Minnesota soldier shipped AK-47s home!!

[ka50]

Those speaking on behalf of the soldier--would you be in favor of him bringing home an RPG? After all, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Yes.

RPG, grenade launchers, anti-tank munitions, armor piercing bullets and other weapons used by the military and law enforcement should be legal, but I do think they should be somewhat regulated (we don't want violent felons run around with RPG's)

All that means is simply allow non-violent citizens buy any PERSONAL arms they wish and do not allow person-to-person transfer of these weapons to prevent straw purchases.

 

[Beren]

Those speaking on behalf of the soldier--would you be in favor of him bringing home an RPG? After all, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Sure. What are you afraid he's going to do with it? Might help to have some rockets for it, though.

 

[Phil Ca]

The argument that a full auto war trophy should be allowed is going to fall on deaf ears. Sad but true.

I bought a M3A1 SMG in .45 ACP in Vietnam in 1966 ans sold it to a guy with more time when I left for the states. I would have liked to have brought it home but the warnings were already posted for violatorsof the reg.

When I was a kid of 10 or11 I bought a nice Collins machete with a sheath and pistol belt to carry it on. The Army-Navy Surplus in those days after WW2 was a great place for a kid to shop! the whole outfit set me back about $3 bucks iirc. I carved my name into the blade and pinted my name on the wheath and belt with indelible ink. I kept that thing aound and when I was in the USAF it was carried with my spare tire in my car for about 18 months.

When it was time to prepare for Vietnam in the army I went to the QM repair place at Fort riley and a civilian supervisor had an additional 8 inches of space sewn into my duffle bag making my duffle bag the longest on the ship when we went over. While here the machete did excellent service in dispatching a couple of poisinus snakes and cutting a lot of tall grass. I had the only private nachete in the camp and when I or someone else was not using it it was attached to my bunk. One night a rat came running through the ent with a cobra in hot persuit. I grabbed the machete and gave chase but the critter was gone in he dark.

When it was time to prepare to go home I packed up my personal machete and placed it in a box of hold baggage. Later at home when I got the box from the express agency O found an official message from the MP Customs in Saigon. It said that the machete and sheath and pistol belt was being confiscated due to its being "U.S. Property". I guess my childish scrawland the date on the equipmet from the mid 40s was not enough for them to deduce that it was not recent issue. Oh well I have a few more machetes and chopping blades but that one was a special souvenir of my tour of duty in Vietnam.

When I talked to some WW2 vets at the VFW hall I was informed that during WW2 a lot of GI's brought back pistols from their combat tours. One guy had about 20 or so of pistols ranging from Lugers to Berettas and a few odd ball collectibles as well. When he was clearing the port before boarding the ship he said he was told the limit was three handguns iirc He tried giving a few to some other guys but some did not want one. he went to the outhouse latrine and dumped the rest into the hole and got aboard the ship and went home.

I had heard that in some areas there were rifles and pistols being handed out as was trophy's after the war ended in Europe.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

A Ship's Master on a merchant ship told me a funny story last year;

He was in a former republic of the soviet union on shore liberty... he was serving as the chief mate on the boat...

This was one of those wild wild east kinda places... open air arms bazaar... ak's rpgs the works... well, he was with the ships captain in this bazaar and he started looking at the rpg... the captain said, jokingly, "why not buy it, we don't have to worry about customs...?" Well, then the captain takes off for the ship to attend to business, and the chief mate stays in the bazaar...

The Chief mate had something come up and he had to "jump ship" and catch a flight home for some sort of family issue; not an uncommon think in the civilian mariner community....

Well, he decided to play a joke on the captain. another shipmate had left some small dumbells on the ship.... so prior to leaving the ship the chief mate raps them carefully in bubble wrap and newspaper, then tapes them... he then accesses the captains stateroom and his personal fridge... he hides these three dumbells way in the back...

as soon as he hits the states, he calls the captain... "Hey, all is well, just wanted to give you a ring... By the way, I bought that rpg in DurkaDukastan (or whatever)... I've wired it up into the holding tank in the forward pump room... I'll get it when the ship gets back to homeport..."

