Quantcast

HR5005 might allow a challenge of the NFA and the '86 ban in the Supreme Court!?!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by jlbraun, Mar 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jlbraun

    jlbraun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,213
    I have a dumb question.

    *Really* dumb. Here is the text of Section 3 of the proposed amendment to HR 5005:

    Does the "provide national security services" in the amendment to HR5005 have to be explicit or can it be implied? That is, does there have to be a "The Federal Government hereby contracts Company X to provide national security services from this date to that date"?

    Because if not... (cracks knuckles)

    States contract with private businesses to run things like the DMV. The federal government contracts with the USPS (a private corporation) to provide postal service. Local municipalities contract out maintenance duties.

    Could states (or municipalities) engage a private corporation to provide national security services in the event of a disaster or potential disaster? This would certainly enhance national security.

    What if those services consisted solely of providing training, purchasing, and maintenance of firearms to eligible members of the community, who were given a salary of, say, $1/year and subject to range qualification every year?

    And given that those corporations are explicitly contracted by the state or local governments under an *implicit* contract from the federal government - under the proposed amendment to HR5005, they are exempt from the 1934 NFA and the 1986 ban.

    Therefore, under the amended HR5005, they are allowed to purchase military hardware for their "employees" - who are in reality just citizens who have volunteered for service - and of course, those "employees" must keep their weapons at home.

    All it takes is one municipality to form a citizen's militia armed with NFA weapons under the amended HR5005.

    Of course, the ATF will have something to say about it, and you'll have to take it to the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court will have to decide either #1 or #2:

    1. Corporations are exempted from the NFA *and* the people shall not be restricted from owning NFA weapons.

    OR

    2. People shall be restricted under the NFA/'86 ban *and* corporations are restricted as well.

    There's no possibility for a middle ground. If corporations are to be exempt from the NFA, SO TOO MUST THE PEOPLE.

    Like I said, it's a dumb set of questions. Or is it? The more I think about it, the more interesting and far-reaching the implications are.
     
  2. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    No.

    Congress recently authorized security guards in contract at nuclear sites to carry machineguns but there are problems in implementing that.

    This makes it clear.
     
  3. jlbraun

    jlbraun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,213
    LAR-15,

    I don't understand. Can you explain further?
     
  4. AmYisraelChai

    AmYisraelChai Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    This leads to a lot of problems. And I am sure the ATF will make up the solutions as they go.

    For Example, does this now mean that I can get a demo letter from Blackwater or the likes? Seriously. It has some language about Manufacturures, but I didnt see anything about dealers. Do I not have the right to obtain weapons for sales prospecting as a dealer? And I can not obtain a weapon made after 1986 without a GOVERNMENT entity giving me permision to do so. Is the government picking and choosing who can sell to Contractors?

    On a weird note, If this is not clarified, this issue could be the Lawsuit that brings down the 86 ban house of cards. I dont know why people are always harping on the fact that you have to fing something other than a second amendment issue to fight a second ammendment issue but that is what I always see. So this would have trade issues written all over it.
     
  5. Legion1776

    Legion1776 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    DFW

    That's the way I see it.
     
  6. Gifted

    Gifted Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,009
    Location:
    Missouri
    I'm contracted via me being defined as part of the unorganized militia according to the U.S. code. Does that mean I can get one?:D

    Sorry, this was linked from the Wyoming lawsuit page, and this just clicked.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice