From the article:
Hamblen disagrees with the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. “There are no qualifiers on the Second Amendment,” Hamblen told the author. “There are qualifiers on the Fourth Amendment, so if the Founders had intended to restrict the right to keep and bear arms they knew how to do it,” he continued.
So, his position is there are no qualifiers on the Second Amendment and then attempts to defend his actions with the use of a qualifier? Sounds shaky to me. But, I’ll defer to the fine legal minds here on FR.
Personally, I hope he wins and wins BIG.
It’s still time to take back the country.
“According to figures given to the author, Hamblen claims that there are only 21 such weapons in the arsenal meant to equip over 3,000 National Guard troops.”
?
What kind of NG unit is he talking about? I spent a year in an NG unit and we all had M16s as well as our crew served weapons(4.2” mortars) and .50 caliber M2 machine guns for our tracks.
I was sympathetic until I read this.
I must have missed that particular line in the constitution. Is that a penumbric emanation, too?
This reminds me of one of my favorite Walter E. Williams quotes. “You have no obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. Just be prepared for the consequences of you get caught.”
??? Herbert Hoover was President in 1932. Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March, 1933. He didn't appoint a Justice until 1937. He didn't make his fifth appointment until 1940.
I suspect that his arguments are not as solid as he thinks. If three of the major gun advocacy organizations in the US won’t back him, I suspect that his case is a loser, and they know it.
Practically speaking, the SCOTUS is finding acceptable ground here.
And while even the possession of machine guns should not be forbidden, it is not unreasonable, in the opinion of the vast majority of Americans, the States, and law enforcement personnel, that restrictive licensing is not intolerable. The easy availability and criminal use of Tommy guns during Prohibition, and the resultant bloodbath, pretty well decided that.
But in balance, right now the momentum is with the gun rights movement. So creativity is required of each of us to think of new and better ways for gun liberties to be introduced into common use. We can’t just “hold the line” of gun rights, we need to expand on them.
I’m 42 and becoming aware that my lifetime is finite.
I’m tired of hearing “not yet” arguments re: the 2nd Amendment.
M16s are exactly the kind of weapon our Founding Fathers intended every upstanding citizen have access to: the best weapon any individual can have*, a la what soldiers across our country and around the world are issued for standard combat preparedness.
There is no qualifier on the 2nd Amendment; instead, it ends with “shall not be infringed”.
Enough of this pussy-footing around. If someone is in a position to make a case (and being a soldier qualified to use M16s certainly is), then my best to him and my support insofar as I can give it. If the court isn’t “ripe” now, it never will be (esp. when the Obama gets done with it); get the case before the court already!!!
* - and in no way am I excluding “crew served” arms here.
If ever there was a case where this ammedment:
“Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Applied to the letter and in intent this is it.
Its quite frankly shocking how how far the Federal government has gone. How utterly meaningless this Constitution now is to this Federal Government.
Correction! 1932 should have been 1939 or later. The Miller decision was in 1939.