mrapathy2000
member
he could probably get away with a 80% receiver which is not considered a firearm just scrap.
though 0% is more fool proof than 80%.
good luck.
though 0% is more fool proof than 80%.
good luck.
2A Court Challenge
- Thread starter bamawrx
- Start date
- Status
twoblink
Member
I'd go ahead and PM El Tejon... He's a lawyer on the right side of things on THR here..
patentnonsense
Member
1) Yes, there are lawyers here.
2) I applaud your plan. Be sure you have the resources to carry through with your part of it, but it's worth doing. Judges can only decide cases which come before them - so you're doing a service to all of us when you give a judge the chance to look at unconstitutional firearms laws.
3) Your state RKBA association can be a big help in finding the right lawyer - lots of their board members may be lawyers.
4) Your state RKBA association can also be a big help in obtaining free support for you - I gather that you aren't poor, but the cost of a lawsuit can be large. One resource to think about is volunteer help from students at your local law school - are you in the same city as U.Ala.? Law students are often eager to help on a worthwhile project which gets them some real experience.
5) There have been some odd negative comments in this thread from nonlawyers. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on the Constitution (because it's written to be readable by any literate adult), but not everyone is equally equipped to assess legal tactics.
Godspeed and good luck!
2) I applaud your plan. Be sure you have the resources to carry through with your part of it, but it's worth doing. Judges can only decide cases which come before them - so you're doing a service to all of us when you give a judge the chance to look at unconstitutional firearms laws.
3) Your state RKBA association can be a big help in finding the right lawyer - lots of their board members may be lawyers.
4) Your state RKBA association can also be a big help in obtaining free support for you - I gather that you aren't poor, but the cost of a lawsuit can be large. One resource to think about is volunteer help from students at your local law school - are you in the same city as U.Ala.? Law students are often eager to help on a worthwhile project which gets them some real experience.
5) There have been some odd negative comments in this thread from nonlawyers. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on the Constitution (because it's written to be readable by any literate adult), but not everyone is equally equipped to assess legal tactics.
Godspeed and good luck!
Jim March
Member
Graystar, you're being both harsh and...well, slightly insulting now. Or at least that's how you're coming across.
The guy is saying more research needs to be done in some areas. Cool. But many of his "core concepts" are a LOT more sane than a lot of stuff we've seen float through here. Heck, one idiot actually built his own full-auto, walked into a police station and demanded the right to challenge the law.
Well he got his chance all right. Moron is still doing time
.
~
Let's talk about Miller and Aymette a sec. Here's Miller's reference to Aymette:
---------------------
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
Miller full case text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
---------------------
Here's Aymette:
---------------------
As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.
One source (on a gun-grabber site): http://www.saneguns.org/sources/cases/aymette_v_state.html
Another just in case the grabbers mis-cite: oh dear, I can't find another source handy. It's late, I can't google all night looking. Let's assume for a sec this is right...
---------------------
The TN Supreme Court in Aymette was trying to support a ban on the concealed carry of handguns and big knives. The snippet I've chosen above is one of many supporting the concept of "militia weapons backed by the 2nd Amendment" being "weapons usable in civilized warfare".
See also Denning's article "CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT":
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
Unfortunately he mis-spelled "Aymette", so see footnote 52:
----------------
[52] This is a remnant of a time when courts were better able to clearly distinguish between "military" weapons that a militia might use, like a rifle, and nonmilitary weapons, like an easily concealable derringer, which some state courts that decided these issues found could be regulated. For a discussion of the difference, see Amyette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 159 (1840) (holding that the legislature has a right to prohibit the wearing of those weapons that are either unfit for "civilized warfare" or incapable of contributing to the common defense). But see Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) (stating that the advent of modern warfare has rendered useless any distinction between "military" and "nonmilitary" weapons).
