Howdy.
what id tell this fellow is this
to go online and look up this law it's been law since 1902.
it's called the DICK ACT.
or as it's better known as THE EFFICIENCY OF MILITIA BILL H.R. 11654 JUNE 28TH 1902.
this law can NEVER BE REPEALED it's to long to go into here but i believe this law will help him with his appeal.
Semper Fi.
jim.
Hamblen's problem is wishful thinking-- It's currently a serious offense for active-duty combat troops, serving downrange, to keep their own AR uppers. Machine guns and he wasn't even in the National Guard? What was he thinking?
I'm fully aware that the UCMJ and Federal law are two different animals, but it still isn't hard to guess that you'll never get away with something like this-- or any weapons offense.
What does that have to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by bread and circuses
The National Guard is NOT the Militia.
The point he was/is trying to make is that the Gun Laws are completely unconstitutional. Period. (all of them)
Exactly, and one of the points of the Miller case, is that weapons useful for militia service would be exempt from the National Firearms Act, if after the case was tried at the lower court and the Act found constitutional. Many people (especially gun banners) forget that the SCOTUS said the NFA was not prima facie unconstitutional, it could be legal to tax arms not suitable for militia service and still not violate the 2A.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcosmar
Mr. Hamblen paid a high price for trying to promote freedom, and I don't want to criticize someone who has done what he has done for liberty, but a more effective lawyer working the Miller angle on a M16 / M4 type of weapon may have had a better chance at blowing a hole in the NFA.
Indeed they are; that having been said, Washington ignores the Constitution altogether unless it suits them to invoke it-- and even then, their argument is usually so much drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcosmar
It's not inconsistent to agree with his interpretation of the 2A and still realize that the same won't hold up in court.
pretty hard to fight tyranny with just slingshots and peashooters...
Well w/o getting lawyers like Gerry Spence, or more importantly Steve Hallbrook just about any NFA type weapon case you will lose. Let's just try to remember after this next (coming) fight.........let's SPELL out NO GUN LAWS PERIOD..........
The issue is that the 2A already says that.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenghost1964