[GGReporter]

A former commander in the Tennessee State Guard has lost an appeal to overturn his conviction for trying to provide his soldiers with homemade machine guns for possible use in defending the state. On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati threw the case out of court. â??Whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use,â?? said the three-judge panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals.

More...

[A-FIXER]

Intersting that his closing remarks were no other support from the Gun Rights Supporters, is it seem maybe they will only support that they think they will win. Sometimes as a whole we should stand against the odds to take the Stand. IMO

[Cyrano]

A-Fixer, the thing is that the case was unwinnable on the face of it. He could have gotten away with it if he had letter orders from a higher headquarters explaining that due to the GWT, budget cuts or some orther reason, no M-16s were available for his unit; and that in accordance with Army Regulation Something-or-Other, commanding officers were authorized to make private purchases of weapons and modify them for the military mission. But he just went ahead on his own and did it, and by so doing put himself at odds with the National Firearms Act. That's the one which puts restrictions on private citizens owning full-auto firearms, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, short-barrelled rifles and the like.

When Alan Gura accepted the premise of "reasonable regulation" during the oral arguments of DC vs Heller, he implicitly accepted the premise that the State has the right to place certain restrictions on what guns private citizens can own. One of those reasonable restrictions is the idea that private citizens can't own full-auto firearms unless they get a $200 tax stamp for each one; and then only buy them from an authorized Class III FFL, who must hold them in storage until the tax stamp comes through. Th Army Reserve Major in question didn't do that.

I doubt the Supreme Court will even agree to hear the case, it's so open and shut. Long story short: while what he was doing as a commanding officer - trying to take the best care of his men that he can - is to be commended, because he didn't have authorization he was breaking the law. I think it stinks, but even he admitted that in retrospect he made the wrong decision.

[blueice]

When Alan Gura accepted the premise of "reasonable regulation" during the oral arguments of DC vs Heller, he implicitly accepted the premise that the State has the right to place certain restrictions on what guns private citizens can own. One of those reasonable restrictions is the idea that private citizens can't own full-auto firearms unless they get a $200 tax stamp for each one;

Why is a $200.oo tax reasonable ??

[Cyrano]

Quote:       Originally Posted by blueice

Cyrano: "When Alan Gura accepted the premise of "reasonable regulation" during the oral arguments of DC vs Heller, he implicitly accepted the premise that the State has the right to place certain restrictions on what guns private citizens can own. One of those reasonable restrictions is the idea that private citizens can't own full-auto firearms unless they get a $200 tax stamp for each one." Why is a $200.00 tax reasonable ??

It's not - but don't tell the anti-gun f()ckheads in Congress that it is not. The law and the fees it imposes on silencers, short-barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns and full-auto mchine guns and submachine guns hasn't been changed since it was passed in 1938.

In 1938, a working man might earn $40 a week. A $200 tax stamp represented a month's wages to the average joe. It was out of reach to most citizens. That tax stamp is an early, if not the earliest, example of anti-gun legislators paying lip service to the declarative clause of the Second Amendment while in fact subverting the people's right to exercise it.

Fast forward seventy years. $200 is still a considerable bite for a working stiff to own a full-auto firearm; but it's a bite someone who really wants a full-auto firearm can chew by saving up for it for a few weeks as part of his budget to buy the gun in the first place. The background check that is run EACH TIME you buy a Class III firearm is actually more of a waste of money, even if it is yankee gummint money, than the revenue gathered from the tax stamp.

What we don't want the anti-gunners of the current legislature to do is realize just how low that tax stamp fee really is, seventy-plus years after the law was passed. I would not remind them of this, lest the scumbags decide to add a zero onto the end of the existing fee, using the rationalization that they are 'regularizing' the fee to be in line with the current value of the dollar. We all know what the real purpose of raising the fees would be.

[A-FIXER]

Quote:       Originally Posted by blueice

When Alan Gura accepted the premise of "reasonable regulation" during the oral arguments of DC vs Heller, he implicitly accepted the premise that the State has the right to place certain restrictions on what guns private citizens can own. One of those reasonable restrictions is the idea that private citizens can't own full-auto firearms unless they get a $200 tax stamp for each one; Why is a $200.oo tax reasonable ??

So....... I have the same sentiments of the 200.00 tax stamp cost but I still inspite of DC vs Heller on the report is anyone standing besides him no... it just seem each to their own battle... no strength in numbers.

How then does any changes come about unless we confront the issue and assemble a stand against the current imposed laws