THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS

Marlin T · 08-08-2011, 06:00 PM

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS

By Michael LeMieux
August 8, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

I, and many others, have written of the continual encroachment by the federal government on the rights of the American citizen and with unconstitutional expansion of government power. It has been so well documented that it should be “settled law” that our central government is currently, and for some time, operating outside its authority.

In light of the awful financial mess our central government, perpetrated by both parties, has placed us in; it may be prudent to know that our founders warned us of exactly this when Thomas Jefferson said:

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds... private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Here Thomas Jefferson is showing that governments, by their nature, will become oppressive to the people. Power and human frailties will always, eventually, devolve to despotism and tyranny against the very same people that entrusted them with their lives and freedom.

George Washington also spoke on the nature of government when he said: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Government is force! So when government collects taxes it does so by force. When government dispenses welfare it does so by force. What – you say -- Welfare by force? In response I say, absolutely; for government does not give away anything that it has not taken from someone else. And because government is force it must take by force from one who has earned it in order to give to another who has not earned it.

So how does this fit in with a discussion of the Second Amendment and military grade firearms? It establishes the position of our current government as moving toward being or becoming a tyrannical government that is antithetical to the liberty of the people and thus leads us to the Second Amendment discussion.

We have seen a resurgence of support for the Second Amendment and in particular the understanding that it is, and always has been, an individual right. But what of Military grade weapons – and why is that important? It is my contention, and many others, that the Second Amendment specifically supports military grade weaponry as its target.

The reasoning for inclusion of the Second Amendment was not to allow the citizen to attend target shooting matches, or to go hunting, or just to have a hobby – it was for protection against a tyrannical government. How do we know that?

Many who have studied our nation’s founding understand the increasing tyranny of King George and the Crowns representatives in the colonies in those early years. George Mason, during the Virginia Constitution Convention, stated:

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."

The British had learned that if you try to do too much too quickly the people will resist and rise up against them. They knew they needed to do things slowly, a little at a time, until it becomes too late and the people will become enslaved.

Our politicians, likewise, have learned from the past and it has become quite apparent in what is known as the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The original NFA was codified under Title 15 “Commerce and Trade” as a tax revenue scheme. From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade.” However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade,” you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not “acting in the trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers of commerce to an unconstitutional power, crime-fighting; which is a state power.

Remember George Mason’s statement above? -- “but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”

There are three primary reasons for the tax code. The first is the obvious purpose of raising revenue for the operation of government. The second, a little less obvious but as widely used, is to control behavior. Thirdly; the tax code has been used to usurp power not otherwise given to the federal government. To this third reason I will dedicate the majority of the rest of this article.

We are all aware of the use of the tax code to entice business and consumers to do certain things. Examples of this are tax credits for certain home improvements that conserve energy, or tax credits to purchase energy efficient vehicles, or “cash for clunkers” to get older cars off the road. Tax dollars are used to persuade farmers to not plant certain crops or to entice them to plant other crops. This, in essence, is the government manipulating corporations and the public with monetary carrots to perform a certain way.

The NFA however was a bit more insidious as it stated one purpose for its existence and operated in a totally different manner. The original NFA put a tax on the transfer of certain firearms and related items the government wished to control under the guise of raising revenue. The act focused on short rifles and sawed off shotguns that had the capability of being concealed, machineguns and firearm silencers.

A pivotal case in the advancement of federal control of firearms came from a 1939 Supreme Court decision in the United States V. Miller case that admitted the NFA was indeed a revenue raising act when it included in the decision the wording of the act stating:

"Sec. 3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm, such tax to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary; and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, here-in-after provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm.”

Obviously the verbiage of the act specifically called for a tax, money to be paid to the government, for the transfer of the items regulated under the law mentioned above.