-----------------
NOTE: a good case can be made that this concept of "militia weapons" has been overturned by the 14th Amendment. But the courts haven't been ready to "go there" yet. In the case of an AR-pattern weapon, it hardly matters, the whole family is clearly an Aymette-approved "weapon of civilized warfare" (if it ain't, the US Military is in DEEP violation of international law every time we shoot one in anger overseas...).
Bamawrx: have you seen this yet?
http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html
It's not directly applicable to what you're up to, but it's a good primer on the whole 14th Amendment issue with links to more data.
The guy is saying more research needs to be done in some areas. Cool. But many of his "core concepts" are a LOT more sane than a lot of stuff we've seen float through here. Heck, one idiot actually built his own full-auto, walked into a police station and demanded the right to challenge the law.
Well he got his chance all right. Moron is still doing time
.~
Let's talk about Miller and Aymette a sec. Here's Miller's reference to Aymette:
---------------------
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
Miller full case text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
---------------------
Here's Aymette:
---------------------
As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.
One source (on a gun-grabber site): http://www.saneguns.org/sources/cases/aymette_v_state.html
Another just in case the grabbers mis-cite: oh dear, I can't find another source handy. It's late, I can't google all night looking. Let's assume for a sec this is right...
---------------------
The TN Supreme Court in Aymette was trying to support a ban on the concealed carry of handguns and big knives. The snippet I've chosen above is one of many supporting the concept of "militia weapons backed by the 2nd Amendment" being "weapons usable in civilized warfare".
See also Denning's article "CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT":
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
Unfortunately he mis-spelled "Aymette", so see footnote 52:
----------------
[52] This is a remnant of a time when courts were better able to clearly distinguish between "military" weapons that a militia might use, like a rifle, and nonmilitary weapons, like an easily concealable derringer, which some state courts that decided these issues found could be regulated. For a discussion of the difference, see Amyette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 159 (1840) (holding that the legislature has a right to prohibit the wearing of those weapons that are either unfit for "civilized warfare" or incapable of contributing to the common defense). But see Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) (stating that the advent of modern warfare has rendered useless any distinction between "military" and "nonmilitary" weapons).
-----------------
NOTE: a good case can be made that this concept of "militia weapons" has been overturned by the 14th Amendment. But the courts haven't been ready to "go there" yet. In the case of an AR-pattern weapon, it hardly matters, the whole family is clearly an Aymette-approved "weapon of civilized warfare" (if it ain't, the US Military is in DEEP violation of international law every time we shoot one in anger overseas...).
Bamawrx: have you seen this yet?
http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html
It's not directly applicable to what you're up to, but it's a good primer on the whole 14th Amendment issue with links to more data.
Graystar
Member
I apologize if that’s how I’m coming across, but I’d hate to see, once again, lots of effort and money go into an endeavor that was DOA from the very start. This was the case with Silveira. Even I could see that it had no chance, and said so several times on this board. As I recall, keepandbeararms.com fundraised and contributed to the case, and now Angel Shamaya doesn’t have any money for a new server that he desperately needs.
I know he’s saying more research needs to be done. The problem is that I can already see that the concept is not viable. From what I read, here is the concept spearheading this effort:
This is absolutely incorrect. There’s nothing obvious about it. California did it, the Ninth Circuit supported it, and the Supreme Court didn’t see a problem with it. The notion that the court “will not be able to make the same claim,†has no basis.
The problem is reliance on this concept of “weapons usable in civilized warfare.†For some reason, you’re simply accepting this concept to mean any weapon that YOU think is usable in civilized warfare. Therein lies the problem. I can almost guarantee that the government will argue that the distinction is made by law, and not by mere appearance or design. Both Miller and Silveira support this concept. Unless you can come up with good arguments as to why this should not be, you will most likely lose.
Vibe
Member
As for introducing "evidence of weapons usable in civilized warfare" or "of weapons usable by a militia". I would think that a listing of the weapons provided or supplied to foriegn "militias" BY THE US GOVERNMENT (most recently AKs for the Iraqis) would be a fairly incontrovertable start - In fact you might want to change the plan to base it around a "homemade" AK as opposed to an AR. At least until you can find evidence that the USA has supplied M-16s to a foriegn "militia"(Would Iran/Contra count?). This tact could already be used against the "Saturday night special" laws...Have you ever looked closely at the "Liberator" pistol that was distributed to the French? If nothing else you could present "evidence" of what the Army thought were weapons of this sort by listing some of the weapons CONFISCATED in Iraq and Afghanistan...which would include a few multi-thousand dollar Drilling side by sides - as well as more than a few Zip-guns.
patentnonsense
Member
Graystar said:
Graystar, you aren't the judge he has to convince - and I don't think he was asking you for funding, was he?
I think our Alabama friend has a fine idea for protecting our civil rights, though he may not appreciate how big a task he faces. I myself am doing what I can on my own projects. If you have better ideas for protecting RKBA, you should pursue them.
Graystar, you aren't the judge he has to convince - and I don't think he was asking you for funding, was he?
I think our Alabama friend has a fine idea for protecting our civil rights, though he may not appreciate how big a task he faces. I myself am doing what I can on my own projects. If you have better ideas for protecting RKBA, you should pursue them.
sumpnz
Member
Subscribing. Even if he does lose good can still come of it. Generally when a court rules against you they give a long winded reason as to why they ruled against you. From that, lessons can be learned and applied to future cases to avoid the pitfalls that sank the previous cases. Also, even if the case goes wholly against us, at least we'll know where we stand on certain issues instead of having to guess about ambiguities.
BowStreetRunner
Member
good luck with the suit
BSR
BSR
Jim March
Member
The US gov't supplied M16s to the Israelis for use in their civilian reserves. Many made their way into the settlement defense "forces" which are CLEARLY a "militia". Our continued support for Israel shows quite conclusively that we consider them "civilized" (and for the record, I for one believe they mostly are, much moreso than Arafat's Hamas barbarians).
Anyways. There's your conclusive "militia use" if need be. The US National Guard being another...it's got some "militia features" but isn't really (it's a standing army more than it is a militia; the Israeli settlement defense forces are much closer to a real 1792-type militia than anything we've formally got now).
Anyways. There's your conclusive "militia use" if need be. The US National Guard being another...it's got some "militia features" but isn't really (it's a standing army more than it is a militia; the Israeli settlement defense forces are much closer to a real 1792-type militia than anything we've formally got now).
Desertdog
Member
Personally, I would rather see you going after a case of somebody unable to defend themselves physcially, that had used a concealed firearm in self-defense and charged with illegal weapons possession.
Desertdog, the problem with this is that even in Europe people who do this are very often let off. There's only a few states left that won't issue permits. This is an attack on a different front.
I'd really like to be able to purchase my own M-16. Without the ban, they'd go for about $600. I'd be able to buy my very own weapon, the same as what I will be issued when I deploy to a dangerous location. I know the AR-15 is 'similar', but if I'm going to be spending the money, I'd want the select fire.
In my position, I'm liable to be deployed to dangerous locations, and yet, the military considers giving me firearms training only every two years sufficient. I don't agree, but the way the system is set up now, I can't even buy my own ammo and 'rent' a M-16 for practice.
I'd really like to be able to purchase my own M-16. Without the ban, they'd go for about $600. I'd be able to buy my very own weapon, the same as what I will be issued when I deploy to a dangerous location. I know the AR-15 is 'similar', but if I'm going to be spending the money, I'd want the select fire.
In my position, I'm liable to be deployed to dangerous locations, and yet, the military considers giving me firearms training only every two years sufficient. I don't agree, but the way the system is set up now, I can't even buy my own ammo and 'rent' a M-16 for practice.
bamawrx
Member
A brief update:
I spoke to an SOT today that suggested the Form 1 will be the way to go. I have reviewed the form, and it seems to be the best fit. The form has a blank for the intended use of the firearm. Any ideas of what to put there? Defense of state purhaps?