Well, the captain goes through the roof... "You brought that thing on my ship!, I want it off of here as soon as we get back...!" The Chief Mate then says "Okay, what about the rockets though?" The Captian totally loses it "You have explosives on my boat...!" The Chief Mate says, "What good is a rocket launcher without rockets" The Captain "Where did you put those f'in rockets!!!???" The Chief Mate says "Look in the back of your fridge"

I guess the Captain almost had a heart attack...

 

[atomchaser]

Small potatos. I needs to take a lesson from this guy:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010605


Anyone stupid enough to try it after the number of times you are told not to try it deserves a court marshall.

 

[ka50]

Small potatos. I needs to take a lesson from this guy:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010605


Anyone stupid enough to try it after the number of times you are told not to try it deserves a court marshall.

Stupid enough? I say he's a brave man that went against an unconstitutional law.

He should pay import fees such as if he was to bring in any other peace of metal of the same size, should be given free 12-pack of beer and sent home with praise.

Remember - liberties are not taken all at once. They are slowly being erroded, so that public gets used to having limited liberties... then erroded a little more... and then some more... all in the name of "safety", which is really a mask for more government.

 

[Harv]

How dd this thread turn into a Militia/Unconstitutional/ Nothing wrong thread..

Bottom line is he's in the Military..The Military has regulations and you have to follow them... He did not and now he's going to deal with the consequences... it's called big boy rules

Same rules I follow if I get the urge to break a lawI don't agree with, I consider the consequences and make my decision on if I break a law or not based on them. It's pretty simple really.

I know owning an Unregistered MG is Illegal unless I do certain things. So I don't go and Make one cause I don't want to get caught and go to jail. real simple....

And I'm sure his chain of command told him MANY times during their prep for return NOT to bring Back anything illegal, and he went and did it any way...Big boy rules now apply.

 

[Old Dog]

ka50 says

I say he's a brave man that went against an unconstitutional law.

You're speaking of the Air Force major? You have got to be kidding ... and if you're not ... whoa ... Pray tell us what your military background might be that you feel there's courage in violating the orders of your superiors?

Remember - liberties are not taken all at once. They are slowly being erroded, so that public gets used to having limited liberties... then erroded a little more... and then some more... all in the name of "safety", which is really a mask for more government.

As if highly publicized stories in the national media of idiot servicemembers breaking numerous laws is going to actually help further the cause for RKBA?

 

[ka50]

Yes, he should be prosecuted for violating an order, but not firearm charges. Like I said: issue a trial where he's charged as if he brough in a peace of metal. Or just let him go.

The intent here is clear to prosecute for brining in a firearm.

I don't join the military, simply because I will get court martialed very fast. I'm a person of liberty, which means I do not appreciate it when someone sets boundaries for me which they percieve to be moral, correct or "safe". I grant liberty to others and expect the same in return. Joining the military is just not for me, but yes, he should've realised what disobeying to an order can do. However, keep the firearm out of it!

 

[ka50]

Same rules I follow if I get the urge to break a lawI don't agree with, I consider the consequences and make my decision on if I break a law or not based on them. It's pretty simple really.

Yup. If the law is redicilous or unconsitutional, however, it must be brough to attention.

The problem is that we have way too many socialists in this country (aka liberals). Are you going to let socialists define your spirit of liberty and freedom for all?

 

[Preacherman]

<sigh>

Why do so many folks just not get it?

The Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, set out the basic principles under which we are governed, and enumerate the basic rights (both pre-existing the Constitution, and enabled under the Constitution) that are enjoyed by citizens.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT prevent the regulation of these rights. This has been the consistent position of the US Courts since the beginning of the Republic, and remains so today.

The right to keep and bear arms may be regulated. So long as the regulation is not so severe as to negate the right, it will pass Constitutional and judicial muster. Period. No question, no doubt, no problem.