But when we take a look at the “intended consequence” we have to believe this act had more to do with control than with revenue. Shotguns (sawed-off or otherwise) were much cheaper in 1938 than the $200.00 tax stamp and thus made this type of weapon out of reach of the common man. A silencer during that time period cost anywhere from 5 to 25 dollars; the result was a near collapse of that manufacturing sector nearly overnight. Many urban shooting ranges required firearm silencers to control noise in order to keep their ranges open and thus were forced to close as fewer and fewer people could afford the silencer tax.

The Miller case also focused on the whether the firearm was protected under the Second Amendment. The government argued that:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

This statement has two important points that need expounding upon. First; the justice states that the firearm in question (short barreled shotgun) is not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” and therefore they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, the only weapons guaranteed by the Second Amendment would be weapons “of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Secondly, had anyone pointed out during trial, the short barreled shotgun was used extensively in World War I as a trench gun (Winchester M1897 with 20 inch barrel) and was a standard inventory firearm of the US military.

Knowing this information was readily available to the Supreme Court Justice, and his staff, with nothing more than a simple phone call to any of the Military Advisors in Washington, could lead one to believe that the outcome of the case was determined to expand the powers of government and to control the civilian population and not correct constitutional interpretation.

Now, if indeed the Justice was correct in determining that only firearms of military type are protected by the Second Amendment then how does the federal government reconcile the assault weapons ban of exactly that type of firearm? It cannot because the government, in collusion with the Judiciary, is working to remove the rights of defense from the American people.

But the militia and the place of arms within our free society was known from the very beginning of our great nation. Tench Coxe wrote in the February 20, 1788 edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette the following:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Representative Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said that “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

It is specifically because the people are armed that we have not seen greater degrees of oppression. It is because the American people maintain the unique ability to resist government’s usurpation of power that it must be measured in very slow increments, lest the people rise up.

Thomas Jefferson was attributed as saying:

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

The idea of arms in the hands of the people was to be able to resist government tyranny and to have the means to correct it. The Second Amendment guarantees every man the right to arms for the purpose of war against any that would defile that liberty.

The military grade weapon is the exact weapon the Second Amendment guarantees. Not to hunt deer and pheasant but to hunt those that would threaten liberty. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that fact in Miller and of late in the Heller case that it is an individual right. That means every law abiding citizen has not only the right but the duty to be armed with military grade weapons and proficient in the use and deployment of those weapons.

For those who are too cowardly to learn the art of the firearm, to those who cower at the thought of defense of Liberty and freedom, to those who think more of greed and personal pleasure than to right and justice I leave you with the words of Samuel Adams:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

© 2011 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
------------
.
.
.
Tyranny is always better organized than freedom. —THOMAS PAINE

300 H&H · 08-08-2011, 06:44 PM

Good read,

I get the point but do not understand how we get there. The current Government is unable ot run our affairs much less be bothered with trying to get the majority to even consider this, much less vote on it. In reality in DC these days this would be dead before arrival. As much as I agree with it how can it possibly be attained?

Kirk

hogger129 · 08-08-2011, 07:04 PM

The Second Amendment protects all defensive weapons, in my opinion, that includes "military-grade" weapons.

jlloyd73 · 08-08-2011, 07:11 PM

IMO......even felons she be able to get guns once they serve their time and paid there debt, but then again I think we are too soft on most criminals and they should stay in jail longer. With that being said, if they commit crimes after that, then they should throw the book at them. If they feel they can let them back on the streets, then why shouldnt they be treated the same.

For example, domestic violence.....misdemeanor assault with DV attached, why shouldn't they be able to have a gun when someone with misdemeanor assault w/o DV be able to carry a gun. Its really the same crime. I don't know maybe I am wrong....

jlloyd73 · 08-08-2011, 07:36 PM

I figured someone would have chewed me out over that last post......

jack404 · 08-08-2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hogger129

The Second Amendment protects all defensive weapons, in my opinion, that includes "military-grade" weapons.

my reading is that it talks about the right to bare arms (FULL STOP)
arms are arms , there is nothing stated about defencive or offencive weapons

a gpmg M 60 is a arm , a milan AT missle is a arm , where is the points to say whats what ?? there aint none so its all ok ..

armedandsafe · 08-08-2011, 11:59 PM

Quote:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
This statement has two important points that need expounding upon. First; the justice states that the firearm in question (short barreled shotgun) is not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” and therefore they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, the only weapons guaranteed by the Second Amendment would be weapons “of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

I have gone into this argument many times.