Also, Alabama has no RKBA association that I can find. I figure we live in a pro2a state that just simply hasn't caused the gun owners to organize. As a result, I don't have a ready made organization to fall on for support. The first step may be to form such an organization, or get help from a neighboring state.
My main issue right now is lack of a constitutional attorney. Anyone have suggestions?
Edited with new info
I spoke to an SOT today that suggested the Form 1 will be the way to go. I have reviewed the form, and it seems to be the best fit. The form has a blank for the intended use of the firearm. Any ideas of what to put there? Defense of state purhaps?
Also, Alabama has no RKBA association that I can find. I figure we live in a pro2a state that just simply hasn't caused the gun owners to organize. As a result, I don't have a ready made organization to fall on for support. The first step may be to form such an organization, or get help from a neighboring state.
My main issue right now is lack of a constitutional attorney. Anyone have suggestions?
Edited with new info
Last edited:
Bobarino
member
for purpose, i'd put "to maintain the security of a free state". that puts you right in line with the second amendment.
Bobby
Bobby
Foreign Devil
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 507
Why don't you put "for defense of self and the state".
I can't believe there's no right to bear arms group in Alabama.
I can't believe there's no right to bear arms group in Alabama.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Start with checking out IDPA and IPSC folks. It's the old deal that somebody knows somebody else who's into 2A activism.
Art
Art
bamawrx
Member
Update:
Contacted every IDPA organization in the State of Alabama today. Also, made contact with attorney that may be able to help. Thanks for ideas and input. Keep your ideas coming.
Contacted every IDPA organization in the State of Alabama today. Also, made contact with attorney that may be able to help. Thanks for ideas and input. Keep your ideas coming.
patentnonsense
Member
Thanks for updating us -
Isn't there a state affiliate of the NRA? I thought the NRA had an affiliate in every state??
Isn't there a state affiliate of the NRA? I thought the NRA had an affiliate in every state??
Diggler
Member
Every time a case like this goes through the legal system it gives us, if nothing else, information on how to better build our case for the next time and may bring to light angles or precedents that hadn't been previously considered.
A tree is cut down one stroke at a time.
A tree is cut down one stroke at a time.
bamawrx
Member
Letter to constitutional lawyer
I sent this letter today to a constitutional lawyer in Birmingham, AL. I will let you all know what he says.
Dear Mr. XXX,
I was referred to you by my brother XXX XXX. I asked him for a constitutional lawyer that might be interested in a good old fashion fight. Unfortunately, I need such a lawyer.
I have decided to stop complaining about the governments systematic disarming of the American people, and do something about it. I have formulated a plan that will allow me to form the necessary justiciability to challenge the most restrictive gun control laws on the books without first breaking any laws.
My plan is simple. Send a Form 1, citizenship form, finger print card, and a check for the required $200 to the NFA branch of the ATFE in Washington DC. The forms are for the proposed manufacture of an M-16 style selective fire rifle.
This request will be denied, in part, based on the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986. I plan to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the applicable statutes. The "home made" nature of the request is designed to help avoid interstate commerce claims, and the M-16 was selected as it is arguably suitable for use in the "militia" in the defense of the state as defined by our founding fathers. The militia suitability is important as that was the given reason for the failure of US vs. Miller. In that case the court denied the second amendment claim as the firearm in question was a short barreled shotgun, and had no use in the militia. Never mind the fact that the short barreled shotgun predates rifled bores in civilized warfare.
I know this case will take years and require extensive financial resources. I have prepared the necessary funds to start the case, and have commitments from interested parties over the internet to help in fund raising. I have watched countless gun owners send checks to legal defense funds to help defend other gun owners in civil and criminal court. I am persuaded they will stand up and support this case too.
