1986 automatic weapons ban unconstitutional?

[Hans Rudolph]

It seems to me the 1986 automatic weapons ban infringes on 2nd Amendment rights. Is there a movement to have this ban declared unconstitutional?

[yellerdawg]

Originally Posted by Hans Rudolph

It seems to me the 1986 automatic weapons ban infringes on 2nd Amendment rights. Is there a movement to have this ban declared unconstitutional?

I dont "know" of any such attempt, however, there are those who never
tire in efforts to add to the law and regulations...it would be nice I suppose
to have some weed eating as to this and related areas...but I expect such will
not happen until something more simple is done..say...repeal of the Income
Tax laws....for which many have tried for much longer and with much more
legal prudence and grounds to do so...

[muddober]

Without question the 1986 automatic weapons ban is unconstitutional as is the 1934 National Firearms Act when it made it illegal for any person to posses a machine gun without registering it with ATF. There have been too many constitutional violations made against us by our government to mention.

That being said I will mention one to illustrate how it works. The government puts a law into motion like the birth of the IRS in 1913 through amending the constitution with the 16 amendment. Then by regulation through the power entrusted with these agencies they trample the constitution. For years title 26 section 7203 of the IRS made it a misdemeanor for anyone not to file a tax return. Then in about 1989 part B was added (60501) making it a felony for anyone involved in trade or business who receives over $10,000.00 in cash who does not report the cash giver to the IRS. So now any attorney who receives over 10K in cash from a client has to reveal that client to the IRS, blowing out the window any attorney client rule of privilege. Same thing with car dealer who receives over 10K and does not identify and report the cash giver to the IRS can find himself subject to 5 years in the joint and 250K in fines.

One would think that when that rule was enacted it would have made national news so no one would run afoul of the law, but they didn't. Instead they targeted a couple of high end car dealers that through their tax returns had reported the cash as income on their books, but had failed (not knowing of the new law)to report the cash giver's name and ID, all done to make an example of these dealers to others. The government would like us all to believe they are there "To Protect and Serve" us. I see it as "To Intimidate and Instill Fear" in us or "Tax and Hinder" us. If you think thats bad just what for Obozo Care.

Ron

[Guts3d]

Interesting. Is taxation of a citizen's land also unconstitutional? I remember a few friends had this argument a long time ago and I had no idea who would know.

[yellerdawg]

Originally Posted by muddober

Without question the 1986 automatic weapons ban is unconstitutional as is the 1934 National Firearms Act when it made it illegal for any person to posses a machine gun without registering it with ATF. That being said there have been too many constitutional violations made against us by our government to mention.

That being said I will mention one to illustrate how it works. The government puts a law into motion like the birth of the IRS in 1913 through amending the constitution with the 16 amendment. Then by regulation through the power entrusted with these agencies they trample the constitution. For years title 26 section 7203 of the IRS made it a misdemeanor for anyone not to file a tax return. Then in about 1989 part B was added (60501) making it a felony for anyone involved in trade or business who receives over $10,000.00 in cash who does not report the cash giver to the IRS. So now any attorney who receives over 10K in cash from a client has to reveal that client to the IRS, blowing out the window any attorney client rule of privilege. Same thing with car dealer who receives over 10K and does not identify and report the cash giver to the IRS can find himself subject to 5 years in the joint and 250K in fines.

One would think that when that rule was enacted it would have made national news so no one would run afoul of the law, but they didn't. Instead they targeted a couple of high end car dealers that through their tax returns had reported the cash as income their books, but had failed (not knowing of the new law)to report the cash giver, all done to make an example of these dealers to others. The government would like us all to believe they are there "To Protect and Serve" us. I see it as "To Intimidate and Instill Fear" in us or "Tax and Hinder" us. If you think thats bad just what for Obozo Care.

Ron

Agreed. I only brought up the tax ordeal to infer the ordeal of expecting
any firearm law appeal etc...

Also, while they did/do inject the practice stopping drug money laundrying
with such a law/codes...all know that even though you can get to a point
as drug dealers do that you simply have too much money to handle..there
always has and will be ways for crooks to so do...

And only our government civil service folks could hatch and plan a joint
task force with a known schedule of start and end, spend millions
collecting evidence, inject informants to observe and even assist in
deals and murders and jobs and acts, and end such efforts with a
planned trap of proving the "worst" crime you can commit to them..ie:
Lying to the Grand Jury or Court ..or unexplained revenue...and all else
crimes involved plea bargained away per planned course...

Same garbage as when we here in Texas had the old "Blue Laws" per
religious strong arm...and even my late Father, a prominent minister,
never understood them, short of stuff like bars closed till after church...etc..

I mean...for years it was stuff like..on Sunday...you could buy the
hammer, but not the nails...etc...

Tell me I am off base...


yellerdawg

[cutter]

It seems that the whole 20th Century was against the Consittution if you really think about it. Early in that time peroid the Progressive people thought that they should interfere in everone's life to help them become more civilized. Now look where that has gotten us, we are more violent and smothered with laws telling us what and where with EVERYTHING we do or say! Anyone else as fed up with this as I am??? Back to Guns, if I am a decent person why should I have to subject myself to the Sh&t that the fed says I have to and pay the skyhigh price of such? I am now afraid to say what I really want to due to the repurctions by the same Fed! Go figure!!! What are our Founding Fathers saying upstairs??

[Dan01]

The original post was removed...................I am not permitted to have an opinion on certain subjects without being castigated!!

If you don't like my posts, please put me on your "ignore list"

Dan

[Alpo]

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[bobski]

im with dan01.

whats next?

tanks parked in everyones driveway? because im an american?

if you want it bad enough, pay for it and register it. oh wait a minute. thats what class3 do already. looks like rights arent being infringed on to me.

but being denied a permit, is another story.

[pickenup]

Some people actually believe in the documents this country was founded on, some don't.

[hogger129]

I don't want or need a machine gun. If someone else wants one, that's their decision, not mine. I think if they can pass a background check, let em have em. The same should go for handguns. This "waiting period" nonsense just doesn't really make sense to me. I highly doubt someone is going to get mad and go buy a handgun to go harm someone, in which case they need a 'cool off' period. More Brady Law nonsense. And I look at it as a kind of discrimination.

I don't think any reasonable person really wants a tank, rocket launcher or explosivs, therefore that's a moot point.

[Alpo]

If you sell your car to a felon, who then uses it as a getaway car in a bank robbery, couldn't you, the seller, be the target of a lawsuit?

How about if you sell a gun to a non-felon, who uses it in his first ever felony? Couldn't you, the seller, be the target of a lawsuit?

You might be quite okay with it, but I am offended - no, that's not harsh enough - I'm pissed at the government, every time I have to PROVE that I am NOT a criminal, in order to buy a gun.

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by Alpo

If you sell your car to a felon, who then uses it as a getaway car in a bank robbery, couldn't you, the seller, be the target of a lawsuit?

How about if you sell a gun to a non-felon, who uses it in his first ever felony? Couldn't you, the seller, be the target of a lawsuit?

You might be quite okay with it, but I am offended - no, that's not harsh enough - I'm pissed at the government, every time I have to PROVE that I am NOT a criminal, in order to buy a gun.

Yes I guess I see your point.

It also gets quite annoying especially if you live in a state that has a long waiting period. Here in Wisconsin is two days - which I think is simply annoying and unnecessary. I heard some states have two week waiting periods.

[muddober]

Originally Posted by Alpo

If you sell your car to a felon, who then uses it as a getaway car in a bank robbery, couldn't you, the seller, be the target of a lawsuit?

How about if you sell a gun to a non-felon, who uses it in his first ever felony? Couldn't you, the seller, be the target of a lawsuit?

You might be quite okay with it, but I am offended - no, that's not harsh enough - I'm pissed at the government, every time I have to PROVE that I am NOT a criminal, in order to buy a gun.

I must had to your comment Alpo that I also hate to prove I don't speak Spanish by having to press 1. I have a friend who left a message on his recorder that said "if you don't speak Spanish please press unno"

Ron

[muddober]

Originally Posted by hogger129

I don't want or need a machine gun. If someone else wants one, that's their decision, not mine. I think if they can pass a background check, let em have em. The same should go for handguns. This "waiting period" nonsense just doesn't really make sense to me. I highly doubt someone is going to get mad and go buy a handgun to go harm someone, in which case they need a 'cool off' period. More Brady Law nonsense. And I look at it as a kind of discrimination.

I don't think any reasonable person really wants a tank, rocket launcher or explosivs, therefore that's a moot point.

hogger your comments has garnered a response out of that may not be very popular here. While I am a staunch supporter of the constitution including the second amendment, I do not agree just because one walks upright and has an opposing thumb should be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun. I don't agree with your thought that people get pissed and then go buy a gun because they do. Remember Sirhan Sirhan? Also I don't trust the government to make that call except only the government has the resources to have the data base to do back ground checks. Perhaps some organization like the NRA or a newly created one could exist being funded by a tax or fee of each gun purchase and that organization for limited purpose would have access to a national data base on persons. Additionally far too many of us take our guns to gun shows and off them to those who's only perquisite is they have the money to pay for it. Not good.

I am one of those unreasonable people you write of who would love to have an F15 with all of it guns and rockets, just thinking of all the giant rocks I could kill with it makes me grin, that is if I didn't kill myself first trying to fly it.