Miller did not show up for the Supreme Court hearing. Neither did his attorneys. NO ONE argued his side of the case. Thus, the Supremes had no evidence presented to them from Miller's side that they could use in deciding the case. Thus, they could not say that the weapon was or was not suitable for militia use.

The Justices and the decision DID NOT say that the short shotgun was not a valid militia weapon. They merely said they could not state it was or was not, based on the evidence presented in the case.

The rest of the article is pretty much spot on and I like it. However, I always cringe when we make such a blatant mistake in arguing our cause. The "arms" protected under the Second are any which can possibly be used by a human individual in defense of self and country.

Pops

Marlin T · 08-09-2011, 12:40 AM

Thanks Pops

ofitg · 08-10-2011, 10:45 AM

Throughout the 20th Century, lawmakers assumed that the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee an individual RTKBA.... they figured that private gun ownership was a privilege, and that's how we got the "sporting purposes" language in GCA'68.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual's RTKBA, for the purpose of self defense. It has nothing to do with "sporting purposes".

It seems to me that the NRA or some other pro-gun lobby could use this argument to overturn the "sporting purposes" provisions in GCA'68.

carver · 08-10-2011, 12:19 PM

I agree that Title 18 is no more than a tax on the American people. So is a speeding ticket, a fishing lisense, a hunting lisense, registration yearly for your car, inspections, and so many more things. The Federal Government does operate outside the laws of the land, but so do our respective States. We make a big mistake by thinking that we need to change government at the Federal level before we change government at the State level. Both must be accomplished!

jbmid1 · 08-10-2011, 12:35 PM

Actually, I think we should keep weapons that are a notch or two above standard military grade.

marlin795 · 08-11-2011, 06:14 PM

The way the Constitution was written wee should have anything the military has.The colonies had every weapon GB had. What were cannons? Field artillary. We should e able to get it to appose the government if we need too. And as a nation we so need to.

marlin795 · 08-11-2011, 06:15 PM

Oh and the national Guard? They are the militia. They shouldn't be government run but state/city ran so we have a defensive force for the people.

millwright · 08-11-2011, 11:46 PM

As I recall, Miller was dead when the case came before the court. Left his lawyer without a defendant.

The facts of the case were a "knee-knocker" for Miller, (had the case been argued). The USArmy had issued "short-barreled shotguns" to troops in WW1 and same were still in inventory as "issue arms". Of far greater import to gun owners was the GCA of 1968 which changed BATF regs from Title 15 (taxes) to Title 18 (civil law). >MW

mncarpenter · 08-15-2011, 03:52 AM

Military grade weapons at the time the Constitution was written loaded from the muzzle and had a real slow rate of fire. Most of our modern arms came about as a direct descendent of military weapons, including that Rem 700 or 870. Guns are Guns and the Second Amendment cover's 'em all.

HunterAlpha1 · 08-15-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 H&H

Good read,

I get the point but do not understand how we get there. The current Government is unable ot run our affairs much less be bothered with trying to get the majority to even consider this, much less vote on it. In reality in DC these days this would be dead before arrival. As much as I agree with it how can it possibly be attained?

Kirk

read the book "Unintended Consequences", it'll give you some ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninten...es_%28novel%29

http://john-ross.net/

ziondio · 08-15-2011, 07:21 PM

Good advice... its been ten years since I was introduced to a man called Henry Bowman and it's had a profound effect on the way I look at everything.

popgun · 08-16-2011, 08:09 PM

what are military grade wepons?

