Defendant is accused of having 'militia' weaponry

[ctdonath]

Membership in a hypothetical or 'sedentary' militia is likewise insufficient.

Congress went thru deliberate action to define an "unorganized militia" - right down to allowing specific exemptions. Is an act of Congress to be casually dismissed as "hypothetical"?

Congress has established the Selective Service System to identify members of the "unorganized militia", and to call them up in times of urgency (where there very well may be little equipment to hand out and little time to train thereon, giving members strong reason to equip & train themselves as more leisurely time permits). Is an organization actively funded & organized by Congress to be casually dismissed as "sedentary"?

The federal "unorganized militia" IS defined and IS maintained at the level Congress sees fit. It CAN be called up, and being necessary to the security of this free country, the right of the people to individually keep and bear arms to facilitate that militia shall not be infringed.

Has anyone laid this out before a court? or have the plaintiffs/defendants just tried to convince "playing army" is Constitutionally protected?

That the 5th Circuit came to a different conclusion alone is enough to compel SCOTUS to resolve the difference.

Emerson did not directly address NFA law. However, it did uphold reasonable restrictions on the individual right

It established courts could find specific limitations on specific individuals in specific cases - ONLY. It also loudly observed that Emerson's particular issue was an extreme stretch for a court.

it allowed a procedural restriction ... without requiring a finding that he actually posed a danger.

They accepted the lower court's finding that there was sufficient danger - and noted that it was very lame. The issue at hand wasn't the degree of danger, but whether sufficient "due process" had been given to the revocation of a specific individual's right - concluding there was, but loudly noting it strained the limits.

a procedural ruling where there was no specific finding which provided a basis for that right to be taken away.

There WAS such a finding. Emerson was accused of threatening his wife, a court reviewed the issue and agreed, law provides for disarming in that circumstance, court gave Emerson a chance to rebut, he didn't, right temporarily revoked. Lame, admitted, but technically allowable.

The whole point of Emerson was that due process, for a specific individual, in a specific case, could have RKBA revoked. Don't confuse this with general restrictions/prohibitions like NFA or 922(o).

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is newflash for the revolution crowd - you are the overwhelming minority, and not in the sense of a powerful one either. If you think that convincing your fellow citizens to stand up for their rights is difficult, you are really not going to like the option of trying to regain your rights through armed conflict.

if you don't have the knowledge or numbers to mount a significant political movement, you certainly don't have the organization or numbers to win a stand up fight. It always amazes me that the same people who claim that they can't win in the political system where votes (i.e. numbers) control the outcome think they are suddenly going to do a lot better in a fight with even fewer numbers, less organization and no money.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Here is newflash for the revolution crowd - you are the overwhelming minority, and not in the sense of a powerful one either. If you think that convincing your fellow citizens to stand up for their rights is difficult, you are really not going to like the option of trying to regain your rights through armed conflict.

I realize that the 'revolution' crowd is small, probably not even enough voices to constitute calling it a minority. I'm beyond convincing my 'fellow citizens' to stand up for their rights because, to me, it's useless. Most of American people are clearly divided between statists and non-statists. Of those not in the previous two categories, you either have non-interested, non-commital, or non-believers that they have lost anything or have no need to 'fight' for it. I have zero faith in about 95% of the population and their beliefs of freedom.

if you don't have the knowledge or numbers to mount a significant political movement, you certainly don't have the organization or numbers to win a stand up fight. It always amazes me that the same people who claim that they can't win in the political system where votes (i.e. numbers) control the outcome think they are suddenly going to do a lot better in a fight with even fewer numbers, less organization and no money.

For me, it's not even thinking about 'winning' the fight violently. We'll lose, and lose big time, either way simply because there are too many people with no concept of freedom. Statism has indoctrinated so many people that I constantly run in to those who believe that you only have the rights the government gave you or that they believe the government is supposed to protect them from all danger, especially from YOU because you have a gun and shouldn't. I have zero faith in 95% of americans and their ideas of what the constitution or freedom is. What is probably worse, is that I can't seem to care about them anymore. They deserve what they will get because of it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm beyond convincing my 'fellow citizens' to stand up for their rights because, to me, it's useless.

