Posted on 01/15/2008 8:00:29 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
whatever happened to the NFA being a TAX measure? and isn’t the purpose of a TAX measure to create revenue, not ban or restrict anything?
This Beast won't go quietly though. It may need to feel the whip before it goes back to lurking in it's lair....
Money shot:
Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states....
Gee... sounds like what they are doing with the NFA and GCA doesn't it?
thank you! i knew i’d heard that decision before, could not remember where i’d heard it.
There’s a couple of them like that. A tax can only be for revenue, not for “punishment” or “prohibition”. That government does it anyway does not make it “right” fro ma Constitutional standpoint.
bump
Like you expected the government TO TELL THE TRUTH???? Surely you jest!!!
FWIW: The detachable-magazine machinegun was effectively invented in 1717 (the “Puckle Gun”).
The reason "new" H&K MP5s seem to be showing up for around $35K is that these weapons are formerly semi-autos that have been converted with a duly registered full auto sear. $200 for the stupid tax to possess and the bidding starts at $35K to purchase! It's become like Polo: A game for the idle rich. Precisely the folks who shouldn't be given access! The liberal elite. Machine guns belong in the hands of the middle class. Of course that's another reason the RATs are trying so hard to eliminate the middle class.
In both countries the right to keep and bear arms has been generally restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security.
Why must collectivism always triumph over individualism in the minds of liberals?
It does not take a village. In fact, the constitution and bill of rights were designed to protect "the people" from village idiots.
Village and Villain are similar in appearnce and intent IMO. Bill, Hillary, village, and villain all contain the word 'ill', which may be more than a coincedence - it could be some sort of 'sign'.
Now, to get clueless American voters to see the stark truth before their very eyes. What a challenge for brainwashed (public education graduates) morons to understand.
***During a shipboard security breech, you could sweep a passageway without turning yourself into a 1200-psi hard-boiled egg. It was beautiful thing.***
I’m not military, could you explain what that means?
I wasn’t even a year old on that date. Do you have any idea why Reagan would sign that into law?
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy .... If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government - and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
Does that mean you wouldn't puncture a boiler? (great nick, btw- always makes me laugh)
I wasn’t even a year old on that date. Do you have any idea why Reagan would sign that into law?
There was no Internet back then, so the word didn’t get out.
And the people who might have cared (machine-gun collectors) were about to be made very wealthy as the value of their collection increased tenfold over subsequent years, so that was an easy layer of the onion to peel away without the NRA complaining.
Now, I have changed my mind. Though weak, the US brief is treason.
The argument in the US brief is that the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms is no more than the common law right to use arms in defense of self and state.
This is equivalent to stating: "The protection of the right to keep and bear arms of the citizens of Boston in 1791 under the US Constitution was no different than the protection of the right of those same citizens of Boston on April 19th, 1775; the date when government troops killed their own citizens while attempting to disarm them."
The weakness of the argument lulled me into believing that the Supreme Court would view such an argument with the scorn that it deserves. Unfortunately, I am guilty of assuming the best when I should be preparing for the worst.
I will be writing a letter explaining the above to both the President of the United States and to the Solicitor General of the United States. The issue is too important to permit this brief, however weak and wrong, from going unchallenged by those who know better.
One view is that the restriction was attached as a “poison pill” to an otherwise good law (the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, which did actually improve things in general). To veto the law over something that (A) most people didn’t care about, and (B) should have been promptly corrected in the courts, wasn’t worth the cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.