HunterAlpha1 · 08-16-2011, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by popgun

what are military grade wepons?

machineguns, grenade/rocket launchers, sniper rifles, assault rifles, combat shotguns, artillery, etc.

pretty much anything you wouldn't normally use for hunting

Gun Geezer · 08-16-2011, 08:49 PM

There is little doubt that the majority of Americans would rather live in a nanny state than that which was envisioned by our founding fathers. If it were not so, BHO and most of Congress would never have been elected. The same could have been said of ancient Rome and Greece at the time of their demise. It seems to be the way of the decline of freedom when citizens get complacent enough to forget the price that had to be paid for liberty. It also appears to be part of human nature for governments to gravitate toward tyranny and despotism as they evolve. Our founding fathers knew this and yet we seem to have forgotten or convinced ourselves we are too big or too smart to fail. I fear we will learn the awful truth too late and there will be too few of us enlightened to do too little to change the inevitable. I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of years will pass before the lamp of freedom will be rekindled and by whom?

marlin795 · 08-17-2011, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gun Geezer

There is little doubt that the majority of Americans would rather live in a nanny state than that which was envisioned by our founding fathers. If it were not so, BHO and most of Congress would never have been elected. The same could have been said of ancient Rome and Greece at the time of their demise. It seems to be the way of the decline of freedom when citizens get complacent enough to forget the price that had to be paid for liberty. It also appears to be part of human nature for governments to gravitate toward tyranny and despotism as they evolve. Our founding fathers knew this and yet we seem to have forgotten or convinced ourselves we are too big or too smart to fail. I fear we will learn the awful truth too late and there will be too few of us enlightened to do too little to change the inevitable. I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of years will pass before the lamp of freedom will be rekindled and by whom?

I agree with you. We need to ring the Liberty bells once again and fight off our government that has become a tyranny.

sliclee · 08-20-2011, 02:11 PM

MILLRIGHT-Miller living in the boonies, was never notified of his trial date. Speculation says it was to produce the outcome that happened.

The Duke · 08-20-2011, 05:53 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08...rmed-officers/

Ohhhh....I thought England had the most effective and tough gun laws in the world....No one but the goverment can even think about owning a handgun...and only rarely a shotgun that they cant use to protect themselves with anyhow....Well seems like the Brit criminals dont know about "no steeking gun law "...

Where have I heard that before....Disarm the people and only the criminals will have guns...Seemed true enough in GB, but what about here??

