Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: Will NFA be repealed?

  1. #11
    Gunco Rookie los48503's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    13
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    i heard a story about how george washington borrowed a privately owned Cannon for the contenial army in the revolutionary war... not shure which battle but i havent really looked into it... so i dont know how true it is... i believe if this was true plus the facts the that the militias used privately owned long guns, not the federal or state goverments arms but privately owned arms that were equal if not better than what the contential army used agianst the british, how the milita's were the true peoples army, with no real trainning or regulation. were also free to come and go as they pleased... this is usualy my 2nd amendment arguement about how our right to bear arms shall not be infringed and how the GCA and NFA are unconstitutional, but i can also see how some regulation is in need... and i feel what laws we currently have is more than enough... just enforce the laws we have and upgrade the NCICS system, make it so if you want to own a firearm you must be a citizen or live here for more than a year instead of 90 days and ENFORCE THE LAWS WE CURRENTLY HAVE....

    as for upgrading the NCICS they are probably going to go out of control any make it so if a kid ever said he was sad he wont be able to own a gun, nor if he servers his country in our services, he must be stressed out form his service and should no longer be trusted with firearms... i fear this will be the worst gun control to come...

  2. #12
    Gunco Rookie openyoureyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default Bush is against us, too

    I read where the Bush administration is supporting DC's gun ban in arguments right now in front of the Supreme Court. I knew I couldn't trust Republicans any more than Democrats. Both parties are evil.

  3. #13
    Everyone NEEDS a Glock! glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    983
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Default

    yeah bush is against us hell they all are we need to get ron paul in but all the sheep are going to vote for Hillary
    If any punk kid ever comes up to you asking for your `Gang Sign` Tap your chest twice then your forehead once. After doing that only upon a threat do you draw your glock and show him what you meant.




    WOLVERINES!

  4. #14
    Gunco Regular amdhotprocessor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    429
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Default

    Hmm, the gummit is figuring out that if they are gonna take over , the last armed citizen you want fighting back with a gun is ex marine corps. that are trained to kick mother^&*@n ass. the rest of gun owners probably will surrender or not know how to fight. What little do resist Hilary will be picked off slowly by her lufftwafften(sp?) and SS.

    I wonder where Hilary will hide her "little kamps"?
    Cheap bastard plus ghetto tools=quality AK build

    PLEASE VOTE IN '08 FOR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!

    RON PAUL '08

  5. #15
    Gunco Member AngelDecoys's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    42
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default From Shooting Wire - Alan Gura

    Quote Originally Posted by openyoureyes View Post
    Will Parker v. District of Columbia give a chance for the NFA to be repealed by the Supreme Court? Then we wouldn't have to build semi-auto versions. Any legal scholars out there? Thanks.
    Its Heller v. DC, not Parker v. DC. Parker wasn't eligible so was removed from the case.

    In answer to your question. It is unlikely the SCOTUS decision will change much other than the general tone towards legislation, and on the NFA laws. (May effect things through federal court and with federal agency's and their enforcement.)

    1. The question asked SCOTUS was very narrow.
    2. No 14th Amendment questions asked so don't expect the decision to effect state law. Incorporation will happen with another case but may be a few years out.
    3. NFA laws were discussed but the general consensus from those inside chambers watching is that removal of such legislation scares the powers that be too much for touch it this time around. Remember some of the NFA laws are taxes, not bans so couldn't be overturned anyway.
    4. What we should be looking for is a 'strict scrutiny' decision over an 'intermediate scrutiny' decision. Intermediate will mean most bans will still be on the table.
    5. We shouldn't expect to overcome 50-60 years of these gun laws with one case. This is the beginning and we'll have to fight every step back to where we would like it.
    5. Like many, I'm waiting on pins and needles to read the decision. It will be narrow, but the wedge that opens the door.

    (I've copied a note on the NFA and the reasoning that Gura gives with regards to not touching that topic.)


    From Shooting Wire - Alan Gura
    from . . http://www.shootingwire.com/


    What A Difference A Week Makes
    This time last week, I was concerned that the entire future for firearms was up-in-the-air unless attorney Alan Gura could miraculously convince a majority of the justices in the United States Supreme Court that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was intended to be read primarily as a right of the individual and only secondarily as the authorization of militias for the common defense.

    This week, I find myself having moved beyond that position. Gura’s rookie debut before the Supreme Court – appearing against a wily veteran – was decidedly a solid win on his part. Instead of having to work to convince five of the Justices that an individual right was the intent of the Amendment, Gura found himself dealing with what might be considered as secondary issues – the “what ifs” of a ruling on the behalf of the individual position.