Then why are you here? Just to frustrate those of us who aren't beyond that point by declaring that it is useless to try and organize politically?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Then why are you here? Just to frustrate those of us who aren't beyond that point by declaring that it is useless to try and organize politically?

several reasons i'm still here. All new information, stories, and general talk for one. The other, I keep looking for ideas and maybe to give my own, if I think of one, but I no longer hold any illusions that political organization is going to have any effect. The courts are NEVER going to acknowledge a non-infringable right. They MIGHT acknowledge a 'reasonably regulated' right, but what good will 'reasonable regulation' be when it's not defined? The legislature is NOT going to do away with things like 922(o) because of political consequences, not whether it's right or wrong to have that prohibition. The Executive is going to continue to enforce said laws to continue its power and as long as a sizable portion of the population are cowards at heart, convincing them is never going to happen UNLESS every major city in the country experiences an event like Katrina or the 92 riots. Unless people experience first hand how NOT having the police or military there to protect them, they will never concede the right exists as a fundamental right.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The courts are NEVER going to acknowledge a non-infringable right.

I agree. The Court has allowed regulation of every aspect of the Bill of Rights, though they have often restricted the amount of regulation allowed or subjected it to strict tests. This is traditionally because of the idea that nine people who are appointed should not overrule the 535 elected representatives of Congress and their elected President lightly. In theory, the public will indicate their displeasure and Congress can fix whatever mess it made.

They MIGHT acknowledge a 'reasonably regulated' right, but what good will 'reasonable regulation' be when it's not defined?

It will be defined by court cases quickly I imagine since every person accursed of a crime committed with a firearm will seek to explore that territory.

The legislature is NOT going to do away with things like 922(o) because of political consequences, not whether it's right or wrong to have that prohibition.

Again - and what are the political consequences - They are afraid of what their constituents would think of them for doing this.

The Executive is going to continue to enforce said laws to continue its power and as long as a sizable portion of the population are cowards at heart, convincing them is never going to happen UNLESS every major city in the country experiences an event like Katrina or the 92 riots.

And now we get down to the meat of the problem. I don't think that the majority of Americans are cowards at heart. I think most of them live in relative comfort and peace and wish to continue living in relative comfort and peace. As an American living in comfort and peace myself, I share that goal with them. The difference is I believe that a broad individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment serves that goal. Most of the public doesn't share that belief or does not consider it a very important element if they do share that belief. This is where we will suceed or fail; by convincing our fellow Americans that a broad individual rights interpretation aids that goal of bettering and protecting the life they have.

Right now, we aren't doing a great job of it. At least a third of the public (including a few gunowners) believes that a broad individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is actually a threat to their peace and happiness. The vast majority believes that the issue is either irrelevant or not a very significant problem one way or the other.

From what I have read so far in this thread, Fincher looks like a good guy who picked a foolish strategy to advance the Second Amendment, and he will probably be sent to prison for it. Fincher seems to have been planning on jury nullification - which won't ever work as a practical approach unless you already had a wide base of political support. If you had that base, the laws probably wouldn't be there to begin with.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

IMHO things will continue as they are until .gov collapses. Like USSR.

The fascist "President for Life", FDR held his power by giving lots of stuff to the rabble. Yes, most of us are rabble. He started it and continuing presidents, although not "For Life" kept it up because it works. Now we have so many people either feeding at the .gov trough or sucking on the .gov teat that the voting majority would be killing their golden goose to throw the fascists out.

As long as .gov can keep printing bonds and T notes and as long as the burgeoning countries keep buying them the travesty will continue.

When .gov is forced to start paying other countries with gold then the house of cards will fall. When the weasel atf guys and other enforcers find that they get to work for nothing but the love of justice then they will experience a catharsis.

Suddenly, like overnight, they will become one of us, the rabble.

It's gonna hurt but they had their chance. They sold their souls and someday they will have to deliver.

When all of the teat suckers in the country start to act like the poor that got whacked down in Katrina then there will be no place to hide.

Then there will be, suddenly, a majority.

Enjoy.

 

[nobody_special]

nobody?
"Someone should make a "sticky" article in this forum which describes the current legal situation."

Do you refer to our "living constitution? Or to our constitution as it is written, but is not enforced? Do you want to educate the masses, as to the meaning of the constitution, or tell the masses about the infringements they should live by?

If your opinion of the "current LEGAL situation" is different than my signature line, then I disagree.

People here should be educated as to the current legal situation as discussed in this thread. It doesn't matter if you or I agree with the legal decisions! People here should know the case law and tell the masses about the infringements that they are living with. You have to understand the problem before you can effectively work to correct it.

Education is the best solution, but you can't educate people if you haven't educated yourself.

One other thing that people can do to help the situation: take someone out shooting. And I don't mean your best friend who has a gun collection - I mean, take someone to the range who has never fired a gun before... someone who may have very different political views from you. It's no use to preach to the choir, after all. Show someone new what it's all about: the enjoyment of hitting the target, the rush of adrenaline, and (this is important) safe and responsible gun handling. Make it a pleasant and enjoyable experience for them.