This is why the 1934 NFA, military regulations about bringing back captured weapons, restrictions on CCW, etc. are ALL legitimate, legal and Constitutional. They regulate the right to keep and bear arms, but do not do so in sufficient detail to deny the right - therefore, they are LEGAL. All those who claim that the NFA and other restrictions are "unConstitutional" are talking through their hats. These laws are indeed valid, Constitutional, legal and binding, and no amount of hot air about them will change that.

The only way to change the situation is to change these specific laws - but the new laws will also have to pass the same test that the existing laws have already met and passed.

End of story.

 

[ka50]

<sigh>

Why do so many folks just not get it?

The Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, set out the basic principles under which we are governed, and enumerate the basic rights (both pre-existing the Constitution, and enabled under the Constitution) that are enjoyed by citizens.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights DO NOT prevent the regulation of these rights. This has been the consistent position of the US Courts since the beginning of the Republic, and remains so today.

The right to keep and bear arms may be regulated. So long as the regulation is not so severe as to negate the right, it will pass Constitutional and judicial muster. Period. No question, no doubt, no problem.

This is why the 1934 NFA, military regulations about bringing back captured weapons, restrictions on CCW, etc. are ALL legitimate, legal and Constitutional. They regulate the right to keep and bear arms, but do not do so in sufficient detail to deny the right - therefore, they are LEGAL. All those who claim that the NFA and other restrictions are "unConstitutional" are talking through their hats. These laws are indeed valid, Constitutional, legal and binding, and no amount of hot air about them will change that.

The only way to change the situation is to change these specific laws - but the new laws will also have to pass the same test that the existing laws have already met and passed.

End of story.

Perhaps. Will you have the same stance on the issue if governement will only allow to carry single round bolt action rifles and ban magazine fed weapons?

The problem here is not the law per book. The problem is just erosion of rights. The consitution says right to bear arms. Thus why can't we own full autos? Yes I agree they have to be regulated to prevent violent felons to gain access to them (or at least make it harder) by preventing person-to-person sale, and allow only FFL to person sales.

The bottom line is: who is defining how much something should be regulated? As far as liberty goes - inanimate objects by themselves cannot do any harm. Thus the question is not why, rather why not.

 

[jkswiss]

The Navy is particulary bad about rank determining, well everything... I have a First Class at my command who was in Iraq working with the army; at the end of his tour, he was put in by the army for a bronze star... The Navy can-x'd that and gave him a joint svces medal... A chief he was with (who in all reality did and risked less, got the bronze star he was put in for) Go figure?
By the same light I've seen chiefs and heard of Master Chief's, who've gotten away with all sorts of nefarious deeds without so much as a harsh glance being cast their way... Juniors though, we'll we have a working party to gather up wood for the "burning at the stake" they oft times receive...

Thats when my Senior Chief would look at me and say "Permission granted to advance." What can you say to that?

 

[Preacherman]

ka50, I think I answered your point in the last paragraph of my post. It's up to us to exert pressure on our legislators (and elect compliant legislators) in order to pass laws, regulations, etc. that express our wishes w.r.t. firearms legislation. If we succeed in doing this, and if those laws and regulations pass Constitutional muster and judicial test, we'll be fine. If we can't gather enough support to have such laws passed, we're just going to have to put up with laws that we don't like, but which nevertheless pass the same tests.

It's all down to the exercise of democracy, and building support for our position.

It is NOT down to complaining that perfectly legitimate laws are "unconstitutional", when they manifestly are, indeed, in conformity with the Constitution.

 

[kfranz]

How dd this thread turn into a Militia/Unconstitutional/ Nothing wrong thread..

Bottom line is he's in the Military..The Military has regulations and you have to follow them... He did not and now he's going to deal with the consequences... it's called big boy rules

Same rules I follow if I get the urge to break a lawI don't agree with, I consider the consequences and make my decision on if I break a law or not based on them. It's pretty simple really.

I know owning an Unregistered MG is Illegal unless I do certain things. So I don't go and Make one cause I don't want to get caught and go to jail. real simple....