    In essence, four of the justices seemed to indicate they were in agreement with the individual interpretation. Others gave hints, but none were willing to come out unconditionally and give their positions.

    They were, after all, listening to “Arguments” from both sides of a simple question: Is the District of Columbia’s ban on firearms constitutional? Theirs was not the responsibility to answer that question. There are many days of closed-door discussions and positions ahead before that question is answered by the court. At that point, we’ll know – definitively – what lies ahead for us.

    In the meantime, we move from the united front to the normal infighting. Some people have told me they feel they were “sold out” by Gura when he didn’t challenge the Supreme Court Justices when they talked so often about “machine guns” being something that – like “plastic guns made to defeat detection”- was deserving of regulation.

    Class Three enthusiasts – machine gun owners – say they’ve been given up as a sacrifice to the anti-gun folks in order to get other guns approved. Across the internet, they’ve taken Alan Gura to task – and they’ve used unkind language to do that.

    Gura may have been a rookie before the Supreme Court, but he’s no shrinking violet. He had reasons for taking the course of action he took, and he went to the subguns discussion board to answer his critics.

    While the readers might not have liked what he had to say, they had to admire the fact he wasn’t dancing around the issue. Here’s a part of his response.

    “The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society – and 100% of all federal judges. If I had suggested in any way-- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging the answer –that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to dumping 922(o) –I’d have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia. There wasn’t any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion, but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off of, some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me to declare an absolute right, like I’m there to wave some sort of GOA bumper sticker. That’s a good way to loose, too, and look like a moron in the process.”

    Here’s where he shucks it right down to the cob for all of us:

    “I didn’t make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not responsible for the ay that people out there – and on the court –feel about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very…interesting…ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts.

    “I didn’t need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it’s not the reality in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states. Hopefully, on next year’s MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we can’t get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants.

    “You want to change 922 (o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for “climate change.”

    He offers no apologies and explains a reality that many in the “gun world” fail to grasp: the American public sees no good reason why an average individual would want to own a machine gun.

    I don’t see things that way, but I DO consider people who keep spiders, snakes, tarantulas, and scorpions as “pets” as a threat to civilization. Likewise, I think parents who hand their 15-year-old children the keys to the dad’s 150 mph BMW are just as guilty of complicity in a crime (vehicular manslaughter) as the person who makes a straw gun purchase.

    We have to realize that there is one founding value the Supreme Court is always going to factor into their decisions: the right of choice in the light of the common good.

    For instance, free speech is guaranteed, but yelling “fire” in a theatre is forbidden. It’s in the common good.

    It seems likely, although not guaranteed, that the justices will rule in favor of the individual rights interpretation. However, that decision – even if it were 9-0 – would not wipe out any restrictions on firearms- at least not immediately. And it’s probably safe to presume that a favorable decision on Heller will leave room for “reasonable accommodations” in future laws.

    It doesn’t seem reasonable or realistic to expect otherwise.

    In the meantime, I suggest we all follow Alan Gura’s advice and work for “climate change”. Winning the hearts and minds of the public will be easier if they understand what we’re talking about.

    --Jim Shepherd
    Last edited by AngelDecoys; 03-25-2008 at 12:58 PM. Reason: Clarification
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

    - Adaptation of Dune "Mentat" mantra.

  6. #16
    Gunco Member motorcityman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    23
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Law's change daily in this country, write your letters to your congressmen.

  7. #17
    Gunco Member OneBigElf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    27
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    It would be nice to see, though. Marstar Canada has "Excellent to Excelent +" wwII tommy guns, full auto, for $575 canadian. That's $561 US. You have to be licensed for "prohibited weapons" to own them there, but we can't currently get them across our border. grrrr.

    John

  8. #18
    Gunco Rookie gdmoore28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    AngelDecoys --

    A nicely-written and -reasoned assessment of the prospects of this case. Although nothing will change immediately, a ruling in "our" favor will potentially be one of the most important decisions since the second amendment's enactment. It's going to be an interesting ride, methinks.

    GeeDeeEmm

  9. #19
    Gunco Rookie Rudolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default adf

    Anything can happen if the NRA and GOA helps us

  10. #20
    Gunco Maniac sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    7,454
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    Also, future legal wranglings will depend on whether or not the SCOTUS puts down an interpretation of "infringed"

    The NFA tax could be likened to a poll tax. If the second is held to be as dear as the right to vote, could not the NFA tax be deemed unconstitutional in the same manner as poll taxes were?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •