Thought and prayers incoming as another judge rules that machine guns should not be regulated who cares about laws, judges have feelings to consider. i mean bonnie and clyde used machine guns and they are about as all american as you can get, am I right? Another Machine Gun Case Gets Tossed Out of Federal Court—What This Means for Gun Owners A federal judge in Mississippi has just dismissed a machine gun possession charge, marking the second time in recent history that such a case has been thrown out. Chris Eger of Guns.com first reported on the case, U.S. vs. Justin Bryce Brown, explaining that Judge Carlton W. Reeves ruled the federal charge was inconsistent with American history and tradition regarding firearm regulations. The case is yet another test of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun laws must align with the nation’s historical precedent.
This could be a good discussion. Where do you think the second amendment ends? To me, I think the founding fathers wanted us to be able to stand up to the federal government (army). Therefore, I think the American citizens should be able to possess the modern weaponry of the standard infantry soldier. Thoughts?
I don't think the founding fathers had any inkling of the notion that one day kids were going to shoot other kids in school. It's worth contemplating who is a greater threat to us: an infantry soldier or some random emotionally unstable knucklehead with access to a firearm. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
Ammosexuals and their delusional visions of playing Rambo against the government in a dystopian event will surely be pleased by this.
It’s effectively a ruling that only applies to a single person though. It doesn’t enjoin enforcement of 922(o) and isn’t a facial challenge to the law, it’s just an order dismissing criminal charges against one individual on constitutional grounds. It is an interesting question though - if the relevant constitutional test to determine whether a weapon is subject to Second Amendment protection is whether it is in lawful common use, does the presence of three quarters of a million lawfully registered machineguns meet that? And if the constitutionality test is having a historical precedent, the fact machineguns weren’t banned until 1986 seems to flunk that. Last note, this isn’t a righty judge - it’s an Obama appointee complaining about Bruen but saying that he’s obligated to follow it and it compels this result.
during the time of our founding fathers most states had their own militias. not sure the right to bear arms was meant to battle our own government. that idea did not work out so well for the Confederate Army with multiple states banding together.
Not fair. Under current laws I am not allowed to have a cannon, yet my neighbor will be allowed a machine gun.
Well, by that logic, I suppose the founding fathers intended for us to have tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines. Don't you think?
You can absolutely own a cannon. You may have state regulations (although not in many states), and you may need local permits to actually fire one, but federally owning one is no issue at all. To avoid federal regulations altogether you need to know and track the definitions that make one an antique and/or non-firearm (broadest category of those would be muzzleloading cannons that are either originals or replicas of cannons made in or before 1898 and don’t use fixed ammunition, but there are some other designs that would fit within the definitions too). But even if you don’t hew to those definitions, your biggest federal roadblock to owning even modern artillery designs would be a $200 tax stamp for your cannon being a destructive device, and needing to avoid explosive shells unless you were willing to pay the destructive device tax stamp on each shell too.
I don't know anything about them other than what they advertise on their FAQ page, but they don't seem to be a "military organization," which would be illegal under state law. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
So true, but one of those little things you don't think about. Sure, you can own a 105mm Howitzer. But, getting rounds for it is next to impossible and 1000% illegal. It's like when Musk posted about drones vs. F-35 and I actually thought the post was smart. Until I heard a military aviation expert lay out the simple fact that drones simply cannot compete with modern jets in (drum roll) Range and Speed. Which, when you just think about it for a second, is so obvious. Any drone that could compete with an F-35 would look a lot like an F-35 and have similar cost. Furthermore, the F35 (and next Gen) will command their own flight of drones. Yeah, stick to PayPal Elon.
I guess the argument for the militia might be along the lines of, "we're not an active militia unless the state calls for us to be one." Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
1. I hate guns and have never owned one and i think we need stricter gun laws. 2. Your complaint is with Obama. He appointed the judge. 3. I read the ruling. Seems the judge got it right legally regardless of my opinion of future laws
Exactly….this is my point. Where does it end for you? For me? Like I said. Whatever a modern infantryman carried.