And I'm sure his chain of command told him MANY times during their prep for return NOT to bring Back anything illegal, and he went and did it any way...Big boy rules now apply.

No constitution/milita talk from me. Life is all about choices. He made one, and will likely pay a pretty hefty price for it. An artificially high price to my way of thinking since he didn't violate the rights of anyone else via his actions, but since I'm not the supreme ruler of the universe yet, my thoughts aren't taken nearly as seriously as they ought to be.

I will say this though, if big boy rules were really in place, we wouldn't be arguing about whether or not he should go to prison because his piece of sheet metal had one more hole than yours or mine.

 

[gezzer]

Cut him loose, give him the firearms and celebrate his safe return. If I were on his jury, I would not convict him.

After all, its not like he's a congressman from California.

+1

 

[Langenator]

ka50-

Depending on which state you live in, you CAN own a full auto-you simply have to file the appropriate paperwork with the ATF and pay the $200 excise tax. Now, whether the paperwork constitutes a restriction can be argued (given the arbitrariness of the local Chief LEO's approvals, you could make a good case), as can the tax (I think that also qualifies as a restriction).

I think the Hughes Amendment (barring sales of full autos made after 1986) is pretty obviously unconstitutional, given that it make military firearms (ie, select fire and full autos) unaffordable for the average citizen by way of placing a cap on supply.

But unless your state of residence bars full autos (mine-WA-does), there's no federal law saying you can't have a machinegun, providing it was made before 1986 and you pay the tax and do the appropriate paperwork.

As far as the illegal importation charges, as I've said before, Congress has the power to control what is allowed to enter the country. That includes everything from drugs to food products to machineguns.

 

[ka50]

ka50, I think I answered your point in the last paragraph of my post. It's up to us to exert pressure on our legislators (and elect compliant legislators) in order to pass laws, regulations, etc. that express our wishes w.r.t. firearms legislation. If we succeed in doing this, and if those laws and regulations pass Constitutional muster and judicial test, we'll be fine. If we can't gather enough support to have such laws passed, we're just going to have to put up with laws that we don't like, but which nevertheless pass the same tests.

It's all down to the exercise of democracy, and building support for our position.

It is NOT down to complaining that perfectly legitimate laws as "unconstitutional", when they manifestly are, indeed, in conformity with the Constitution.

Makes sense.

I'm Russian immigrant and I was in pleasant shock and awe that you could legally buy an assault rifle here. However, some Americans dissapoint me. They take their liberties for granted. They lost the founding fathers spirit. They are attempting to make America more socialist country that it should be.

Freedom isn't free.

 

[MNgoldenbear]

ka50, I think I answered your point in the last paragraph of my post. It's up to us to exert pressure on our legislators (and elect compliant legislators) in order to pass laws, regulations, etc. that express our wishes w.r.t. firearms legislation. If we succeed in doing this, and if those laws and regulations pass Constitutional muster and judicial test, we'll be fine. If we can't gather enough support to have such laws passed, we're just going to have to put up with laws that we don't like, but which nevertheless pass the same tests.

It's all down to the exercise of democracy, and building support for our position.

It is NOT down to complaining that perfectly legitimate laws as "unconstitutional", when they manifestly are, indeed, in conformity with the Constitution.

Great statement!

However, some Americans dissapoint me. They take their liberties for granted. They lost the founding fathers spirit. They are attempting to make America more socialist country that it should be.

Freedom isn't free.

+1

Sure. What are you afraid he's going to do with it? Might help to have some rockets for it, though.

Wouldn't be much of a problem out here. The report said he's from the bustling metropolis of Morris (population about 5300). There are some spots so empty, he could just about fire in any direction and not hit anything but the ground! Actually, Morris is one of the biggest towns in this region. Even has a McDonald's and a Subway. (And a campus of the Univ. of Minn.)