I don't think that the majority of Americans are cowards at heart. I think most of them live in relative comfort and peace and wish to continue living in relative comfort and peace.

Most people in this country don't own firearms. They are expensive to buy and operate. Most people aren't too concerned about the poor state of the 2nd amendment because their interests, time, and effort are spent on other things. Probably only a fraction of people are truly concerned about the erosion of rights in this country, and among that fraction, most are probably more concerned with rights other than the RKBA.

I didn't even own a firearm until a couple months ago, and I probably will not spend the rest of my life writing about the RKBA. My interests evolve too, especially when there is little payoff for my efforts.

The federal "unorganized militia" IS defined and IS maintained at the level Congress sees fit. [...] Has anyone laid this out before a court? or have the plaintiffs/defendants just tried to convince "playing army" is Constitutionally protected?

Of course this has been argued. See Hale and the referenced cases cited therein. The courts (aside from the 5th circuit) ruled that only a state sponsored and controlled militia (effectively meaning the national guard) is protected. This ruling has been upheld many times.

That the 5th Circuit came to a different conclusion alone is enough to compel SCOTUS to resolve the difference.

So one might think, but the SCOTUS has not, and likely will not take up a case. As B. Roberts stated earlier, this may be due to the fact that even Emerson did not rule any gun ban to be unconstitutional, so there is no functional difference in the application of federal gun law across the country. Another possibility is that SCOTUS doesn't want to take a case because any ruling (either way) would be politically damaging and reduce their credibility.

I have one question... hopefully B. Roberts can answer this one. Let's assume for the moment that SCOTUS is willing to adopt Emerson and rule that the CA AWB is unconstitutional. Since the CA AWB is state law, how would it come before federal court? That is what I'd like to see overturned, along with the NYC/DC/etc. handgun bans.

Emerson[/I]]:
It established courts could find specific limitations on specific individuals in specific cases - ONLY. It also loudly observed that Emerson's particular issue was an extreme stretch for a court.

They accepted the lower court's finding that there was sufficient danger - and noted that it was very lame. The issue at hand wasn't the degree of danger, but whether sufficient "due process" had been given to the revocation of a specific individual's right - concluding there was, but loudly noting it strained the limits.

From Emerson:

"We likewise reject the argument that section 922(g)(8) requires that the predicate order contain an express judicial finding that the defendant poses a credible threat to the physical safety of his spouse or child."

And, "we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights."

a procedural ruling where there was no specific finding which provided a basis for that right to be taken away.

There WAS such a finding. Emerson was accused of threatening his wife, a court reviewed the issue and agreed, law provides for disarming in that circumstance, court gave Emerson a chance to rebut, he didn't, right temporarily revoked. Lame, admitted, but technically allowable.

A concurring opinion by judge Robert Parker does indicate that he threatened his wife, but notes that this was not mentioned in the majority opinion. Regardless, this is irrelevant because there was no finding by the lower court that he was a credible threat:

"Emerson's argument that his Second Amendment rights have been violated is grounded on the propositions that the September 14, 1998 order contains no express finding that he represents a credible threat to the physical safety of his wife (or child), that the evidence before the court issuing the order would not sustain such a finding and that the provisions of the order bringing it within clause (C)(ii) of section 922(g)(8) were no more than uncontested boiler-plate. In essence, Emerson, and the district court, concede that had the order contained an express finding, on the basis of adequate evidence, that Emerson actually posed a credible threat to the physical safety of his wife, and had that been a genuinely contested matter at the hearing, with the parties and the court aware of section 922(g)(8), then Emerson could, consistent with the Second Amendment, be precluded from possessing a firearm while he remained subject to the order."

The whole point of Emerson was that due process, for a specific individual, in a specific case, could have RKBA revoked. Don't confuse this with general restrictions/prohibitions like NFA or 922(o).

Again, you are wrong. The Emerson decision had to consider Miller, and did so in the best possible way: they argue that Miller was decided based on the argument that the sawed-off shotgun was not shown to be a weapon useful to the militia. Not all arms are protected. (And how might that ruling affect NFA firearms?)

The ruling allowed for RKBA to be restricted in "boilerplate" or procedural matters, without an express finding of a credible threat.

As noted above, Emerson explicitly did not define what the 2nd amendment does protect. They did say this:

"Although... the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable..."

