“It will be very telling if a case comes before the USSC with that set of facts as the argument as to why normal law-abiding people should be able to own full auto machine guns, for instance.”
Indeed, it will. Scalia even mentioned that a full auto would be protected under the Stevens view of “Miller”. Scalia says that this view is incorrect, that “Miller” also has to be understood in the context of the times in which the 2nd was written. This means that members of the militia were expected to report for duty bearing their weapons (i.e. those in common use at the time).
Of course, full autos aren’t exactly common - but that’s because the 2nd has been violated since 1934 by the government. From 1934 until the present day, if you wanted or want to have a full auto transferred to you, you had/have to (among other things) pay a $200 tax and get the approval of your local chief LEO. Until at least the 1970’s, $200 was very expensive in relation to the cost of the gun itself, so the numbers were limited (and they were also limited due to state law, or to anti-gun LEOs denying people permission, even if they had the $200 for the tax). On top of that, the supply of full autos available for civilian (i.e. non-governmental and non-Class 3 dealer, IOW the vast, vast majority of us) ownership was limited by federal law to those in existence and registered as of 5/19/1986.
I foresee that the ‘86 ban will be lifted - it has ALWAYS been legal to own a full auto under federal law (so how “unusual” or “dangerous” could they be?), and it is simply absurd (i.e. irrational) to say that a particular individual owning a pre-ban full auto cannot also own a post-ban full auto because that somehow presents a danger to society. I further predict that once that case is won, someone will challenge the $200 tax stamp required under the ‘34 NFA. The ruling in “Murdoch v. Pennsylvania” http://nesara.org/court_summaries/murdoch_v_pennsylvania.htm
is very clear in stating that there can be no tax imposed on the exercise of a Constitutional “privilege” (which should have read “right” which, I believe, will be corrected in a USSC opinion in the not-to-distant future).
Good days are coming. I forsee a day in which 5 or 10 million full autos are owned by civilians in this country, which would make any domestic tyranny an impossibility and any foreign invasion a bloody failure...just as the Founders intended.
The same thought occured to me as I was reading Scalia's opinion. Can the state, by its prior regulatory actions, be allowed to make some arms "uncommon", and then use that fact to prevent peacable citizens from owning "such an instrument"?
I would argue not, but that and three bucks would get you a cup of coffee these days.
I don't like the notion of relying on the courts to preserve our essential liberties (though in the present instance things broke in favor of liberty).
Easier to pick your shots on semi. Better to keep heads down on full auto.
If I want to keep heads down, I’ll take a Stoner.
If I want to choose my shots, I’ll take an M14.
But that’s just me personally. I’m sure others would want an M16 to do both those jobs.
“It will be very telling if a case comes before the USSC with that set of facts as the argument as to why normal law-abiding people should be able to own full auto machine guns, for instance.”
Normal, law-abiding people *are* able to own full auto machine guns. Every time I go to a gun show I pass a table or two with everything from Mac-10s to MP-40s to pintel mounted 50s.