 

[williamlayton]

KA
It makes no sense to argue liberties when in violation of lawful orders or violation of laws.
It only makes sense if you are so inclined to dislike laws and lawful orders.
Laws do not restrict freedom they define freedom.
You do not like someone so you kill them. The law defines you to be in violation of law.
You keep harping on liberties but do not understand them. Laws would keep you from doing anything that you personally found OK. Would it be a better way of doing this thing if everybody just does what he/she wants. That would be true liberty, but, it would be anarchy also.
Your logic is illogical and circular reasoning is pointless.
Blessings

 

[ka50]

Would it be a better way of doing this thing if everybody just does what he/she wants.

Yes, as long as their actions do not interfere with anyone else's freedoms. Outlawing serious crimes such as murder and robbery I agree with.

Laws such as regulation of inanimate objects that by themselves do not hurt anyone or violate anyone's freedoms, that I have problems with.

Why would I need to get my freedom "defined" by someone else, if my actions (such as owning a full auto) do not cause direct harm to anyone? How is resticting my freedoms in that way is in any way justifiable?

Did you know that in some states oral sex is illegal? Would you expect the general population to obey such "lawful" order? Would you obey a lawful order if someone said you cannot be out of your house after 12am?

Laws are means of government.
Laws that are dealing with freedoms of people as a whole (murder, robbery) should be enforced.
Laws that are based on limited group's opinions should not even pass into laws. In gray areas majorty vote should prevail, unless it goes against bill of rights.

It's hard to think at 3am, but I tried to convey my point the best I could.

 

[Preacherman]

ka50, I suspect that what you're talking about is the definition of the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se.

If something is malum in se, it is considered evil in and of itself - something inherently bad. For example, murder, rape, theft, etc. are all considered actions that are malum in se, and laws prohibiting them are usually acceptable to all, on the grounds of common sense. (Yes, I know that the latter is often neither common nor sensible, but anyway... )

If something is malum prohibitum, it's considered forbidden because someone has decided that it's a bad thing - not because it is evil in and of itself. The speed limits are a good example. Some Government functionary has determined that a speed limit of 30 mph on this particular stretch of road is good: therefore, that limit is posted, and if you drive faster than that, you face legal consequences. This is not to say that you've committed an evil act by driving faster than the limit, but you'll still face penalties for doing so. Most gun laws fall into this category, as do most bureaucratic regulations.

I'm all in favor of reducing malum prohibitum laws to the barest minimum necessary for the function of society. If something is malum in se, then laws dealing with that issue should not be a problem. (Of course, one then hits the difficulty of what makes something malum in se in the first place! If a religious concept defines something as malum in se, such as blasphemy, it can hardly be put into a law that would affect those who don't hold to the tenets of that religion - but this has happened before in history, with unhappy results. The concept of malum in se needs to be refined so as to refer to actions that are universally adjudged as evil or bad, and this is an ongoing struggle - witness the laws in some states against oral sex, cited in a previous post. There's nothing intrinsically evil about oral sex, but there are some religions or religious perspectives that consider it so, and that's how these laws got on the books. The religious would argue that oral sex is malum in se, while secularists would argue that it's malum prohibitum. Let the debate begin! )

 

[gunsmith]

curare

Those speaking on behalf of the soldier--would you be in favor of him bringing home an RPG? After all, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.
__________________

"Americans have the right to every terrible weapon of war"
THOMAS JEFFERSON

 

[femoralis]

Preacherman, I respectfully disagree. 1934 NFA was enacted in order to prevent most people from owning machine guns and shortened weaponed, the tax was so heavy. If I remember correctly, a shotgun cost about $5 at the time, but the tax to saw it off cost $200. How can that be anything other than an infringement of an average person's right to own the weapon?

 

[Preacherman]

BTR, the cost of the weapon is not considered to have anything to do with the ability to own it. The courts' view was (and doubtless still is) that if you pay the money, you can own the gun - the fact that you may find it hard to get the money together is your problem, not theirs. Taxation (which is how the NFA was set up, as a tax stamp) is considered a legitimate function/power of government. If it had not been set up as a tax, it might have been challenged successfully: but as a tax, it worked then, and it works now.