Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
JIMV
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 6 months ago
Joined: 03/22/2005 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Scope of 2nd Amendment's questioned By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban_2

LarryB
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 02/02/2005 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

The only way the Second Ammendment makes any sense is when the word "regulated" is used in it's correct context, in which it means "adjusted to a state of constancy". In effect, the founders were recognizing that technology would change, and were making an allowance for the people to acquire more modern arms as they were developed. When the ammendment is read with the word "regulated" meaning "governed". the first part of it negates the second, wherein "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It's all about who controls the language.

jocko758
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 4 months ago
Joined: 10/04/2005 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Matt Appuzo? Native Mainer from Cumberland. Colby grad. Fine young journalist.

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them. Cliche but true. IF DC allowed law abiding citizens to have guns, then the average cowardly criminal will think twice about robbing a store or breaking into someones house.
The 2nd amendment is very in my mind. It is my right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon. This is a basic principle of our country and it also has protected us from invasion in the past because other countries know we are all armed to the teeth!
I will be happy to give up all my handguns: WHEN THEY PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS.
J.

woodcanoe
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/22/2005 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

If you read much about what the intent of the Founders was when they wrote the ammendment there is absolutely no question as to what it means.

"Militia" in their minds meant "all of the people acting in concert against a common enemy (read tyrannical government!)".

The Americans had just done this very thing. Farmers and their families armed with muskets, pistols, shotguns and some cannon type weapons threw off (violently) the rule of a tyrannical government.

If the second Ammendment is truly a "group right" and not an "individual right" it is the only one in the Bill of Rights that is a "group right". I can't stand the elitists interpeting the Constitution to reinforce their particular stupid point of view. Washington DC is one of the most crime laden cesspools on the face of the earth. If honest decent civilians could carry arms legally the crime rate would drop like a rock in water. But it ain't going to happen. Way too many people in this nation don't believe that guns can solve problems.

Just think for a moment about how many young people would be alive if just one responsible person in any one of several American school buildings had had a firearm.

How many people would have been saved on 9/11 if just one person on each of those planes had been carrying a snub nosed .38.

None of us will live long enough to see the elites agree that in lots of cases firearms can solve bad problems.

How many muggings and robberies in DC would stop if the perps thought the store owner might be armed? Its a no-brainer to me.

The Maine Constitution reads that our right to own firearms shall never be questioned. Yet the brilliant political class from North Massachusetts (Portland) keeps trying every year in Augusta.

They just don't get it! I cant figure out if it is arrogance or just plain stupid.

Anonymous
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

In 1933, I believe it was 1933, there was a case brought before the Supreme Court Miller v USA Mr. Miller had been arrested fro having a sawed off shotgun in his possesion. He died before the case went to court, but the court, in essence rulled, that the Article Two of the Bill of Rights aloowed for anyone to carry what is common waepons of the militrary, at that time the Sawed off shotgun was not a common weapon in the US military.

While, again to the best of my knowledge, there have been no Second cases since then, the court has on numerous counts used the feedom of the Second in it's decisions, always finding on the side of freedom and literal interp-retation of the Second.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

This is a really stupid question for you guys, but I am a gun ignoramus.

Why are sawed off shotguns illegal? Why are they considered so dangerous?

Anonymous
Miller v USA from GunCite

While this is long, it is text so shouldn't require much bandwidth. I read this decison as very pro Second, others, by misintreprteing the word "Militia" have a different opinion. With this new case, perhaps the court will address the word "Militia".

UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174

NO. 696. ARGUED MARCH 30, 1939. - DECIDED MAY 15, 1939. - 26 F.SUPP.
1002, REVERSED.

THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, AS APPLIED TO ONE INDICTED FOR TRANSPORTING
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE A 12-GAUGE SHOTGUN WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 18
INCHES LONG, WITHOUT HAVING REGISTERED IT AND WITHOUT HAVING IN HIS
POSSESSION A STAMP-AFFIXED WRITTEN ORDER FOR IT, AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACT, HELD:

1. NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INVASION OF THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE
STATES. CITING SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506, AND NARCOTIC
ACT CASES. P. 177.

2. NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. P. 178.

THE COURT CAN NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT A SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL
LESS THAN 18 INCHES LONG HAS TODAY ANY REASONABLE RELATION TO THE
PRESERVATION OR EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA; AND THEREFORE
CAN NOT SAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES TO THE CITIZEN THE
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH A WEAPON.

