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.”
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".
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?
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".
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?
It serves no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions.
They serve no practical purpose other than to kill large amounts of people. Of course exceptions for ones like the gun above.
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.
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".
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.
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
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?)
How in the **** are machine guns not protected by the second amendment? We need less retards on the bench.
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.
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?