I hope you are interested in such an esoteric endeavor. I have researched this matter extensively, and cannot rest until a court is given the opportunity to hear the evidence. Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
XXX XXXX
I sent this letter today to a constitutional lawyer in Birmingham, AL. I will let you all know what he says.
Dear Mr. XXX,
I was referred to you by my brother XXX XXX. I asked him for a constitutional lawyer that might be interested in a good old fashion fight. Unfortunately, I need such a lawyer.
I have decided to stop complaining about the governments systematic disarming of the American people, and do something about it. I have formulated a plan that will allow me to form the necessary justiciability to challenge the most restrictive gun control laws on the books without first breaking any laws.
My plan is simple. Send a Form 1, citizenship form, finger print card, and a check for the required $200 to the NFA branch of the ATFE in Washington DC. The forms are for the proposed manufacture of an M-16 style selective fire rifle.
This request will be denied, in part, based on the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986. I plan to file suit to challenge the constitutionality of the applicable statutes. The "home made" nature of the request is designed to help avoid interstate commerce claims, and the M-16 was selected as it is arguably suitable for use in the "militia" in the defense of the state as defined by our founding fathers. The militia suitability is important as that was the given reason for the failure of US vs. Miller. In that case the court denied the second amendment claim as the firearm in question was a short barreled shotgun, and had no use in the militia. Never mind the fact that the short barreled shotgun predates rifled bores in civilized warfare.
I know this case will take years and require extensive financial resources. I have prepared the necessary funds to start the case, and have commitments from interested parties over the internet to help in fund raising. I have watched countless gun owners send checks to legal defense funds to help defend other gun owners in civil and criminal court. I am persuaded they will stand up and support this case too.
I hope you are interested in such an esoteric endeavor. I have researched this matter extensively, and cannot rest until a court is given the opportunity to hear the evidence. Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
XXX XXXX
sumpnz
Member
bama,
A thought for the future. Give us these letters before you send them so that we can make corrections, and suggestions for improvements. I think that if I spent 30 minutes I could have helped make significant improvements in that letter. Maybe not, but everybody I've talked to (my dad, my wife, and numerous high school and college classmates) seems to think I'm pretty good at that.
FWIW.
A thought for the future. Give us these letters before you send them so that we can make corrections, and suggestions for improvements. I think that if I spent 30 minutes I could have helped make significant improvements in that letter. Maybe not, but everybody I've talked to (my dad, my wife, and numerous high school and college classmates) seems to think I'm pretty good at that.
FWIW.
effengee
Member
We, the people and the second amendment
Friends, Brothers-and-Sisters-in-arms, People whom I respect, if for no other reason than the fact that we all agree on our right to keep and bear arms...
I want you all to refer to Mr. Thomas Jefferson, who stated that we should not look upon the constitution in a niggardly (sorry, his words, not mine) fashion. But to harken back to the days of it's formation and the spirit of the debates that brought it about....
OK that's not verbatim, but it means not to read the constitution in a way that destroys an individual's definition of the inherent rights of all citizens in how they, themselves, define the pursuit of happiness or the security of a free state, both personally and collectively.
There was never any want for a standing army nor a governing agency that would hold sway over the citizens.
WE, THE PEOPLE.........
That's us, you and me.
I know it gets frustrating trying to explain your ideas only to have someone dash them when seen in a different light.
However, when you seek the opinions of others, you must first set aside your own pre-conceived ideas so that you can observe theirs in an unbiased manner. It's great that you are doing what you are doing.
Power to you...
Remember that the militia is NOT the military but able bodied male citizens of an age between 16 and 45 to be called upon in times of need and to provide their own arms of warfare and that defines why there is/was a need for all citizens to be allowed to keep and bear arms. Besides the fact that the King didn't allow subjects to keep and bear arms, for many, it was the only means for putting food on the table or money in the pocket.