UNITED STATES V. MILLER ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

AN INDICTMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS,
CHARGED THAT JACK MILLER AND FRANK LAYTON

"DID UNLAWFULLY, KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY, AND FELONIOUSLY TRANSPORT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE TOWN OF CLAREMORE IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
TO THE TOWN OF SILOAM SPRINGS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS A CERTAIN
FIREARM, TO-WIT, A DOUBLE BARREL 12-GAUGE STEVENS SHOTGUN HAVING A
BARREL LESS THAN 18 INCHES IN LENGTH, BEARING IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
76230, SAID DEFENDANTS, AT THE TIME OF SO TRANSPORTING SAID FIREARM IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS AFORESAID, NOT HAVING REGISTERED SAID FIREARM AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 1132D OF TITLE 26, U.S.C. (ACT OF JUNE 26, 1934, C.
737, SEC. 4(SEC. 5), 48 STAT. 1237), AND NOT HAVING IN THEIR
POSSESSION A STAMP-AFFIXED WRITTEN ORDER FOR SAID FIREARM AS PROVIDED
BY SECTION 1132C, TITLE 26, U.S.C. (JUNE 26, 1934, C. 737, SEC. 4, 48
STAT. 1237) AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE SAID ACT
OF CONGRESS KNOWN AS THE 'NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT' APPROVED JUNE 26,
1934, CONTRARY TO THE FORM OF THE STATUTE IN SUCH CASE MADE AND
PROVIDED, AND AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE UNITED STATES."
FN1

A DULY INTERPOSED DEMURRER ALLEGED: THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT IS NOT
A REVENUE MEASURE BUT AN ATTEMPT TO USURP POLICE POWER RESERVED TO THE
STATES, AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ALSO, IT OFFENDS THE
INHIBITION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - "A WELL
REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE
RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SECTION ELEVEN OF THE ACT VIOLATES THE
SECOND AMENDMENT. IT ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER AND QUASHED
THE INDICTMENT.

THE CAUSE IS HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL.

CONSIDERING SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, AND
WHAT WAS RULED IN SUNDRY CAUSES ARISING UNDER THE HARRISON NARCOTIC
ACT FN2 - UNITED STATES V. JIN FUEY MOY (1916), 241 U.S. 394; UNITED
STATES V. DOREMUS (1919), 249 U.S. 86, 94; LINDER V. UNITED STATES
(1925), 268 U.S. 5; ALSTON V. UNITED STATES (1927), 274 U.S. 289; NIGRO
V. UNITED STATES (1928), 276 U.S. 332 - THE OBJECTION THAT THE ACT
USURPS POLICE POWER RESERVED TO THE STATES IS PLAINLY UNTENABLE.

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE
OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH"
AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR
EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT.
CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART
OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO
THE COMMON DEFENSE. AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHREYS (TENN.) 154, 158.

THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER
"TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE
UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR
ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING
SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE
DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS." WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE
CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE
DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE. IT MUST
BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.

THE MILITIA WHICH THE STATES WERE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN AND TRAIN IS
SET IN CONTRAST WITH TROOPS WHICH THEY WERE FORBIDDEN TO KEEP WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS. THE SENTIMENT OF THE TIME STRONGLY DISFAVORED
STANDING ARMIES; THE COMMON VIEW WAS THAT ADEQUATE DEFENSE OF COUNTRY
AND LAWS COULD BE SECURED THROUGH THE MILITIA - CIVILIANS PRIMARILY,
SOLDIERS ON OCCASION.

THE SIGNIFICATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE TERM MILITIA APPEARS FROM THE
DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION, THE HISTORY AND LEGISLATION OF COLONIES AND
STATES, AND THE WRITINGS OF APPROVED COMMENTATORS. THESE SHOW PLAINLY
ENOUGH THAT THE MILITIA COMPRISED ALL MALES PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF
ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE. "A BODY OF CITIZENS ENROLLED
FOR MILITARY DISCIPLINE." AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR
SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY
THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, VOL. 2, CH. 13, P. 409 POINTS OUT "THAT
KING ALFRED FIRST SETTLED A NATIONAL MILITIA IN THIS KINGDOM," AND
TRACES THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF SUCH FORCES.

