UZI " Hearing" on Beacon Hill

[clinotus]

Mossy, I gave you a rep point and as I mentioned there, it takes a bigger and better man to be humble. Glad to have you aboard.

 

[BOBKATT]

Well look, my thoughts and prayers are with your father. I take no offense to your previous posts because I've probably posted worse. I'll say it again, there are a lot of people here who can help. Especially if you post under the Gun Laws section for questions about getting an LTC. You could start with checking the town's status, asking for opinions of those who might live in that town, and giving a little info on wether you were already denied and if you know the reasons and stuff like that. And we'll see what we can all do to help. You see?

 

[maee]

That attitude sucks. His MG license is part of his rights, just as much as your pistol license is part of yours.

Says who? Neither long standing Federal law or the recent Heller SCOTUS case support the notion that he has a "right" to a MG. It is a privilege, pure and simple, and Heller specifically addresses this. Under Heller, you only have a right to the arms "commonly in use at the time", and should not be construed to overrule long standing prohibitions on things like machine guns and guns in schools or laws barring felons from owning guns. The Miller case from 1939 also confirms that NFA items are not covered under the 2A (ok, this is a bit of a stretch because it only deals with sawed-offs). But you have no 2A right to a sawed-off under Miller.

Besides, grouping MGs under the RKBA tent probably does us a disservice anyway.

 

[terraformer]

Says who? Neither long standing Federal law or the recent Heller SCOTUS case support the notion that he has a "right" to a MG. It is a privilege, pure and simple, and Heller specifically addresses this. Under Heller, you only have a right to the arms "commonly in use at the time", and should not be construed to overrule long standing prohibitions on things like machine guns and guns in schools or laws barring felons from owning guns. The Miller case from 1939 also confirms that NFA items are not covered under the 2A (ok, this is a bit of a stretch because it only deals with sawed-offs). But you have no 2A right to a sawed-off under Miller.

Besides, grouping MGs under the RKBA tent probably does us a disservice anyway.

Read up on Miller and how that case was handled and then come back and tell us how you want Miller defining our 2A rights....

 

[drgrant]

Says who? Neither long standing Federal law or the recent Heller SCOTUS case support the notion that he has a "right" to a MG. It is a privilege, pure and simple, and Heller specifically addresses this.

Even if it does "touch" upon the issue of machineguns, it doesn't specifically exclude them from relevancy WRT the 2nd amendment it just states that some regulation is legal- not that "machineguns are a privilege and not a right". Further, Heller really isn't about MGs or NFA, so it doesn't address them directly/explicitly.

Besides, grouping MGs under the RKBA tent probably does us a disservice anyway.

Yeah, because appeasement by throwing our own to the wolves worked out so well before.

-Mike

 

[Nickle]

The Miller case from 1939 also confirms that NFA items are not covered under the 2A (ok, this is a bit of a stretch because it only deals with sawed-offs). But you have no 2A right to a sawed-off under Miller.

Besides, grouping MGs under the RKBA tent probably does us a disservice anyway.

Wrong on Miller.

Miller and his attorney failed to show up for the final hearing.

The government's lawyer lied about military use of shotguns.

Miller was charged with possesion of a sawed off shotgun, not a military full auto weapon.

The SCOTUS said Miller had a right (based on the 2A) to any military full auto, but not a civilian sawed off shotgun.

In other words, if Miller had been busted with a BAR or M1917/M1919 Machine Gun, he would have been acquitted. (That "Micro Uzi" would qualify.)

The bottom line on Miller? You do have a right to an AR or AK (or other military firearm), even select fire (even including machine guns), but you really don't have a right to hunting firearms (except those of a type that is used by the military).

You think the NFA boys do us a disservice, you better start digging deep (REAL DEEP) into your wallet, because they've been paying your share of the fight to retain our rights.

Yup, they fight HARD to retain our rights, their right to own their choice of firearms, and your right to own your choice as well.

And, so you know, I'm not one of the NFA crowd. I just respect the hell out of them for their effort.