That is very much open to interpretation, especially in light of the particular ruling regarding Emerson himself. I'm certain that the government would argue that the NFA covers limited, narrowly tailored, specific, reasonable, particular cases.

Also, from Judge Parker's concurring opinion (and this is very interesting):

No doubt the special interests and academics on both sides of this
debate will take great interest in the fact that at long last some court
has determined (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment bestows an
individual right. The real issue, however, is the fact that whatever the
nature or parameters of the Second Amendment right, be it collective or
individual, it is a right subject to reasonable regulation. The debate,
therefore, over the nature of the right is misplaced. In the final
analysis, whether the right to keep and bear arms is collective or
individual is of no legal consequence. It is, as duly noted by the
majority opinion, a right subject to reasonable regulation. If
determining that Emerson had an individual Second Amendment right that
could have been successfully asserted as a defense against the charge of
violating § 922(g)(8), then the issue would be cloaked with legal
significance. As it stands, it makes no difference. Section 922(g)(8) is
simply another example of a reasonable restriction on whatever right is
contained in the Second Amendment.

And whatever the scope of the claimed Second Amendment right, no
responsible individual or organization would suggest that it would
protect Emerson's possession of the other guns found in his
military-style arsenal the day the federal indictment was handed down.
In addition to the Beretta nine millimeter pistol at issue here, Emerson
had a second Beretta like the first, a semi-automatic M-1 carbine, an
SKS assault rifle with bayonet, and a semi-automatic M-14 assault rifle.

Particularly notable is that the holding that the 2nd is an individual right is in dicta... which means it is an argument rather than a legal decision, and thus not binding precedent. :banghead:

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's assume for the moment that SCOTUS is willing to adopt Emerson and rule that the CA AWB is unconstitutional. Since the CA AWB is state law, how would it come before federal court?

It would not unless SCOTUS also ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment by the doctrine of selective incorporation. They might make that clear in the same ruling or they might just address one issue very narrowly. However, if SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right, you can bet money that lawsuits testing whether the Second Amendment was incorporated would follow shortly.

the holding that the 2nd is an individual right is in dicta... which means it is an argument rather than a legal decision, and thus not binding precedent.

Dicta generally is used to refer to a part of the opinion that isn't necessary to reach the conclusion of the opinion. In this case, the 5th Circuit didn't really need to decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right since they decided the case on whether Emerson had received due process for the revocation of his legal rights. In some cases (although not Emerson), it isn't always clear what is dicta and what is essential to the opinion. A popular way for lawyers to argue a previous opinion should be ignored is to claim that it is "merely dicta."

Dicta isn't binding precedent; but it is influential. The fact that the 5th went out of the way to address an issue they could have easily left buried is a strong indicator of which way they would rule. As they noted though, the sticky part isn't whether the right is individual or collective, but what is reasonable regulation? You'll notice they said very little on that topic.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Here is a quote from the current version of "The Living Constitution".

A well regulated militia ( the national guard only ), being necessary to the security of a free State (the various governments), the right of the People (most of the males between the ages of 18 and 45) to keep and bear arms (except arms dangerous to the public) shall not be infringed (except by the state, county, city, precinct or neighborhood watch group, or any corporation or businessman).

I think federal law trumps local law, and our forefathers made their opinions very clear. Their goal was for EVERY man to be armed.

I think I prefer my version, OOPS, I mean I prefer their version.

 

[nobody_special]

It would not unless SCOTUS also ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the 14th Amendment by the doctrine of selective incorporation. They might make that clear in the same ruling or they might just address one issue very narrowly. However, if SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right, you can bet money that lawsuits testing whether the Second Amendment was incorporated would follow shortly.

Ugh, yes I forgot about selective incorporation of the 14th. The only SCOTUS precedent is US v. Cruikshank. So even if Emerson were adopted by SCOTUS, we're still likely screwed by state law.

The real thrust of my question was that I've forgotten how state cases get appealed to federal court.

As they noted though, the sticky part isn't whether the right is individual or collective, but what is reasonable regulation? You'll notice they said very little on that topic.

They avoided the issue as if it were an ex-wife with a hand grenade...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The only SCOTUS precedent is US v. Cruikshank. So even if Emerson were adopted by SCOTUS, we're still likely screwed by state law.

Cruikshank predates the 14th Amendment, so I doubt it would be looked to as precedent.

The real thrust of my question was that I've forgotten how state cases get appealed to federal court.

If they deal with a constitutional issue, then they can go to the Supreme Court after the state supreme court issues their ruling. If they don't deal with a constitutional issue, then the state supreme court is the last stop.