ADAM SMITH'S WEALTH OF NATIONS, BOOK V, CH. 1, CONTAINS AN EXTENDED
ACCOUNT OF THE MILITIA. IT IS THERE SAID: "MEN OF REPUBLICAN
PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN JEALOUS OF A STANDING ARMY AS DANGEROUS TO
LIBERTY." "IN A MILITIA, THE CHARACTER OF THE LABOURER, ARTIFICER, OR
TRADESMAN, PREDOMINATES OVER THAT OF THE SOLDIER: IN A STANDING ARMY,
THAT OF THE SOLDIER PREDOMINATES OVER EVERY OTHER CHARACTER; AND IN
THIS DISTINCTION SEEMS TO CONSIST THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MILITARY FORCE."

"THE AMERICAN COLONIES IN THE 17TH CENTURY," OSGOOD, VOL. 1, CH.
XIII, AFFIRMS IN REFERENCE TO THE EARLY SYSTEM OF DEFENSE IN NEW
ENGLAND -

"IN ALL THE COLONIES, AS IN ENGLAND, THE MILITIA SYSTEM WAS BASED ON
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ASSIZE OF ARMS. THIS IMPLIED THE GENERAL
OBLIGATION OF ALL ADULT MALE INHABITANTS TO POSSESS ARMS, AND, WITH
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO COOPERATE IN THE WORK OF DEFENCE." "THE
POSSESSION OF ARMS ALSO IMPLIED THE POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, AND THE
AUTHORITIES PAID QUITE AS MUCH ATTENTION TO THE LATTER AS TO THE
FORMER." "A YEAR LATER (1632) IT WAS ORDERED THAT ANY SINGLE MAN WHO
HAD NOT FURNISHED HIMSELF WITH ARMS MIGHT BE PUT OUT TO SERVICE, AND
THIS BECAME A PERMANENT PART OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE COLONY
(MASSACHUSETTS)."

ALSO "CLAUSES INTENDED TO INSURE THE POSSESSION OF ARMS AND
AMMUNITION BY ALL WHO WERE SUBJECT TO MILITARY SERVICE APPEAR IN ALL
THE IMPORTANT ENACTMENTS CONCERNING MILITARY AFFAIRS. FINES WERE THE
PENALTY FOR DELINQUENCY, WHETHER OF TOWNS OR INDIVIDUALS. ACCORDING TO
THE USAGE OF THE TIMES, THE INFANTRY OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSISTED OF
PIKEMEN AND MUSKETEERS. THE LAW, AS ENACTED IN 1649 AND THEREAFTER,
PROVIDED THAT EACH OF THE FORMER SHOULD BE ARMED WITH A PIKE, CORSELET,
HEAD-PIECE, SWORD, AND KNAPSACK. THE MUSKETEER SHOULD CARRY A 'GOOD
FIXED MUSKET,' NOT UNDER BASTARD MUSKET BORE, NOT LESS THAN THREE FEET,
NINE INCHES, NOR MORE THAN FOUR FEET THREE INCHES IN LENGTH, A PRIMING
WIRE, SCOURER, AND MOULD, A SWORD, REST, BANDOLEERS, ONE POUND OF
POWDER, TWENTY BULLETS, AND TWO FATHOMS OF MATCH. THE LAW ALSO
REQUIRED THAT TWO-THIRDS OF EACH COMPANY SHOULD BE MUSKETEERS."

THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY SESSION 1784, PROVIDED
FOR THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE MILITIA. IT DIRECTED THAT
THE TRAIN BAND SHOULD "CONTAIN ALL ABLE BODIED MEN, FROM SIXTEEN TO
FORTY YEARS OF AGE, AND THE ALARM LIST, ALL OTHER MEN UNDER SIXTY YEARS
OF AGE, ..." ALSO, "THAT EVERY NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND PRIVATE
SOLDIER OF THE SAID MILITIA NOT UNDER THE CONTROUL OF PARENTS, MASTERS
OR GUARDIANS, AND BEING OF SUFFICIENT ABILITY THEREFOR IN THE JUDGMENT
OF THE SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN IN WHICH HE SHALL DWELL, SHALL EQUIP
HIMSELF, AND BE CONSTANTLY PROVIDED WITH A GOOD FIRE ARM," &C.