The term "ARMS" when used in the constitution can only be defined as man-portable weapons that serve as a means of personal defensive/offensive capability and in common use at the time. There are still edged weapons on the modern battlefield. There are always various firearms, both semi and fully automatic. There are still single-shot rifles. There are always explosives. I don't see why we, the people, are being punished for the crimes of others who have no respect or regard for laws.
Freedom fighters and terrorists aren't technically militia either. They fight for their own cause, not in the defense of the State.
What exactly is "civilized warfare"?
What exactly is a "militia weapon"
Although most people would agree that WW2 certainly fits the bill of "civilized warfare" I hardly doubt any of the millions of people slaughtered in the genocide would choose to call it "civilized"
Doesn't anybody read the same history of WW2 I've read where the German soldiers, Arguably some of the best equipped and trained State-sponsored professional soldiers in the world at the time were killed by civillians who were armed with little more than farm implements.
Imagine what these people could have done to stop the slaughter had they not given up their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every day by KEEPING and BEARING arms.
They still might have died, but I bet they would have made a difference.
"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."
What is so FREAKING hard to understand?
Why do they always blather on in liberal gibberish about what "we, the poeple" get from the first amendment and then say that "the people" in the second are exclusively those in the militia.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... are the key operative words in this statement...
If that's the case then let it be like other places, where I can go into the State sponsored armory and sign out a fully automatic weapon.
Just dropping my 2 cents worth,
Jim
Friends, Brothers-and-Sisters-in-arms, People whom I respect, if for no other reason than the fact that we all agree on our right to keep and bear arms...
I want you all to refer to Mr. Thomas Jefferson, who stated that we should not look upon the constitution in a niggardly (sorry, his words, not mine) fashion. But to harken back to the days of it's formation and the spirit of the debates that brought it about....
OK that's not verbatim, but it means not to read the constitution in a way that destroys an individual's definition of the inherent rights of all citizens in how they, themselves, define the pursuit of happiness or the security of a free state, both personally and collectively.
There was never any want for a standing army nor a governing agency that would hold sway over the citizens.
WE, THE PEOPLE.........
That's us, you and me.
I know it gets frustrating trying to explain your ideas only to have someone dash them when seen in a different light.
However, when you seek the opinions of others, you must first set aside your own pre-conceived ideas so that you can observe theirs in an unbiased manner. It's great that you are doing what you are doing.
Power to you...
Remember that the militia is NOT the military but able bodied male citizens of an age between 16 and 45 to be called upon in times of need and to provide their own arms of warfare and that defines why there is/was a need for all citizens to be allowed to keep and bear arms. Besides the fact that the King didn't allow subjects to keep and bear arms, for many, it was the only means for putting food on the table or money in the pocket.
The term "ARMS" when used in the constitution can only be defined as man-portable weapons that serve as a means of personal defensive/offensive capability and in common use at the time. There are still edged weapons on the modern battlefield. There are always various firearms, both semi and fully automatic. There are still single-shot rifles. There are always explosives. I don't see why we, the people, are being punished for the crimes of others who have no respect or regard for laws.
Freedom fighters and terrorists aren't technically militia either. They fight for their own cause, not in the defense of the State.
What exactly is "civilized warfare"?
What exactly is a "militia weapon"
Although most people would agree that WW2 certainly fits the bill of "civilized warfare" I hardly doubt any of the millions of people slaughtered in the genocide would choose to call it "civilized"
Doesn't anybody read the same history of WW2 I've read where the German soldiers, Arguably some of the best equipped and trained State-sponsored professional soldiers in the world at the time were killed by civillians who were armed with little more than farm implements.
Imagine what these people could have done to stop the slaughter had they not given up their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every day by KEEPING and BEARING arms.
They still might have died, but I bet they would have made a difference.
"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."
What is so FREAKING hard to understand?
Why do they always blather on in liberal gibberish about what "we, the poeple" get from the first amendment and then say that "the people" in the second are exclusively those in the militia.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... are the key operative words in this statement...
