essayons21
Member
I've been reading through quite a bit of 2A caselaw recently, and it seems as though it is time that somebody challenge the NFA. The combination of my interpretations of US v Miller and DC v Heller leads me to believe that portions of the NFA are an unconstitutional ban on the individual RKBA.
First, Miller was a farce. The dude was dead, his lawyers never showed up, and the government attorneys lied, or at best omitted facts. The case found that the 2A only protected "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense," i.e. weaponry useful to the militia. The govt alleged that short barreled shotguns were not military weapons, when it was common knowledge that SBS's were procured and used as trench guns by the US Military in WWI.
Combine this with Heller's affirmation of an individual right and hopefully incorportation under McDonald, I don't see how an outright ban on modern select-fire weapons exactly of the type being used today as "ordinary military equipment" could be held constitutional. It would be up to the court to determine if the restrictions on SBRs and SBSs are "reasonable."
I realize that Heller and McDonald are far more important to far more people right now, and I applaud the priorities of Alan Gura and the NRA. If the 2A is incorporated do you think the NRA will shift its attention to the NFA? I am afraid that they will be afraid because of public opinion ("NRA wants to give everyone machine guns"). Unfortunately they seem to be the only organization with the $$ and legal team to put forth 2A cases consistently to the SCOTUS.
What do you think?
First, Miller was a farce. The dude was dead, his lawyers never showed up, and the government attorneys lied, or at best omitted facts. The case found that the 2A only protected "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense," i.e. weaponry useful to the militia. The govt alleged that short barreled shotguns were not military weapons, when it was common knowledge that SBS's were procured and used as trench guns by the US Military in WWI.
Combine this with Heller's affirmation of an individual right and hopefully incorportation under McDonald, I don't see how an outright ban on modern select-fire weapons exactly of the type being used today as "ordinary military equipment" could be held constitutional. It would be up to the court to determine if the restrictions on SBRs and SBSs are "reasonable."
I realize that Heller and McDonald are far more important to far more people right now, and I applaud the priorities of Alan Gura and the NRA. If the 2A is incorporated do you think the NRA will shift its attention to the NFA? I am afraid that they will be afraid because of public opinion ("NRA wants to give everyone machine guns"). Unfortunately they seem to be the only organization with the $$ and legal team to put forth 2A cases consistently to the SCOTUS.
What do you think?