BY AN ACT PASSED APRIL 4, 1786 THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE DIRECTED:
"THAT EVERY ABLE-BODIED MALE PERSON, BEING A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE, OR
OF ANY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND RESIDING IN THIS STATE, (EXCEPT SUCH
PERSONS AS ARE HEREINAFTER EXCEPTED) AND WHO ARE OF THE AGE OF SIXTEEN,
AND UNDER THE AGE OF FORTY-FIVE YEARS, SHALL, BY THE CAPTAIN OR
COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE BEAT IN WHICH SUCH CITIZENS SHALL RESIDE,
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE PASSING OF THIS ACT, BE ENROLLED IN THE
COMPANY OF SUCH BEAT. ... THAT EVERY CITIZEN SO ENROLLED AND
NOTIFIED, SHALL, WITHIN THREE MONTHS THEREAFTER, PROVIDE HIMSELF, AT
HIS OWN EXPENSE, WITH A GOOD MUSKET OR FIRELOCK, A SUFFICIENT BAYONET
AND BELT, A POUCH WITH A BOX THEREIN TO CONTAIN NOT LESS THAN TWENTY
FOUR CARTRIDGES SUITED TO THE BORE OF HIS MUSKET OR FIRELOCK, EACH
CARTRIDGE CONTAINING A PROPER QUANTITY OF POWDER AND BALL, TWO SPARE
FLINTS, A BLANKET AND KNAPSACK; ..."

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER, 1785, (12 HENING'S
STATUTES) DECLARED, "THE DEFENSE AND SAFETY OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEPEND
UPON HAVING ITS CITIZENS PROPERLY ARMED AND TAUGHT THE KNOWLEDGE OF
MILITARY DUTY."

IT FURTHER PROVIDED FOR ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF THE MILITIA AND
DIRECTED THAT "ALL FREE MALE PERSONS BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN AND
FIFTY YEARS," WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, "SHALL BE INROLLED OR FORMED
INTO COMPANIES." "THERE SHALL BE A PRIVATE MUSTER OF EVERY COMPANY
ONCE IN TWO MONTHS."

ALSO THAT "EVERY OFFICER AND SOLDIER SHALL APPEAR AT HIS RESPECTIVE
MUSTER-FIELD ON THE DAY APPOINTED, BY ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE FORENOON,
ARMED, EQUIPPED, AND ACCOUTRED, AS FOLLOWS: ... EVERY NON-COMMISSIONED
OFFICER AND PRIVATE WITH A GOOD, CLEAN MUSKET CARRYING AN OUNCE BALL,
AND THREE FEET EIGHT INCHES LONG IN THE BARREL, WITH A GOOD BAYONET AND
IRON RAMROD WELL FITTED THERETO, A CARTRIDGE BOX PROPERLY MADE, TO
CONTAIN AND SECURE TWENTY CARTRIDGES FITTED TO HIS MUSKET, A GOOD
KNAPSACK AND CANTEEN, AND MOREOVER, EACH NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND
PRIVATE SHALL HAVE AT EVERY MUSTER ONE POUND OF GOOD POWDER, AND FOUR
POUNDS OF LEAD, INCLUDING TWENTY BLIND CARTRIDGES; AND EACH SERJEANT
SHALL HAVE A PAIR OF MOULDS FIT TO CAST BALLS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE
COMPANIES, TO BE PURCHASED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OUT OF THE MONIES
ARISING ON DELINQUENCIES. PROVIDED, THAT THE MILITIA OF THE COUNTIES
WESTWARD OF THE BLUE RIDGE, AND THE COUNTIES BELOW ADJOINING THERETO,
SHALL NOT BE OBLIGED TO BE ARMED WITH MUSKETS, BUT MAY HAVE GOOD RIFLES
WITH PROPER ACCOUTREMENTS, IN LIEU THEREOF. AND EVERY OF THE SAID
OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, AND PRIVATES, SHALL CONSTANTLY
KEEP THE AFORESAID ARMS, ACCOUTREMENTS, AND AMMUNITION, READY TO BE
PRODUCED WHENEVER CALLED FOR BY HIS COMMANDING OFFICER. IF ANY PRIVATE
SHALL MAKE IT APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT HEREAFTER TO BE
APPOINTED FOR TRYING DELINQUENCIES UNDER THIS ACT THAT HE IS SO POOR
THAT HE CANNOT PURCHASE THE ARMS HEREIN REQUIRED, SUCH COURT SHALL
CAUSE THEM TO BE PURCHASED OUT OF THE MONEY ARISING FROM DELINQUENTS."

MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE STATES HAVE ADOPTED PROVISIONS TOUCHING THE
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. DIFFERENCES IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN
THESE HAVE NATURALLY LED TO SOMEWHAT VARIANT CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE
SCOPE OF THE RIGHT GUARANTEED. BUT NONE OF THEM SEEM TO AFFORD ANY
MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CHALLENGED RULING OF THE COURT BELOW.

IN THE MARGIN SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT OPINIONS AND COMMENTS BY
WRITERS ARE CITED. FN3

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE
CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

FN1 ACT OF JUNE 26, 1934, C. 757, 48 STAT. 1236-1240, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
1132.

THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT -

"(A) THE TERM 'FIREARM' MEANS A SHOTGUN OR RIFLE HAVING A BARREL OF
LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH, OR ANY OTHER WEAPON, EXCEPT A
PISTOL OR REVOLVER, FROM WHICH A SHOT IS DISCHARGED BY AN EXPLOSIVE IF
SUCH WEAPON IS CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED ON THE PERSON, OR A MACHINE
GUN, AND INCLUDES A MUFFLER OR SILENCER FOR ANY FIREARM WHETHER OR NOT
SUCH FIREARM IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOREGOING DEFINITION, (THE ACT OF
APRIL 10, 1936, C. 169, 49 STAT. 1192 ADDED THE WORDS) BUT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY RIFLE WHICH IS WITHIN THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS SOLELY BY
REASON OF THE LENGTH OF ITS BARREL IF THE CALIBER OF SUCH RIFLE IS .22
OR SMALLER AND IF ITS BARREL IS SIXTEEN INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH.

"SEC. 3. (A) THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID UPON
FIREARMS TRANSFERRED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES A TAX AT THE RATE
OF $200 FOR EACH FIREARM, SUCH TAX TO BE PAID BY THE TRANSFEROR, AND TO
BE REPRESENTED BY APPROPRIATE STAMPS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE
COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY; AND THE STAMPS HEREIN
PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFIXED TO THE ORDER FOR SUCH FIREARM, HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED FOR. THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO
ANY IMPORT DUTY IMPOSED ON SUCH FIREARM.

"SEC. 4. (A) IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO TRANSFER A
FIREARM EXCEPT IN PURSUANCE OF A WRITTEN ORDER FROM THE PERSON SEEKING
TO OBTAIN SUCH ARTICLE, ON AN APPLICATION FORM ISSUED IN BLANK IN
DUPLICATE FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE COMMISSIONER. SUCH ORDER SHALL
IDENTIFY THE APPLICANT BY SUCH MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED BY REGULATIONS UNDER THIS ACT: PROVIDED, THAT, IF THE
APPLICANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, SUCH IDENTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE
FINGERPRINTS AND A PHOTOGRAPH THEREOF. "(C) EVERY PERSON SO
TRANSFERRING A FIREARM SHALL SET FORTH IN EACH COPY OF SUCH ORDER THE
MANUFACTURER'S NUMBER OR OTHER MARK IDENTIFYING SUCH FIREARM, AND SHALL
FORWARD A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO THE COMMISSIONER. THE ORIGINAL THEREOF
WITH STAMPS AFFIXED, SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT.

"(D) NO PERSON SHALL TRANSFER A FIREARM WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN
TRANSFERRED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, UNLESS SUCH
PERSON, IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH SUBSECTION (C), TRANSFERS
THEREWITH THE STAMP-AFFIXED ORDER PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION FOR EACH
SUCH PRIOR TRANSFER, IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REGULATIONS AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT FOR PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES ON SUCH
FIREARMS.

"SEC. 5. (A) WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT
EVERY PERSON POSSESSING A FIREARM SHALL REGISTER, WITH THE COLLECTOR OF
THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE RESIDES, THE NUMBER OR OTHER MARK IDENTIFYING
SUCH FIREARM, TOGETHER WITH HIS NAME, ADDRESS, PLACE WHERE SUCH FIREARM
IS USUALLY KEPT, AND PLACE OF BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT, AND, IF SUCH
PERSON IS OTHER THAN A NATURAL PERSON, THE NAME AND HOME ADDRESS OF AN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER THEREOF: PROVIDED, THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE REQUIRED
TO REGISTER UNDER THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY FIREARM ACQUIRED
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF, AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF,
THIS ACT.

