is nothing new. We hurt the British the worst when we did hit-and-run with Kentucky Longrifles against their shorter-range, faster reloading Brown Bess smoothbores. We didn't hang around for them to reload in most cases - we got off one aimed shot at 200 yards they couldn't answer, they charged, we ran away. History could easily repeat itself.

Anybody who thinks a pitched battle with US forces on American soil would be a good idea is nuts. Long range rifles are the last practical gasp of the real 2nd Amendment. Fortunately the people who own and actually master such critters are serious martial artists and don't tend to go off half cocked mentally. That's a good thing. If things get bad enough to bring that crowd out to play, or even a small subset of that crowd, America would be a really ugly place to try and be a dictator to.

Agreed, I have the same confidence, Jim. Confidence that there are plenty of patriots at all levels of government that won't let things ever get that far.

And confidence that, somewhat ironically, as long as we have a robust second amendment, we will never need it for it's most important role of suppressing tyranny.

 

[Webleymkv]

Perhaps it's just my Libertarian streak, but the whole notion of machine guns not being protected because they are "unusual" and "not typically possessed or used for law-abiding purposes" just rubs me the wrong way. The reason that machine guns are "unusual" and "not typically possessed or used for law-abiding purposes" is because the gov't made sure that civilian ownership of full-auto weapons was "killed in the crib". When the NFA was passed, full-auto was really in its infancy and there were only a few hand-held full auto weapons available with the most common probably being the BAR and Thompson. By imposing a $200 tax on what were already very expensive weapons, the gov't created a de-facto ban since only the very wealthy could afford to legally own a full-auto weapon, particularly at the height of the Great Depression.

Similarly, the Hughes Amendment created a de-facto ban. Because the Hughes Amendment limits the supply of legal machine guns to those already registered before 1986, it drives the prices of that limited supply much higher than what they would otherwise be. While many people could, in theory, own a legal machine gun, the $10K+ prices that most of them have reached due to the Hughes Amendment places them beyond most people's financial reach.

It is ironic almost to the point of comedy that one branch of the government can tell us that we have no right to an "unusual" weapon when the other two branches of the same government conspired to ensure that the weapon was "unusual" to begin with.