• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:315]

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The gun control sweep post Orlando massacre is really beginning to take effect:

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules

A Texas man who sued the federal government because it wouldn’t approve his application to manufacture a machine gun doesn’t have a constitutional right to possess the automatic weapon, an appeals court ruled.

Jay Hollis sought permission to convert his AR-15, a popular semi-automatic firearm, into an M16 — an automatic firearm that is banned under federal law, except for official use or if lawfully obtained before 1986.

After he was rejected, Hollis mounted a constitutional challenge to the Gun Control Act of 1968 — which Congress amended in 1986 to make it illegal to possess or transfer machine guns. Among other things, he argued that an “M-16 is the quintessential militia-styled arm for the modern day.”
In a unanimous ruling issued Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Hollis’ arguments, categorically noting that “machine guns are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.”

The court explained that the leading Supreme Court precedent on the right to keep and bear arms, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, only protected individual handgun possession for “defense of hearth and home.”

Scalia's words from the Heller decision are starting to take fruition: "the second Amendment IS NOT an unlimited right".
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How in the **** are machine guns not protected by the second amendment? We need less retards on the bench.
 
Last edited:

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
8,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well I wonder how that squares with the 1933 ruling. Which I thought would have prevailed. Idiots in black robes, what can you do about em?

Biased idiots that pretend as if they can't read are the worst. There is no good reason that machine guns wouldn't fall under the second amendment.
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,732
Reaction score
6,391
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
But how else am I supposed to stop Germans invading my trenches?

 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But how else am I supposed to stop Germans invading my trenches?



:roll: Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to buy and own machine guns?
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,732
Reaction score
6,391
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
:roll: Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to buy and own machine guns?

They serve no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions for ones like the gun above.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They serve no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions for ones like the gun above.

Maybe that's what I would want one for - to protect me from large amounts of people that may attack or threaten to attack me? That's just as reasonable as assuming that I would use it to attack and murder innocent people...

Are you saying, that anyone that wants a machine gun (fully automatic rifle or crew served weapon like the one in the video) is a murderer and for that reason should not be allowed by the government to be allowed to purchase the tool they would use to murder innocent people? Just wondering.

FYI - How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License: 10 Steps
 

Winchester

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
6,665
Reaction score
6,277
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's something wrong with people who think private citizens should be able to purchase machine guns. Gives the rest of gunnies a bad name.

But private citizens can purchase machine guns. Unfortunately the 1986 law in effect limited them to the wealthy class. If I could justify the cost to buy one I would, I don't see where that gives gunnies a bad name. A gun is a gun, those that use them for nefarious purposes are what give gunnies a bad name.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,911
Reaction score
33,821
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The gun control sweep post Orlando massacre is really beginning to take effect:

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules


Scalia's words from the Heller decision are starting to take fruition: "the second Amendment IS NOT an unlimited right".

Of course it's not an unlimited right. Not even the most adamant pro gun people will argue that anyone can carry any weapon any time any where.

But, if you take the Second Amendment at its face value, that's exactly what it says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So, the real argument now revolves around how the right should be infringed:
types of weapons (machine guns? only arms that can be "born", i.e. carried? How about arms that aren't firearms?) and
who may bear arms (felons? ex felons? terrorists? everyone? minors?) and
where arms may not be born (in court? in bars? in schools? airports? anywhere you damn well please?)
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
8,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
There's something wrong with people who think private citizens should be able to purchase machine guns. Gives the rest of gunnies a bad name.

You used to be able to own a genuine Thompson .45 caliber submachine gun or any other type before the 1930's, without a tax stamp or anything. After the 1930's you could own a new one or used if you preferred if you got a tax stamp. After the Hughes amendment you could only own used machine guns. Problem is if I really want a machine gun making one doesn't require any special talent or skill. You can modify pretty much any magazine loaded semi auto rifle or pistol into an automatic weapon with minimal effort.

I think there something wrong with people, who don't think that they themselves should be able to own whatever arms they would like to. I think YOU should be able to own whatever you would like to. I trust YOU far more than I trust my government.

Of course it goes without saying that should you choose to try to use you arms on me, there will be repercussions. :mrgreen:
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,732
Reaction score
6,391
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Maybe that's what I would want one for - to protect me from large amounts of people that may attack or threaten to attack me? That's just as reasonable as assuming that I would use it to attack and murder innocent people...

Are you saying, that anyone that wants a machine gun (fully automatic rifle or crew served weapon like the one in the video) is a murderer and for that reason should not be allowed by the government to be allowed to purchase the tool they would use to murder innocent people? Just wondering.

FYI - How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License: 10 Steps

Rifles and pistols have other purposes and are not meant to kill large amount so people very quickly. I do not believe someone should be able to buy a modern machine gun but for things like the gun above yous should have to go through very strict background checks and medical examinations as well as have previous experience handling weapons. Not just anyone should be able to buy one.
 

Winchester

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
6,665
Reaction score
6,277
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of course it's not an unlimited right. Not even the most adamant pro gun people will argue that anyone can carry any weapon any time any where.

Why wouldn't I argue that? What permits the government from telling me I can't carry it where I please?

But, if you take the Second Amendment at its face value, that's exactly what it says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So admit your above argument is baseless? Odd.

So, the real argument now revolves around how the right should be infringed:
types of weapons (machine guns? only arms that can be "born", i.e. carried? How about arms that aren't firearms?) and
who may bear arms (felons? ex felons? terrorists? everyone? minors?) and
where arms may not be born (in court? in bars? in schools? airports? anywhere you damn well please?)