08-08-2011, 06:00 PM	#1
Marlin T Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Mexico Posts: 7,857	THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS By Michael LeMieux August 8, 2011 NewsWithViews.com I, and many others, have written of the continual encroachment by the federal government on the rights of the American citizen and with unconstitutional expansion of government power. It has been so well documented that it should be “settled law” that our central government is currently, and for some time, operating outside its authority. In light of the awful financial mess our central government, perpetrated by both parties, has placed us in; it may be prudent to know that our founders warned us of exactly this when Thomas Jefferson said: "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds... private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." Here Thomas Jefferson is showing that governments, by their nature, will become oppressive to the people. Power and human frailties will always, eventually, devolve to despotism and tyranny against the very same people that entrusted them with their lives and freedom. George Washington also spoke on the nature of government when he said: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Government is force! So when government collects taxes it does so by force. When government dispenses welfare it does so by force. What – you say -- Welfare by force? In response I say, absolutely; for government does not give away anything that it has not taken from someone else. And because government is force it must take by force from one who has earned it in order to give to another who has not earned it. So how does this fit in with a discussion of the Second Amendment and military grade firearms? It establishes the position of our current government as moving toward being or becoming a tyrannical government that is antithetical to the liberty of the people and thus leads us to the Second Amendment discussion. We have seen a resurgence of support for the Second Amendment and in particular the understanding that it is, and always has been, an individual right. But what of Military grade weapons – and why is that important? It is my contention, and many others, that the Second Amendment specifically supports military grade weaponry as its target. The reasoning for inclusion of the Second Amendment was not to allow the citizen to attend target shooting matches, or to go hunting, or just to have a hobby – it was for protection against a tyrannical government. How do we know that? Many who have studied our nation’s founding understand the increasing tyranny of King George and the Crowns representatives in the colonies in those early years. George Mason, during the Virginia Constitution Convention, stated: "When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." The British had learned that if you try to do too much too quickly the people will resist and rise up against them. They knew they needed to do things slowly, a little at a time, until it becomes too late and the people will become enslaved. Our politicians, likewise, have learned from the past and it has become quite apparent in what is known as the National Firearms Act (NFA). The original NFA was codified under Title 15 “Commerce and Trade” as a tax revenue scheme. From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade.” However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade,” you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not “acting in the trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers of commerce to an unconstitutional power, crime-fighting; which is a state power. Remember George Mason’s statement above? -- “but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.” There are three primary reasons for the tax code. The first is the obvious purpose of raising revenue for the operation of government. The second, a little less obvious but as widely used, is to control behavior. Thirdly; the tax code has been used to usurp power not otherwise given to the federal government. To this third reason I will dedicate the majority of the rest of this article. We are all aware of the use of the tax code to entice business and consumers to do certain things. Examples of this are tax credits for certain home improvements that conserve energy, or tax credits to purchase energy efficient vehicles, or “cash for clunkers” to get older cars off the road. Tax dollars are used to persuade farmers to not plant certain crops or to entice them to plant other crops. This, in essence, is the government manipulating corporations and the public with monetary carrots to perform a certain way. The NFA however was a bit more insidious as it stated one purpose for its existence and operated in a totally different manner. The original NFA put a tax on the transfer of certain firearms and related items the government wished to control under the guise of raising revenue. The act focused on short rifles and sawed off shotguns that had the capability of being concealed, machineguns and firearm silencers. A pivotal case in the advancement of federal control of firearms came from a 1939 Supreme Court decision in the United States V. Miller case that admitted the NFA was indeed a revenue raising act when it included in the decision the wording of the act stating: "Sec. 3. (a) There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon firearms transferred in the continental United States a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm, such tax to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary; and the stamps herein provided shall be affixed to the order for such firearm, here-in-after provided for. The tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to any import duty imposed on such firearm.” Obviously the verbiage of the act specifically called for a tax, money to be paid to the government, for the transfer of the items regulated under the law mentioned above. But when we take a look at the “intended consequence” we have to believe this act had more to do with control than with revenue. Shotguns (sawed-off or otherwise) were much cheaper in 1938 than the $200.00 tax stamp and thus made this type of weapon out of reach of the common man. A silencer during that time period cost anywhere from 5 to 25 dollars; the result was a near collapse of that manufacturing sector nearly overnight. Many urban shooting ranges required firearm silencers to control noise in order to keep their ranges open and thus were forced to close as fewer and fewer people could afford the silencer tax. The Miller case also focused on the whether the firearm was protected under the Second Amendment. The government argued that: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” This statement has two important points that need expounding upon. First; the justice states that the firearm in question (short barreled shotgun) is not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” and therefore they “cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, the only weapons guaranteed by the Second Amendment would be weapons “of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Secondly, had anyone pointed out during trial, the short barreled shotgun was used extensively in World War I as a trench gun (Winchester M1897 with 20 inch barrel) and was a standard inventory firearm of the US military. Knowing this information was readily available to the Supreme Court Justice, and his staff, with nothing more than a simple phone call to any of the Military Advisors in Washington, could lead one to believe that the outcome of the case was determined to expand the powers of government and to control the civilian population and not correct constitutional interpretation. Now, if indeed the Justice was correct in determining that only firearms of military type are protected by the Second Amendment then how does the federal government reconcile the assault weapons ban of exactly that type of firearm? It cannot because the government, in collusion with the Judiciary, is working to remove the rights of defense from the American people. But the militia and the place of arms within our free society was known from the very beginning of our great nation. Tench Coxe wrote in the February 20, 1788 edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette the following: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Representative Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said that “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." It is specifically because the people are armed that we have not seen greater degrees of oppression. It is because the American people maintain the unique ability to resist government’s usurpation of power that it must be measured in very slow increments, lest the people rise up. Thomas Jefferson was attributed as saying: "... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." The idea of arms in the hands of the people was to be able to resist government tyranny and to have the means to correct it. The Second Amendment guarantees every man the right to arms for the purpose of war against any that would defile that liberty. The military grade weapon is the exact weapon the Second Amendment guarantees. Not to hunt deer and pheasant but to hunt those that would threaten liberty. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that fact in Miller and of late in the Heller case that it is an individual right. That means every law abiding citizen has not only the right but the duty to be armed with military grade weapons and proficient in the use and deployment of those weapons. For those who are too cowardly to learn the art of the firearm, to those who cower at the thought of defense of Liberty and freedom, to those who think more of greed and personal pleasure than to right and justice I leave you with the words of Samuel Adams: "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." © 2011 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved ------------ . . . Tyranny is always better organized than freedom. —THOMAS PAINE __________________ "But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people." Judge Alex Kozinski - United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. - Thomas Paine Did you read todays GOOD shooting? >>>KEEPANDBEARARMS.COM <<< --> Last edited by Marlin T; 08-08-2011 at 06:26 PM..