 

[nobody_special]

Cruikshank predates the 14th Amendment, so I doubt it would be looked to as precedent.

No it doesn't; Cruikshank was 1875, and the 14th was ratified in 1868. Cruikshank holds that the 2nd amendment, while a fundamental right, is not protected from infringement by state or local law:

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

The Cruikshank decision is almost as bad as Raich.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No it doesn't; Cruikshank was 1875, and the 14th was ratified in 1868. Cruikshank holds that the 2nd amendment, while a fundamental right, is not protected from infringement by state or local law

Sorry, that was a sloppy explanation on my part. Cruikshank predates the selective incorporation doctrine. The 14th was ratified in 1868; but the first case involving it was the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873 which basically read it very, very narrowly and essentially attempted to apply the earlier Constitutional doctrine that the Constitution was a restraint on the Feds, not the States.

Slaughterhouse is still considered good law on its interpretation of the "privileges & immunities" clause; but the Supreme Court eventually applied the doctrine of substantive due process to apply the 14th amendment more broadly (but not until long after Cruikshank)

 

[Little-Acorn]

One of the supreme ironies of this case, is that it's being heard in the same Federal District Court that heard the original US v. Miller case in 1939. Same district (Western district of Arkansas), different town.

Before US v. Miller got to the Supreme Court in 1939, it was heard in this District Court. Miller's lawyer wrote a "demurrer" to the court, claiming that the law Miller was charged under (1934 National Firearms Act) was unconstitutional and therefore Miller was Not Guilty. The District Court bought the argument, found Miller Not Guilty, and ruled the 1934 NFA, unconstitutional!

The govt appealed to the Supremes, nobody from Miller's team showed up for the USSC hearing, and the Supremes rubber-stamped the govt's fibs (2nd applies only to militias, etc.) into an Opinion. And it's been all downhill from there.

What sticks in my craw the most about this Fincher case, is the way the judge FORBADE any discussion of the possibility that the same law (1934 NFA, also the 1968 Gun Control Act) was unconstitutional, and therefore nobody (including Fincher) could be charged or convicted under it.

My question is, plainly the US District Court for Western Arkansas PERMITTED the defense lawyer to argue the constitutionality of the law in the US v. Miller case. Why do they forbid such argument today?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My question is, plainly the US District Court for Western Arkansas PERMITTED the defense lawyer to argue the constitutionality of the law in the US v. Miller case. Why do they forbid such argument today?

Not exactly. A demurrer is a motion to the court. Miller made his motion before trial ever began. In fact, this was one of the reasons the Miller decision is so vague. The defendant made a motion that the law was unconstitutional. Since this argument had never been made before, there was no precedent governing the decision. Federal procedure was also different then as the procedural rules have changed quite a bit. Today you wouldn't see that same process. Anyhow, the rules at the time meant a motion was ruled on without any evidence being offered, so the judge agreed it was unconstitutional and passed it up directly to the Supreme Court (which would no longer happen).

When it got to the Supreme Court, they said "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."

They then reversed & remanded - which basically means they told the lower court to hear evidence on that subject and then make a decision. This never happened because Miller was dead by that point and the whole issue became moot.

In Fincher's case, there are some differences. For one, there is plenty of precedent in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals that now is over the Western District of Arkansas. For another, the rules of federal procedure have changed quite a bit since Miller's time. In this case, Fincher will still get to make a Constitutional argument. He just won't get to make it to the jury. He will have to make it to the 8th Circuit instead. The idea here is the law/fact distinction that we discussed earlier in this thread (and in great detail if you want to read about it).

 

[ctdonath]

There is no stopping it. It is tyranny at a level never seen before. I am looking to the experienced leaders here at THR to announce what our options are.

There IS stopping it. The AWB is gone. Most states are "shall issue". Two states are now "Vermont carry".

Calm down. Breathe. Think.
Federally, you can still get pretty much whatever you want. The last few decades have made things "bad", on the whole, only insofar as there's a little more paperwork and maybe a few days delay. The worst is that you can't get a post-'86 machinegun, and a domestic violence conviction gets one disarmed.
Your state may vary. There's enough "good" states that if you're not in one, MOVE! (I was in NY, now in GA. Freedom is nice.) Even in the "bad" states you can still get modern guns, and what you can't get isn't that different from what you can.

Yes, there are some rare cases where infringements are ACTUALLY problems. Thing is, they're rare (serious, but rare). A little planning and attention and elbow grease wards off most of those.
Yes, there is the "slippery slope" and "camel's nose" problems. We're working on those. Know the difference between wisely getting off the slope vs. being at terminal velocity going down it; know the difference between keeping the nose out of the tent vs. having the whole camel in it.