If that's the case then let it be like other places, where I can go into the State sponsored armory and sign out a fully automatic weapon.
Just dropping my 2 cents worth,
Jim
Last edited:
bamawrx
Member
sumpnz,
Thanks for the offer and support.
UPDATE:
My bro had lunch with the lawyer yesterday, and I got the chance to speak to him myself this morning about the case. He had some REALLY interesting questions. As it turns out, this guy has been thinking about the 2a, and was interested that my bro referred me to him. My bro had no idea that the lawyer was interested in a 2a case. (side note: my bro is a lawyer in the same city) It sounds like this is just the kind of guy I have been looking for. He was familiar with US vs. Stewart, and we discussed some of that case. We are planning to discuss my case further perhaps as soon as this afternoon. Thanks to all of you gentlemen that gave input and feedback.
I hate avoiding peoples names and such, but stay with me on this. Once the final plan is put together I will be making a formal announcement disclosing my identity, the details of the plan, and how to give your financial support.
I will be asking for each one of you to help me raise the necessary funds. I can get this started with my own money, but I do NOT have the resources to take it the distance. I suspect that the support my comrades show will have a big impact on the lawyer’s decision to take the case or not.
I need good ideas on fund raising from you all. I have plans for a legal defense fund, but I was thinking about offering color brochure for download in pdf format that you all could print on your own computers and pass out at gun stores, matches, ranges, etc. What do you think?
Thanks for the offer and support.
UPDATE:
My bro had lunch with the lawyer yesterday, and I got the chance to speak to him myself this morning about the case. He had some REALLY interesting questions. As it turns out, this guy has been thinking about the 2a, and was interested that my bro referred me to him. My bro had no idea that the lawyer was interested in a 2a case. (side note: my bro is a lawyer in the same city) It sounds like this is just the kind of guy I have been looking for. He was familiar with US vs. Stewart, and we discussed some of that case. We are planning to discuss my case further perhaps as soon as this afternoon. Thanks to all of you gentlemen that gave input and feedback.
I hate avoiding peoples names and such, but stay with me on this. Once the final plan is put together I will be making a formal announcement disclosing my identity, the details of the plan, and how to give your financial support.
I will be asking for each one of you to help me raise the necessary funds. I can get this started with my own money, but I do NOT have the resources to take it the distance. I suspect that the support my comrades show will have a big impact on the lawyer’s decision to take the case or not.
I need good ideas on fund raising from you all. I have plans for a legal defense fund, but I was thinking about offering color brochure for download in pdf format that you all could print on your own computers and pass out at gun stores, matches, ranges, etc. What do you think?
sumpnz
Member
Talk to Angel Shamaya over at keepandbeararms.com. They poured a bunch of money into the Silveria vs Lockyer case, and have funded other endeavors as well. I'd also look into whether or not the NRA, GOA, JPFO types might be willing to help fund this from their legal coffers. Wouldn't hold my breath on the NRA, but the worst can do at this point is say no (later on they may activly work against you though as they did in Silveria). I'm sure there's others but that what springs to mind.
I'm sure lots of guys here will contribute anywhere from $5-100 if you set up an escrow account for this suit. I'm kinda tapped out right now for discretionary money with upcoming gun purchases (hunting rifle, handgun for my wife for coyote (2 and 4 legged) protection) and other stuff I'll need to go hunting, but I'm sure I can squeeze $20 give or take out of the budget.
The_Antibubba
Member
Which circuit are you in?
I've been following this with great interest, but I don't recall seeing which Court of Appeals you fall under. Is it 5th? Because US v Emerson was Fifth circuit, and the Court gave a very extensive affirmation of the Individual RKBA, in contradiction to Miller v US.
I've been following this with great interest, but I don't recall seeing which Court of Appeals you fall under. Is it 5th? Because US v Emerson was Fifth circuit, and the Court gave a very extensive affirmation of the Individual RKBA, in contradiction to Miller v US.
- Status
Similar threads