08-08-2011, 06:44 PM	#2
300 H&H Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,795	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS Good read, I get the point but do not understand how we get there. The current Government is unable ot run our affairs much less be bothered with trying to get the majority to even consider this, much less vote on it. In reality in DC these days this would be dead before arrival. As much as I agree with it how can it possibly be attained? Kirk

08-08-2011, 07:04 PM	#3
hogger129 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,064	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS The Second Amendment protects all defensive weapons, in my opinion, that includes "military-grade" weapons. __________________ Samuel Adams once said, "among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

08-08-2011, 07:11 PM	#4
jlloyd73 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Contributor Posts: 1,931	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS IMO......even felons she be able to get guns once they serve their time and paid there debt, but then again I think we are too soft on most criminals and they should stay in jail longer. With that being said, if they commit crimes after that, then they should throw the book at them. If they feel they can let them back on the streets, then why shouldnt they be treated the same. For example, domestic violence.....misdemeanor assault with DV attached, why shouldn't they be able to have a gun when someone with misdemeanor assault w/o DV be able to carry a gun. Its really the same crime. I don't know maybe I am wrong.... Last edited by jlloyd73; 08-08-2011 at 07:14 PM.. Reason: added

08-08-2011, 07:36 PM	#5
jlloyd73 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Contributor Posts: 1,931	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS I figured someone would have chewed me out over that last post......

08-09-2011, 12:40 AM	#8
Marlin T Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: New Mexico Posts: 7,857	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS Thanks Pops __________________ "But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people." Judge Alex Kozinski - United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. - Thomas Paine Did you read todays GOOD shooting? >>>KEEPANDBEARARMS.COM <<<

08-10-2011, 10:45 AM	#9
ofitg Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Contributor Posts: 1,447	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS Throughout the 20th Century, lawmakers assumed that the 2nd Amendment did not guarantee an individual RTKBA.... they figured that private gun ownership was a privilege, and that's how we got the "sporting purposes" language in GCA'68. Recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that the 2nd Amendment *does* protect an individual's RTKBA, for the purpose of *self defense*. It has nothing to do with "sporting purposes". It seems to me that the NRA or some other pro-gun lobby could use this argument to overturn the "sporting purposes" provisions in GCA'68.