Your options?
- Move to a "free" state. Live where our kind are welcome.
- Buy an NFA item. Discover for yourself that extreme weapons are in your grasp for a little paperwork plus $200 (you can do it).
- Carry. Often.
- Get involved locally. Individuals ARE making a difference (they just don't make big news).
- Get a C&R FFL. $10 a year gets serious weaponry shipped to your door, and you literally become a certified good guy.
Upshot: you DO have rights, and they are extensive - exercise them! Stop getting wrapped around the axle of relatively minor wrongs; get a sense of proportion.

voting with the cartridge box?

What grievance is so great that you would even consider going that far?

Or are you just looking for an excuse for a fight?

Face it: you can get darn near any weapon you want, and keep it handy most of the time. So what's the problem?

We're not looking at actual wholesale firearm prohibition & confiscation.
We're looking at the potential of death by a thousand cuts, and we're up to a few dozen.

DKSuddeth (being the one who made that comment):
You live in Texas. You can buy rifles, shotguns, handguns, machineguns, destructive devices, explosives, sawed-off shotguns, short-barreled "long" guns, silencers, tanks, etc. Your only delay is a few pages of paperwork and maybe a $200 tax. The only gun you can't own is a post-'86 machinegun (so find a willing dealer, pay for it, do the Form 4, and go sue already!). With modest limitations, you can carry them openly, concealed, or in your vehicle. Unless you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, get what you want. Your concerns amount to avoiding the "slippery slope", not reversing outright prohibitions.

Yes, we're outraged about the Fincher verdict. Yes, a right is being stepped on. In context, however, Fincher could have bought existing full-auto M1919s and gotten permission to saw off that shotgun (a bit pricy on both, yes). Fincher was NOT convicted of illegally having all the other guns he owned - because they were not illegal.

Door-to-door confiscations in NOLA might have been time for the cartridge box, were they coming for yours.
A little extra paperwork is not.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I think ctdonath made a very astute observation, without being aware of it. He said

"Door-to-door confiscations in NOLA might have been time for the cartridge box, were they coming for yours."

They did not come for mine, nor for the ones of ctdonath, or for most of us here. They did not come for my pocket pistols, or ctdonaths skeet and trap shotgun, or our cowboy action shooting firearms. They will, one at a time, and if you and I do not stand up for the people of NOLA, or my plastic pocket pistols, or ctdonaths shotgun, who is going to stand up for your sniper rifle or assault weapon. Or for you as someone with a less than perfect legal record.

IF we could stand together, we might stand.... divided, there is no way for any segment of us to stand.

I have high hopes for the fincher case. I hope he manages to push it to the us supreme court. I think that he has taken a stand, not for himself, but for all of us. If he loses, then we all lose. If he wins, it is a tiny setback for the antis

 

[DKSuddeth]

DKSuddeth (being the one who made that comment):
You live in Texas. You can buy rifles, shotguns, handguns, machineguns, destructive devices, explosives, sawed-off shotguns, short-barreled "long" guns, silencers, tanks, etc. Your only delay is a few pages of paperwork and maybe a $200 tax. The only gun you can't own is a post-'86 machinegun (so find a willing dealer, pay for it, do the Form 4, and go sue already!). With modest limitations, you can carry them openly, concealed, or in your vehicle. Unless you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, get what you want. Your concerns amount to avoiding the "slippery slope", not reversing outright prohibitions.

and that matters? how many or who are infringed? If I was rich, I could get what I wanted. If I was poor, I'd have to deal with it, but the right was still there? It should not matter what class of economic status one belongs to, but it still works that way and not just in the RKBA, but in all rights. Our justice system usually works on who has the most money. It very rarely works in the way it was intended from the start.
I have no money. What little I make is used up on another higher priority. That shouldn't meant that if I ever found the time, I would have to deal with months of paperwork and a tax to MAKE a weapon that I have a right to own.

What grievance is so great that you would even consider going that far?

when even the simplest of natural rights is infringed, is it better to compromise or fight it? If we'd have fought violently from the start, I think we'd be a better place.

Or are you just looking for an excuse for a fight?

This may entirely be true based on the life situation I currently am dealing with, but would it still be wrong?

Face it: you can get darn near any weapon you want, and keep it handy most of the time. So what's the problem?

would I have weaponry equal to a government enforcement officer?