Ron

[Jerryboy]

Originally Posted by hogger129

I don't want or need a machine gun. If someone else wants one, that's their decision, not mine. I think if they can pass a background check, let em have em. The same should go for handguns. This "waiting period" nonsense just doesn't really make sense to me. I highly doubt someone is going to get mad and go buy a handgun to go harm someone, in which case they need a 'cool off' period. More Brady Law nonsense. And I look at it as a kind of discrimination.

I don't think any reasonable person really wants a tank, rocket launcher or explosivs, therefore that's a moot point.

speak for yourself! I would love to be able to go down to G.I. Joe's and pick up some 105mm shells and a couple extra fuel tubes for my RPG7, which I would have hanging on a rack over my bed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed".

as the military increases in effectiveness, so should the Militia. what if the government in the 1800s had decided that breach loading rifles were too dangerous for civillians? or lever actions? break action shotguns? revolvers?

can you imagine us, armed only with Kentucky & Hawken rifles and Brown Bess muskets going up against today's U.S. Army and government? it wouldn't matter how much we outnumbered them, we wouldn't stand a chance. the simple fact of the matter is that for The Militia to be a barrier against tyranny we need to be just as well equipped(if not necessarily trained) as the military. sure, at the current tech levels of civilian arms vs. the tech level of the military, we might would still win, but how many millions of Patriots would have to die before we were able to win our freedom back?

as the government's military technology continues to advance, and the People's continues to stagnate, those numbers will continue to increase, until, finally, the armed populace will no longer be a deterrent to a tyrannical government.

[Dan01]

I see that I cannot write an opinion with out being judged!!!! In the future, those of you that don't like my opinions, please put me on your "ignore list"

[muddober]

Originally Posted by Dan01

I see the morons that require fully automatic weapons as their Constitutional right missing an attacker and spray painting a play ground full of kids.......

Every gun show or out door auto fire demonstration I have seen was put on by a bunch of clowns....There have been some terrible accidents from these auto fire shows.....

A large segment of the US population should not be allowed any kind of fire arm!!......There is absolutely no real need for the general public to own auto fire weapons...........................

As an example, look at the daily slaughter that goes on every where in the US just using revolvers and semi auto weapons.

Dan, while some of your points maybe well taken by some you might consider sharing them elsewhere. Especially your last sentence, sounds like you might have plagiarized it from Eric Holder.
Ron

[hogger129]

Originally Posted by Jerryboy

speak for yourself! I would love to be able to go down to G.I. Joe's and pick up some 105mm shells and a couple extra fuel tubes for my RPG7, which I would have hanging on a rack over my bed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed".

as the military increases in effectiveness, so should the Militia. what if the government in the 1800s had decided that breach loading rifles were too dangerous for civillians? or lever actions? break action shotguns? revolvers?

can you imagine us, armed only with Kentucky & Hawken rifles and Brown Bess muskets going up against today's U.S. Army and government? it wouldn't matter how much we outnumbered them, we wouldn't stand a chance. the simple fact of the matter is that for The Militia to be a barrier against tyranny we need to be just as well equipped(if not necessarily trained) as the military. sure, at the current tech levels of civilian arms vs. the tech level of the military, we might would still win, but how many millions of Patriots would have to die before we were able to win our freedom back?

as the government's military technology continues to advance, and the Peopel's continues to stagnate, those numbers will continue to increase, until, finally, the armed populace will no longer be a deterrent to a tyrannical government.

I guess a better way to say it should have been I don't need or want those things but I don't care if other people have em.

[Dan01]

Put me on your ignore list

[Alpo]

I don't remember whether it was on this board or another one I go to, but I was talking, happily, about my latest toy.



Someone commented (I believe he claimed to be a cop) that no one should own a sawed-off shotgun. They only had one purpose - to stand in the doorway of a room and kill everyone in it.

As I said up the thread - everyone has an opinion.

[Alpo]

As for the "automatic weapons are too dangerous for regular people - they will go on a murdering rampage"


I haven't gone on a murderous rampage yet. Haven't shot everybody in a room, from the doorway, either.

[muddober]

Dan, "you might consider" is not a dictate but rather a suggestion and most certainly not an attempt to trample on your right of free speech. You don't like the suggestion thats fine with me.

But then you come off again sounding like Eric Holder with a cheap shot supplying not one example to support your following remarks; "I see your replies to other post that you want to stifle free speech.....Perhaps your stability needs review."

You sound pretty cowardly to me.

Ron

[Dan01]

Muddober Aha!!! I just found the "ignore" function.....you are history......Please do the same for me........I went back and removed the posts that so offended you......

Dan

[Jerryboy]

Originally Posted by Dan01

Every one is entitled to an opinion......You do not dictate where I share my views.......I believe the forum administrators police the forums.

I see in your replies to other posts that you want to stifle free speech.....Perhaps your stability needs review.

just from personal experience, I'm betting on you becoming a "Former Guest" sometime in the next few days.