TheShiznit Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Maryland already has such a law and process on the books. Have for five years or better. Setting aside for the moment that it hasn't yet solved a single thing (running a steel brush down the barrel, replacing a firing pin, replacing a barrel, there's a million ways to fudge this data, and oh yeah, criminals typically don't buy their arms legally, something anyone with sense will typically agree with) and that it's cost-prohibitive, What's the point? Are you willing to bet that you're living under the one government that we can always trust to respect our rights? That this isn't a back-door registration scheme? That registration won't precede confiscation, just this one time in history, by just this one government? Bullfrog. Yo, you are very slippery indeed. I agree that ALL the BoR should be respected. It's just that the second is the one that makes sure all the others stay in effect. If you don't recognize that fact (or refuse to) then I can't help ya pal... I'm with the boy genius - Molon Labe... Yet with all this paranoia, you are probably a hugh fan of the Patriot Act....because you trust our government implicitly to do the right thing in this regard. I may be wrong...from your posts in the past....I think I pegged this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Yet with all this paranoia, you are probably a hugh fan of the Patriot Act....because you trust our government implicitly to do the right thing in this regard. I may be wrong...from your posts in the past....I think I pegged this. Incorrect And he is a anarchist Libertarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Incorrect And he is a anarchist Libertarian. DMD pays you well!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 See, now you're arguing against the efficacy of my ballistics "fingerprinting" hypothetical. But I'm *not* advocating that any state should do that. I'm simply stating that states have the power to do so, if they choose, and not run afoul of our 2nd Amendment rights. It doesn't matter if you or I think its correct or not; it just is. In addition to the potential conflicts between the 2nd Amendment and the states' constitutional police power (or commerce clause), whatever the 2nd Amendment may mean it is only a bar to federal action. The 2nd Amendment does not bar state action. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886); Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-282 (1897); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). Nor does the 2nd Amendment bar private restraints. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). I'm not trying to advance a "gun control" agenda. I just think it would be great if people on both sides of the issue recognized the natural boundaries of what is and is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. (You might be surprised by what kind of arms I'd defend your right to own). While you are certainly free to argue what you think the law *ought* to be, that does not change what the law actually *is.* And don't get me started on registration laws. Molan Labe or not, at a minimum, we know from United States v. Miller (registration law upheld for sawed off shot guns) that they're legal when it comes to weapons that are not the type typically used by a militia. The whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment in the first place is because the constitutionally protected brand of gun ownership was conditioned on participation in a well-organized militia. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Supreme Court has observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Id. at 179. I'm not saying such a registration list couldn't be used against you; it clearly could. But how the hell else are we supposed to call upon gun owners such as yourself if we don't know who the gun owners are? Perhaps you'd be more amenable to a Bat Signal? ETA: thanks for calling me slippery. I think. I can only assume that means I've made a point with which you begrudgingly agree. I'm calling you slippery because you use just enough truth to shade everything, just like the federal attorney in US V MIller. You don't indicate that in US V Miller, the government came right to the point of lying. What the prosecutor actually said was there was no evidence that the short double-barrel possesed by Miller and Layton was ever used in a militia engagement. Additionally, it was never brought up that NFA '34 also restricted machine guns. Since Miller was a backward Ozark illiterate and could not be found for the SC case, no one for the defense ever presented evidence of these things, allowing the government's straw-man argument to pass muster. In fact, short-barreled shotguns had been used in every military engagement since the Spanish-American war. Just not the Stevens double-barrel serial # XXXXX, as the prosecution said. Also, if the fact that NFA '34 placed a $200 tax on a $10 machine gun was brought to light, it would have clearly shown the law for what it was - an attempt to abridge the freedom to own what's CLEARLY a milita weapon through a confiscatory tax. Actually, I half think that the NFA '34 was