We're not looking at actual wholesale firearm prohibition & confiscation.
We're looking at the potential of death by a thousand cuts, and we're up to a few dozen.

so as long as we're still allowed the right to own something that does 1100 fps, we're still within our rights as a sovereign people?

"Door-to-door confiscations in NOLA might have been time for the cartridge box, were they coming for yours."

They did not come for mine, nor for the ones of ctdonath, or for most of us here. They did not come for my pocket pistols, or ctdonaths skeet and trap shotgun, or our cowboy action shooting firearms. They will, one at a time, and if you and I do not stand up for the people of NOLA, or my plastic pocket pistols, or ctdonaths shotgun, who is going to stand up for your sniper rifle or assault weapon. Or for you as someone with a less than perfect legal record.

IF we could stand together, we might stand.... divided, there is no way for any segment of us to stand.

This is what i've been getting at. We're all focused and worried on how we'll deal with it individually but did we ever look at how a government body deals with combative things? They group together and fight as a team....we do not. Unlike those in Lexington, we do not have a community cohesion, and therefore are doomed to fail. That is what needs to change.

 

[nobody_special]

Bartholomew Roberts: Cruikshank is a very strange (and bad) decision. It does address the 14th amendment, but not as it applies to the 2nd (or at least, not directly). It's strange that they wrote the part about the 2nd amendment that I quoted earlier, discussed the 14th amendment elsewhere in the same decision, but never connected the two.

As for DKSuddeth or Koobuh or others who advocate violence: beware hypocrisy. People here say things like "from my cold dead hands" and "vote with the ammo box" - but it's just talk (and I'm thankful for that). You decry the American people as being sheep... and maybe they are. Maybe... but are you really different? I know for a fact that you haven't voted with your ammo box, since you are alive and free to post here, and I haven't heard anything on the news. Let's keep it that way.

Outrage is good only if it motivates you to do something. Otherwise, it just raises your blood pressure and will eventually give you a stroke. Have you proven that you aren't a sheep like the rest of the citizenry? Have you shown the courage that Fincher has? (Not that I'd recommend his approach, which was poorly considered and is unlikely succeed on any level.)

Move to a "free" state. Live where our kind are welcome. [...] Face it: you can get darn near any weapon you want, and keep it handy most of the time. So what's the problem?

That's not a good line of reasoning. Rights aren't worth squat if they are heavily regulated or taxed. In some parts of the country, you can't get darn near any weapon you want. Do the rights of people in CA, NY, NJ, MD, IL, and DC not count? Those places are important too, and it's a very rare person who can or will move out of a state for 2nd amendment reasons. Usually one's home state is determined by the location of a job or family... and those are very important considerations.

It's easy to tell someone to calm down when you live in a 2A-friendly state and it's not your right being infringed.

Right now, I live in a very free state. I can buy any non-NFA firearm that I can afford; while I'm not exactly wealthy, that covers quite a lot of ground. I bought my first firearm, a Taurus 24/7 Pro 9mm, a couple months ago. I'd like to buy a nice semi-auto rifle in .308 such as a FAL or HK-91 clone within the next few months. (Actually, I'd really like a nice bullpup in 6.5 Grendel, with a trigger mechanism like the proposed Kel-Tec and a proven reliable action such as the H&K G3. But while I'm dreaming, I might as well conjure up the dozen dancing hippos in pink tutus that were mentioned earlier. )

I also want to move back to California when I'm done with my job here. I spent 10 years in grad school at a fabulously beautiful campus (never get a PhD in a subject that requires good weather on top of a 14,000' tropical mountain on one specific night every six months... but that's another story for a different forum). All my close friends live in California, I hate the desert, and I miss the ocean and the hills and the moderate climate. Tell me: do I abandon the dream of returning my friends and a beautiful place that I love (even if I can't actually afford to live there... ) just because there's still an AWB there?

So I might get an M1A, which is not what I want. But the M1A is the only CA-legal battle rifle (if you remove the flash hider)... though it probably won't be legal in ~2 years when I hope to move back. :banghead:

Some people have advised me to go ahead and get a FAL clone or PTR-91 and take it to CA anyway, on the basis that most CA AWs were not registered. But I'm not going to risk a felony charge. It'd ruin my life and my carreer. Call me a coward, call me a sheep... but there are other important things in life worth keeping. It's not all about the 2nd amendment.

There are millions of people in this country whose rights are being infringed in a significant way, right now. I'm not one of them at the moment (ignoring the federal laws, but I don't want an NFA weapon so I'm not as concerned about it). But even so, the unreasonable and unconstitutional laws of a different state can still affect me in a very real way.