"SEC. 6. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE OR POSSESS
ANY FIREARM WHICH HAS AT ANY TIME BEEN TRANSFERRED IN VIOLATION OF

"SEC. 11. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO
REGISTER AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5 HEREOF AND WHO SHALL NOT HAVE SO
REGISTERED, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS NOT IN HIS POSSESSION A
STAMPAFFIXED ORDER AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 HEREOF, TO SHIP, CARRY, OR
DELIVER ANY FIREARM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

"SEC. 12. THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY,
SHALL PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR
CARRYING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT INTO EFFECT.

"SEC. 14. ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT SHALL, UPON CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
$2,000 OR BE IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT.

"SEC. 16. IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR THE APPLICATION THEREOF
TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE, IS HELD INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THE
ACT, AND THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO OTHER PERSONS OR
CIRCUMSTANCES, SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY.

"SEC. 18. THIS ACT MAY BE CITED AS THE 'NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.'"

FN2 ACT DECEMBER 17, 1914, C. 1, 38 STAT. 785; FEBRUARY 24, 1919, C.
18, 40 STAT. 1057.

FN3 CONCERNING THE MILITIA - PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252;
ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275; FIFE V. STATE, 31 ARK. 455; JEFFERS
V. FAIR, 33 GA. 347; SALINA V. BLAKSLEY, 72 KAN. 230; 83 P. 619; PEOPLE
V. BROWN, 253 MICH. 537; 235 N.W. 245; AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHR.
(TENN.) 154; STATE V. DUKE, 42 TEXAS 455; STATE V. WORKMAN, 35 W. VA.
367; 14 S.E. 9; COOLEY'S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, VOL. 1, P. 729;
STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION, 5TH ED., VOL. 2, P. 646; ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF
THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. X, P. 471, 474.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CAUSE.

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Thanks...

but can anyone give me a simple explanation for why sawed off shotguns are dangerous?

Pretend you are explaining it to a six year old and I should understand. ;)

LarryB
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 02/02/2005 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Catherine, a swaed off shotgun is no more "dangerous" than any other weapon. Federal law states that a shotgun must have a barrel no less than 18" in length, with an overall length no less than 26" (I believe the latter figure is correct). The law is based on concealability, not destructive power. A sawed off shotgun can be legally posessed with a federal license.

Brent Dickey
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 09/27/2003 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Sawed off shotgun - easier to conceal and have a wider shot pellet pattern

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Thanks.

lucky
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2004 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Catherine, this is what I found on the subject:

What a Sawed Off Shotgun does:

With Shotguns, longer barrels keep the Shot together for a longer period of time. Every so many
feet, the pellets spread apart. So, say you shoot a regular shotgun at a piece of metal 5 feet
away, it will blow a direct hole in the metal. This is because the pellets (shot) are together.
So, walk back about 50 feet away from the piece of metal, and shoot the same place, Its not going
to make the same hole, its going to leave little tiny holes all around it..See?

With a shorter barrel, the pellets spread apart much faster, this means that if you are standing
say 10 feet away from the piece of metal, the pellets will spread the same as it would 50 feet
away with a regular shotgun.

What is the advantage? Home Protection. Example: You are in bed, you hear a robber. Its 3am, and
you can barely see because of the Sand Man. You grab your sawed off shotgun go into the living
room, its compleatly dark you see minor movement, and you shoot the gun, but the gun barrel is
aimed 5 feet away from him. Doesn't matter, you hit him anyway.

Doesn't explain why they are illegal, I know. Hope that was informative anyway!

Catherine
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 11 months ago
Joined: 08/27/2004 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Hey, thanks again. :)

woodcanoe
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/22/2005 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

The National Firearms Act of 1934 is patently unconstitutional. It would never stand a straight faced constitutional test. The Constitution provided for the federal government to have certain powers, all others were left to the states and the people.

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"

Of the powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, regulation of firearms was NOT one of them!

Simple and straightforward isn't it?

Some history: The Volstead Act prohibited alcohol. The Federal government obtained the power to regulate alcohol by getting a Constitutional Ammendment passed. Note that the Constitution did not heretofore provide them with this power.

18th ammendment Text:

"After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."

The Treasury Dept hired hundreds of agents to hunt down the bootleggers. Remember Elliot Ness and co? Prohibition was repealed in 1933. After repeal all of a sudden hundreds of revenuers did not have a reason for existence. What to do? Conveniently Congress passed the NFA act of 1934 which outlawed machine guns, short barreled shotguns and others. All of a sudden there was reason to have all the agents! Note that NO CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT provided the federal power this time. This was the beginning of a massive (unconstitutional) federal power grab that continues today and gains more and more power by the moment.

Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ford (Amazon.com) to read a work of fiction based on real events with a fictional ending representing one scenario of how this power grab may one day come to an end.

I am not going to give it away. You will have to read the book. But if you believe that the Fed has vastly exceeded its Constitutional powers this book is a must-read, guaranteed you won't put it down.

More: Senator Thomas J. Dodd, (father of current Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut), requested the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law of Germany, (which he had obtained while serving as a war-crimes prosecutor at Nuremberg in the post war era), and to adapt its language to the American legal system. FACT: A side-by-side comparison of the two laws supports the existence of several similarities with the Nazi-era law, which was used to strip opposition groups, dissidents, Jews, and other undesirables from their ability to defend themselves or conduct an effective underground resistance movement within Nazi Germany. The primary similarities stem from key gun control concepts like 'sporting use' and 'prohibited persons', all of which subsequently appeared in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I have a copy of this book in my library (distributed by the JPFO) and it is definitely a fact that the language in the gun control act of 1968 is too eerily similar to the Nazi gun control laws of the 30's to be coincidence. You can read it for yourself and see what you think.

This stuff has been going on for a long time. Way, way too long!

LarryB
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 months ago
Joined: 02/02/2005 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Woodcanoe, a lot of the federal power grab is fueled by very liberal interpretations of the commerce clause (which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce). Needless to say, almost anything can be construed to be involved in interstate commerce in one way or another. A few years back when a restaurant burned (I think it was at Moosehead Lake), the ATF investigated. Although there was no initial indication that any federal laws had been broken, they justified their presence by the fact that the liquor in the bar had been distilled out of state.

Tony Bessey
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/18/2002 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

[quote="BobCeleste"]In 1933, I believe it was 1933, there was a case brought before the Supreme Court Miller v USA Mr. Miller had been arrested fro having a sawed off shotgun in his possesion. He died before the case went to court, but the court, in essence rulled, that the Article Two of the Bill of Rights aloowed for anyone to carry what is common waepons of the militrary, at that time the Sawed off shotgun was not a common weapon in the US military.

While, again to the best of my knowledge, there have been no Second cases since then, the court has on numerous counts used the feedom of the Second in it's decisions, always finding on the side of freedom and literal interp-retation of the Second.[/quote]

No one knows anything about what happened with Miller. Miller was a transient durring the depression. The lawyer that handled the case in the lower courts never made an argument before the supreme court because he could not afford to take the matter to Washington. Fact of the matter is that had anyone with a pulse taken the time to point out that the Military used sawed off shotguns as weapons then there is a high likelyhood that the case would have ended in a different manner. Early guns laws were nothing more than was to put ATF and revenue agents to work after booze was legalized. For a great overview of American history and firearms I recomment that everyone read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

Tony

Tony Bessey
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: 08/18/2002 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

[quote="Catherine8679"]This is a really stupid question for you guys, but I am a gun ignoramus.

Why are sawed off shotguns illegal? Why are they considered so dangerous?[/quote]

Catherine,

See my previous post. Gun laws in the early 1930's grew out of the need to put ATF agents to work on matters other than alcohol. The ATF is made up of Bureaucrats that make arbitrary laws concerning firearms and then enforce them. In many cases they create entire groups of unsuspecting criminals out of law abiding citizens without any legislative oversight.

Tony

woodcanoe
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/22/2005 - 1:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

[quote="Tony Bessey"] The ATF is made up of Bureaucrats that make arbitrary laws concerning firearms and then enforce them. In many cases they create entire groups of unsuspecting criminals out of law abiding citizens without any legislative oversight.

Tony[/quote]

Isn't this about as Unamerican idea as we could get?

Mike Travers
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 08/04/2002 - 12:01am
Important 2nd Amendment case making the rounds

Let me make sure I've got the gist of the "militia" argument. DC's position is that the Founders were sitting around discussing the issue of the right to keep and bear arms and decided thusly: "At some time in the future, the National Guard will be invented and will be under the command of the federal government with the President as Commander-in-Chief. We'd better amend the Constitution to make sure the government doesn't pass a law disarming itself." :shock:
The fact that a judge would listen to an argument like this without assaulting the attornies with Silly String, frankly disappoints me.

Log in to post comments