Illegal machine Gun Manufacturer Gets Federal Time

[tbhausen]

Auction, yeah, sounds likely...

 

[j706]

So what happens to the 59,000 rounds of ammo they found at his place? Auction?

I do not know but I can tell you one thing there were cases upon cases of ammunition stacked floor to ceiling in a good sized shed. I never did know the round count but it was a bunch. A auction would be a good idea. It would be a shame if it ended up destroyed.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How does mere recognition of the institution of slavery in a document equate to it being a right enshrined in it?

Actually it would be better stated as American citizens had the "right" to oppress citizens of which the 3/5th applied, would it not?

 

[hornadylnl]

Just wait until bibles are banned.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just wait until bibles are banned.

Ha! I'll be at Alcatraz.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ha! I'll be at Alcatraz.

It'll probably be a fellow Christian of all people to report you.

 

[richardraw316]

 

[Bunnykid68]

No, AR's are the most common rifle bought today, and they have no functional difference between many other semi-autos that are NOT illegal. If criminals choose to flout that law and use AR's anyway, I can defend against them at par level with many other weapons that are legal for me to own. Automatic weapons are uncommon AND functionally different. Letting criminals have them gives an unfair advantage against US.

Where are these stories of criminals using full auto weapons?

 

[Squirt239]

"shall not be infringed." Enough said.

As far as a "felony" record goes here's my opinion:

Either a "felon" is reformed and returned to society as a free man, or he/she is not. Period. These selective rules for select people infringe on MY rights. If someone is "too dangerous" to be let out of prison and own a firearm, then that same person is "too dangerous" to be let out of prison.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"shall not be infringed." Enough said.

As far as a "felony" record goes here's my opinion:

Either a "felon" is reformed and returned to society as a free man, or he/she is not. Period. These selective rules for select people infringe on MY rights. If someone is "too dangerous" to be let out of prison and own a firearm, then that same person is "too dangerous" to be let out of prison.

You're the one being selective. The is no incarceration requirement listed in the Constitution to deny one their rights. The only limitation is that they must be convicted via a trial. So if we're going to follow the letter, let's not get creative with interpretations.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

. The 3/5 compromise, for instance, was in the original document.

No, it wasnt... That was part of a compromise in the 1840's-50,s as a result of the western expansion. It was essentially for census /tax purposes. Never as to election reasons.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, it wasnt... That was part of a compromise in the 1840's-50,s as a result of the western expansion. It was essentially for census /tax purposes. Never as to election reasons.

Uh, yeah it was in the original.

 

[wtfd661]

Where are these stories of criminals using full auto weapons?

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








Now that said, I personally believe that any law abiding American citizen who can lawfully own and carry a firearm should be able to own a automatic firearm or SBR without going through the additional hoops that the federal government requires one to go through.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, FA items shouldn't have restrictions. But, based on how many people cite the "shall not be infringed," as proof that any "arm" is fair game for possession, I think there probably needs to be a tweak to the 2nd, prohibiting things like say thermonuclear weapons, weaponized viruses/chemicals, and other REALLY nasty stuff.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Yes, FA items shouldn't have restrictions. But, based on how many people cite the "shall not be infringed," as proof that any "arm" is fair game for possession, I think there probably needs to be a tweak to the 2nd, prohibiting things like say thermonuclear weapons, weaponized viruses/chemicals, and other REALLY nasty stuff.

A weapon that is beyond your direct control to stop (biologicals, chemicals) I agree. A weapon that requires the resources of a State to build and maintain, I agree. But infantry fielded weapons, ALL of them, should be available to the citizens as well.

 

[Fargo]

Actually it would be better stated as American citizens had the "right" to oppress citizens of which the 3/5th applied, would it not?

Depends on how you define "right". Slavery was not not a constitutionally protected or enshrined right. If it was, the northern states could not have abolished it. Rather, it was a matter left to the state governments to decide.

Just because the constitution doesn't prohibit something, does not mean it makes it a right. It just means it leaves the matter to another authority to address.

 

[Fargo]

A weapon that is beyond your direct control to stop (biologicals, chemicals) I agree. A weapon that requires the resources of a State to build and maintain, I agree. But infantry fielded weapons, ALL of them, should be available to the citizens as well.

This.

If you back and read the cases and legal authorities of the late 1700s, you will find that arms within the context of the right to bear them referred to the weapons proper to the individual soldier.

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England is the easiest one to find off the top of my head.

 

[BrewerGeorge]

Where are these stories of criminals using full auto weapons?

Of course there aren't many - because the laws against them are being enforced. They are rare. But many of you are saying that the law should not be enforced for this guy, the natural corollary being that they should not be enforced for anyone. If anybody could make these and sell them without fear of consequences they would no longer be rare. Making guns isn't that hard with a machine shop, and modifying existing guns for full-auto is even easier.

If this one one guy practicing civil disobedience by owning an unlicensed fully automatic weapon because he thought it was his Constitutional Right to do so, I would be much more sympathetic. But this situation isn't that. It's a guy running a criminal business for profit, not for principle.

 

[aaron580]

Of course there aren't many - because the laws against them are being enforced. They are rare. But many of you are saying that the law should not be enforced for this guy, the natural corollary being that they should not be enforced for anyone. If anybody could make these and sell them without fear of consequences they would no longer be rare. Making guns isn't that hard with a machine shop, and modifying existing guns for full-auto is even easier.

If this one one guy practicing civil disobedience by owning an unlicensed fully automatic weapon because he thought it was his Constitutional Right to do so, I would be much more sympathetic. But this situation isn't that. It's a guy running a criminal business for profit, not for principle.

it will be a rarer occurrence to hear of fully automatic weapons used these days since they are already illegal and anti's are working to make semi's illegal…it doesn't push an agenda.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Depends on how you define "right". Slavery was not not a constitutionally protected or enshrined right. If it was, the northern states could not have abolished it. Rather, it was a matter left to the state governments to decide.

Just because the constitution doesn't prohibit something, does not mean it makes it a right. It just means it leaves the matter to another authority to address.

I didn't say slavery. I said the right to oppress those who were the subject of the 3/5 Compromise, who of course were property. Based on the (which I'm sure you'll agree) understanding by the North, that slaves were property, would you not agree it is an infringement on ones rights for the govt to dictate what people do with their own property?