 

[Gifted]

What grievance is so great that you would even consider going that far?

It seems that a few dead white men thought a lot less was worth going that far. I've decided where I'll draw the line, but it's not an appropriate topic for this forum.

 

[ctdonath]

Seems some "all or nothing" types are missing my point.

Yes, the infringements are serious and must be handled promptly and enthusiastically.
Have a sense of proportion.
Filling out a yellow form, or paying a ~20% tax, is not grounds for "go to the cartridge box".

They will [come for our guns], one at a time

NOLA was a fluke born of an extreme. People had waited YEARS for a semi-coordinated door-to-door confiscation, and once started it was soon shut down from within, and loudly & legislatively denounced shortly thereafter. They tried, they learned fast it wasn't a good idea.

They came after Fincher's precisely because he openly declared his violations, and taunted the gov't to come get them - so they did.

It happens - rarely, in very small sizes, and usually with a smackdown on everyone involved. They're not literally coming for our guns fast enough to have an effect.

Don't get me wrong: it is a problem, and it is a tactic ... just don't equate a few rare confiscations to systematic total national disarmament.

It should not matter what class of economic status one belongs to

Given perfect RKBA, what would you have that you don't now? If economic hardship is limiting, why not sue for waver? Are you doing something about it?

when even the simplest of natural rights is infringed, is it better to compromise or fight it?

Given the core issue, it's a false dichotomy. "Do nothing" and "start shooting 'em" are not the only options.

would [looking for a fight] still be wrong?

Yes.
Legitimate grievances need appropriate responses.
Making up excuses to shoot people is wrong.

They group together and fight as a team....we do not. Unlike those in Lexington, we do not have a community cohesion, and therefore are doomed to fail. That is what needs to change.

They were gathered against actual coordinated large-scale confiscation - and only "went to the cartridge box" when "they" were actually starting confiscation. We do not face that problem (yet).
NOLA confiscations stopped (IMHO) partly because word got out fast and far, and the hard-core started gearing up. We are a team, we are coordinating (despite distance), we have community cohesion. Not quite the same as Lexington, but things haven't gone that far.

Rights aren't worth squat if they are heavily regulated or taxed. In some parts of the country, you can't get darn near any weapon you want. Do the rights of people in CA, NY, NJ, MD, IL, and DC not count?

What constitutes "heavily regulated"? Regulated, yes - though once a couple pages of paperwork are executed, it's yours with little hassle. Look, I'm not trying to justify what's bad, just get it viewed in proportion.

I lived in NY. With some paperwork I could carry a handgun near anywhere, owned "assault weapons" and "sniper rifles", and even bought an NFA item ("sawed-off shotgun"). I moved; wasn't trivial, but I DID move away from that "RKBA unfriendly" state to GA. Decide what's important and move accordingly. There will usually be tradeoffs; that's life.

It seems that a few dead white men thought a lot less was worth going that far.

After putting up with much, and prompted by actual confiscations, yes.

 

[Gifted]

I suppose you're right. For the most part, we don't need to fear confiscation. There's almost nothing they've actually confiscated.

Instead, they ban. They stop us from getting in the first place, and then work to convince the next generation to turn them in willingly for a coupon at Target.

 

[nobody_special]

Bans are just as bad as confiscation. They have the same ultimate effect, but are more politically acceptable.

 

[ctdonath]

Bans are just as bad as confiscation.

What exactly has been banned?

- Machineguns made after 1986.

That's it. (Your state may vary. Which is yours? I'm in Georgia; everything is legal here. I was in NY; while famous for bans, most things were legal with either understanding the laws or a little creativity.)

"Assault weapons" were banned for a while. The only serious issue was limited magazine sizes; the rest was cosmetic. Anyway, that's gone.

States are a different issue, obviously. Thanks to efforts of activists, bans have been prevented or overturned. A dramatic increase in the number of "shall issue" states, and adding another "Vermont carry" state, shows progress is being made well. Some places like CA and NY are getting worse, but even those have signs of hope.

["They"]work to convince the next generation to turn them in willingly

THAT is the real issue. The next generation is believing guns are bad/illegal and won't even mentally go near them. My Canadian niece even was taught (by who she won't say) that the word "gun" is bad and should never be said.

With the Democrats abandoning gun control, at least as a campaign promise, we see major battles have been won and the war looks favorable. We need to increase making shooting sports & self defense common, even mundane, activities.

Yes, the fight for RKBA continues. Fincher will be followed with great interest, and could be the big breakthru - IF his lawyers know what they're doing.