just a jobs program for all the F-troop agents that would have been surplus with the repeal of prohibition. Then FDR packed the supreme court to ensure the "constitutionality" of all his alphabet-soup programs, and the welfare state was born... No, slippery is not a compliment here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I'm calling you slippery because you use just enough truth to shade everything, just like the federal attorney in US V MIller. You don't indicate that in US V Miller, the government came right to the point of lying. What the prosecutor actually said was there was no evidence that the short double-barrel possesed by Miller and Layton was ever used in a militia engagement. Additionally, it was never brought up that NFA '34 also restricted machine guns. Since Miller was a backward Ozark illiterate and could not be found for the SC case, no one for the defense ever presented evidence of these things, allowing the government's straw-man argument to pass muster. In fact, short-barreled shotguns had been used in every military engagement since the Spanish-American war. Just not the Stevens double-barrel serial # XXXXX, as the prosecution said. Also, if the fact that NFA '34 placed a $200 tax on a $10 machine gun was brought to light, it would have clearly shown the law for what it was - an attempt to abridge the freedom to own what's CLEARLY a milita weapon through a confiscatory tax. Actually, I half think that the NFA '34 was just a jobs program for all the F-troop agents that would have been surplus with the repeal of prohibition. Then FDR packed the supreme court to ensure the "constitutionality" of all his alphabet-soup programs, and the welfare state was born... No, slippery is not a compliment here. pot meat kettle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) I'm calling you slippery because you use just enough truth to shade everything, just like the federal attorney in US V MIller. You don't indicate that in US V Miller, the government came right to the point of lying. What the prosecutor actually said was there was no evidence that the short double-barrel possesed by Miller and Layton was ever used in a militia engagement. Additionally, it was never brought up that NFA '34 also restricted machine guns. Since Miller was a backward Ozark illiterate and could not be found for the SC case, no one for the defense ever presented evidence of these things, allowing the government's straw-man argument to pass muster. In fact, short-barreled shotguns had been used in every military engagement since the Spanish-American war. Just not the Stevens double-barrel serial # XXXXX, as the prosecution said. Also, if the fact that NFA '34 placed a $200 tax on a $10 machine gun was brought to light, it would have clearly shown the law for what it was - an attempt to abridge the freedom to own what's CLEARLY a milita weapon through a confiscatory tax. Actually, I half think that the NFA '34 was just a jobs program for all the F-troop agents that would have been surplus with the repeal of prohibition. Then FDR packed the supreme court to ensure the "constitutionality" of all his alphabet-soup programs, and the welfare state was born... No, slippery is not a compliment here. Once again, you're arguing about what you think that law ought to be. Miller has been in the books for over 60 years. Relying on established US Supreme Court precedent in formulating my opinion doesn't make me slippery: it makes me legally accurate. In the great Rock, Paper, Scissors of American jurisprudence, "is" beats "ought to be." Keep in mind, I have not said whether I think Miller was correctly decided, or not. Merely that it represents the current state of 2nd Amendment law. Edited March 4, 2008 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Once again, you're arguing about what you think that law ought to be. Miller has been in the books for over 60 years. Relying on established US Supreme Court precedent in formulating my opinion doesn't make me slippery: it makes me legally accurate. In the great Rock, Paper, Scissors of American jurisprudence, "is" beats "ought to be." Keep in mind, I have not said whether I think Miller was correctly decided, or not. Merely that it represents the current state of 2nd Amendment law. He shoots, he scores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 Yet with all this paranoia, you are probably a hugh fan of the Patriot Act....because you trust our government implicitly to do the right thing in this regard. I may be wrong...from your posts in the past....I think I pegged this. If WV is anything like me, he deplores the PA and PAII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 If WV is anything like me, he deplores the PA and PAII. Confirmed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 I wonder where Obama stands on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted March 5, 2008 Author Share Posted March 5, 2008 I wonder where Obama stands on My Christmas list just got longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 "is" beats "ought to be." I'm pretty sure that depends on what the definition of "is" is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.