So you admit your argument is baseless and then start listing a bunch of baseless stuff? Again, that's just odd.
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How in the **** are machine guns not protected by the second amendment? We need less retards on the bench.

Forrrrr SURE!!!

Well I wonder how that squares with the 1933 ruling. Which I thought would have prevailed. Idiots in black robes, what can you do about em?

Ignore them!!!! Own what you want, and keep it hidden until you need it! ;)

Biased idiots that pretend as if they can't read are the worst. There is no good reason that machine guns wouldn't fall under the second amendment.

Agreed! Like somehow a person is less trustworthy or more dangerous, just because he/she posses a machine gun?

Ludicrous and silly!

:roll: Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to buy and own machine guns?

No good reason...only from liberal towel wringers and Mother Jones subscribers.

They serve no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions for ones like the gun above.

Yes indeed. and I doubt that you have ever been in the absolute, lawless chaos of a riot zone. I have, 3 times and a machine gun might be your best friend.;)

Maybe that's what I would want one for - to protect me from large amounts of people that may attack or threaten to attack me? That's just as reasonable as assuming that I would use it to attack and murder innocent people...

Are you saying, that anyone that wants a machine gun (fully automatic rifle or crew served weapon like the one in the video) is a murderer and for that reason should not be allowed by the government to be allowed to purchase the tool they would use to murder innocent people? Just wondering.

FYI - How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License: 10 Steps

Spot On!
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Anyone ever notice how myopic liberals are?
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Rifles and pistols have other purposes and are not meant to kill large amount so people very quickly. I do not believe someone should be able to buy a modern machine gun but for things like the gun above yous should have to go through very strict background checks and medical examinations as well as have previous experience handling weapons. Not just anyone should be able to buy one.

Do you realize that the machine gun in your video is about 100 years old? And, the M-16 in the OP article that the man wanted to build himself is over 50 year old technology? There's nothing "modern" about either one, but they both are machine guns, and the crew served weapon in your video, can have thousands of rounds put through it without stopping where an M-16 cannot.

Again, maybe that's what I would want one for - to protect me from large amounts of people that may attack or threaten to attack me? That's just as reasonable as assuming that I would use it to attack and murder innocent people...


You didn't answer my question - Are you saying, that anyone that wants a machine gun (fully automatic rifle or crew served weapon like the one in the video) is a murderer and for that reason should not be allowed by the government to be allowed to purchase the tool they would use to murder innocent people?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Rifles and pistols have other purposes and are not meant to kill large amount so people very quickly. I do not believe someone should be able to buy a modern machine gun but for things like the gun above yous should have to go through very strict background checks and medical examinations as well as have previous experience handling weapons. Not just anyone should be able to buy one.

I find it utterly absurd to call a country free when the state is actively punishing their citizens for having medical conditions.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
8,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
But private citizens can purchase machine guns. Unfortunately the 1986 law in effect limited them to the wealthy class. If I could justify the cost to buy one I would, I don't see where that gives gunnies a bad name. A gun is a gun, those that use them for nefarious purposes are what give gunnies a bad name.

The Hughes amendment also limited them to used machine guns. Bad actors don't give gunnies a bad name. Its people with agendas taking other peoples guns away that attempt to give the gunnies a bad name.

I want a Tiger 2 tank modified with a 16 liter Caterpillar diesel and the Rheinmetall L/55 120mm smoothbore and or Sherman m-51 with The Cummins motors and the 105mm gun in smoothbore. The Israelis used the Sherman's to good effect in the Six day war. I like hunting Tigers in my Sherman in world of tanks. I have all the Shermans. :)
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
8,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Forrrrr SURE!!!



Ignore them!!!! Own what you want, and keep it hidden until you need it! ;)



Agreed! Like somehow a person is less trustworthy or more dangerous, just because he/she posses a machine gun?

Ludicrous and silly!



No good reason...only from liberal towel wringers and Mother Jones subscribers.



Yes indeed. and I doubt that you have ever been in the absolute, lawless chaos of a riot zone. I have, 3 times and a machine gun might be your best friend.;)



Spot On!

Sorry I didn't see anything. I know nothing. Really. :cool:
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Hughes amendment also limited them to used machine guns. Bad actors don't give gunnies a bad name. Its people with agendas taking other peoples guns away that attempt to give the gunnies a bad name.

I want a Tiger 2 tank modified with a 16 liter Caterpillar diesel and the Rheinmetall L/55 120mm smoothbore and or Sherman m-51 with The Cummins motors and the 105mm gun in smoothbore. The Israelis used the Sherman's to good effect in the Six day war. I like hunting Tigers in my Sherman in world of tanks. I have all the Shermans. :)

We need to platoon in WoT. I play almost every day. Same user name both here at DP and in WoT.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,975
Reaction score
8,634
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Of course it's not an unlimited right. Not even the most adamant pro gun people will argue that anyone can carry any weapon any time any where.

But, if you take the Second Amendment at its face value, that's exactly what it says, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So, the real argument now revolves around how the right should be infringed:
types of weapons (machine guns? only arms that can be "born", i.e. carried? How about arms that aren't firearms?) and
who may bear arms (felons? ex felons? terrorists? everyone? minors?) and
where arms may not be born (in court? in bars? in schools? airports? anywhere you damn well please?)

I will.

You should be able to strap up and go were you please armed. Unless you are convicted AND imprisoned being the only exception. I believe that packing is the reinforcement of your ultimate personal sovereignty and EVERYONE who is a citizen of these United States should carry in public at all times to enforce that right.

The right to keep and bear arms as stated in the 2nd is an unlimited right.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I'm curious. Are civilian police authorized to use fully automatic weapons?
 
Top Bottom