08-10-2011, 12:19 PM	#10
carver TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just west of Shreveport, LA Contributor Posts: 11,219	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS I agree that Title 18 is no more than a tax on the American people. So is a speeding ticket, a fishing lisense, a hunting lisense, registration yearly for your car, inspections, and so many more things. The Federal Government does operate outside the laws of the land, but so do our respective States. We make a big mistake by thinking that we need to change government at the Federal level before we change government at the State level. Both must be accomplished! __________________ Y'all be safe now, ya hear! Lamentations Chapter 5: 1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. 2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. 3. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers [are] as widows. 5. Our necks [are] under persecution: we labour, [and] have no rest. 16. The crown is fallen [from] our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 21. Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

08-10-2011, 12:35 PM	#11
jbmid1 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,075	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS Actually, I think we should keep weapons that are a notch or two above standard military grade. __________________ You can't be too rich, too thin, or have too much firepower.

08-11-2011, 06:14 PM	#12
marlin795 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Calvary Chapel Bible College; Murrieta,CA Posts: 755	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS The way the Constitution was written wee should have anything the military has.The colonies had every weapon GB had. What were cannons? Field artillary. We should e able to get it to appose the government if we need too. And as a nation we so need to. __________________ Native born Californian, adopted by the Great State Of Texas! PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!

08-11-2011, 06:15 PM	#13
marlin795 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Calvary Chapel Bible College; Murrieta,CA Posts: 755	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS Oh and the national Guard? They are the militia. They shouldn't be government run but state/city ran so we have a defensive force for the people. __________________ Native born Californian, adopted by the Great State Of Texas! PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!

08-11-2011, 11:46 PM	#14
millwright Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,435	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS As I recall, Miller was dead when the case came before the court. Left his lawyer without a defendant. The facts of the case were a "knee-knocker" for Miller, (had the case been argued). The USArmy had issued "short-barreled shotguns" to troops in WW1 and same were still in inventory as "issue arms". Of far greater import to gun owners was the GCA of 1968 which changed BATF regs from Title 15 (taxes) to Title 18 (civil law). >MW

08-15-2011, 03:52 AM	#15
mncarpenter V.I.P. Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Minnesota Contributor Posts: 479	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS Military grade weapons at the time the Constitution was written loaded from the muzzle and had a real slow rate of fire. Most of our modern arms came about as a direct descendent of military weapons, including that Rem 700 or 870. Guns are Guns and the Second Amendment cover's 'em all. __________________ *"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."- Ronald Reagan* *"Remember to have your democrats neutered or spayed" -Ann Coulter*

08-15-2011, 07:21 PM	#17
ziondio Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 11	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS Good advice... its been ten years since I was introduced to a man called Henry Bowman and it's had a profound effect on the way I look at everything.

08-16-2011, 08:09 PM	#18
popgun V.I.P. Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 403	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS what are military grade wepons?

08-16-2011, 08:49 PM	#20
Gun Geezer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,710	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS There is little doubt that the majority of Americans would rather live in a nanny state than that which was envisioned by our founding fathers. If it were not so, BHO and most of Congress would never have been elected. The same could have been said of ancient Rome and Greece at the time of their demise. It seems to be the way of the decline of freedom when citizens get complacent enough to forget the price that had to be paid for liberty. It also appears to be part of human nature for governments to gravitate toward tyranny and despotism as they evolve. Our founding fathers knew this and yet we seem to have forgotten or convinced ourselves we are too big or too smart to fail. I fear we will learn the awful truth too late and there will be too few of us enlightened to do too little to change the inevitable. I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of years will pass before the lamp of freedom will be rekindled and by whom?

08-20-2011, 02:11 PM	#22
sliclee V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Miami Beach Florida Posts: 65	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS MILLRIGHT-Miller living in the boonies, was never notified of his trial date. Speculation says it was to produce the outcome that happened.

08-20-2011, 05:53 PM	#23
The Duke Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: NW Louisiana Posts: 813	Re: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND MILITARY GRADE FIREARMS http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08...rmed-officers/ Ohhhh....I thought England had the most effective and tough gun laws in the world....No one but the goverment can even think about owning a handgun...and only rarely a shotgun that they cant use to protect themselves with anyhow....Well seems like the Brit criminals dont know about "no steeking gun law "... Where have I heard that before....Disarm the people and only the criminals will have guns...Seemed true enough in GB, but what about here??