1986 automatic weapons ban unconstitutional?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Hans Rudolph, May 8, 2012.

  1. Ken W

    Ken W New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    346
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    I'm sorry but that's crap. With the unconstitutional way it is now it has drove up the prices on the small allotment available to us to ridiculous amounts making them out of reach for anyone other than the wealthy. This is completely unacceptable and should never have been tolerated.




    Damn straight! Could not have said it better myself. We are all now at such an extreme disadvantage that is practically at that point now where we wouldn't have a realistic chance to combat a tyrannical and corrupt government successfully.



    I feel the exact same way. Like collecting any other objects it's the joy of both possessing them and the enjoyment using and/or displaying them. Again, with the with the current untenable situation there isn't the slightest chance I'll ever have any full auto gun.


    We need to seriously do this and then actually go after them.
  2. jwrauch

    jwrauch New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    Flyover territory , USA
    If you have ever read the Constitution over 90% of what govt does today is unconstitutional!! JR
  3. Duckboats

    Duckboats New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    51
    Just saw this post and wanted to chime in on the National Firearms Act debate. If you guys have not read the book Unintended Consequences by John Ross, find it! Great novel with real gun history. Everyone in the gun culture should read it at least once.
    This all started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. This act was passed to regulate GUNS used by Gangsters during the Prohibition era. The Federal government employed several people to enforce Prohibition laws and were known as "Treasury Agents". When the 21st amendment passed in 1933, the Treasury Agents didn't have anything to do. Alcohol was legal to possess. Six months after the 21st amendment was passed, congress passed the NFA and made it illegal to possess certain weapons that fit into the category they defined as "gangster weapons" without registering them with the Federal Government and paying a $200 tax on them ($200 was a lot in the 30s!). Examples were SBRs, SBSs, Machine Guns (Tommy guns), silencers, and so forth. The Treasury agents were now tasked with enforcing the NFA and keeping the Registry. They became the ATF. This all came down to a court case in the U.S. Supreme Court of US v Miller. Miller was arrested for possessing a short shotgun. His case was dismissed by the US District Court and the court ruled the NFA unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the SCOTUS. Neither Miller nor his attorney showed up. The government basically deceived the court into thinking that a shotgun is not used by the military thereby it is not a military weapon and the "militia" is not allowed to have one. If Miller's attorney showed up to show that Army officers used them in WWI, we would have different case law today.
    The Gun Control Act of 1968, restricted IMPORTATION of guns not used for "sporting purposes". Autos could no longer be imported into the US. It also created a licensing system to license dealers and restricted people from buying handguns in states other than their state of residence. It also created a class of citizens unable to possess firearms.
    The Firearm Protection Act of 1986 amended the GCA. This included the Hughes Amendment which made any auto weapon made after May 19, 1986 illegal for civilians to own. This bill was signed into Law by Ronald Reagan. This law was lobbied by Gun Rights Activists. Some Dems in the Senate threw on the Hughes amendment and the Pro-Gun lobby didn't read the bill and pushed it through.
    The constitutionality of all these acts goes back to the NFA. The argument being that as a member of the militia, which we all are, are we able to possess weapons the military can possess. The answer is, YES. The reason being that the "militia" is used to protect the Country from tyranny and the government. If the government has bigger, badder, and better guns, than the militia, then we cannot protect the Country.
    The Feds are using the Interstate Commerce clause to regulate guns. Which is why you saw the great State of Montana pass their state law allowing firearms built in Montana, used in Montana, and kept in Montana exempt from Federal Regulations to include a tax stamp.
    We need more States to Join that fight!!
    Last edited: May 18, 2012
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum All semi-automatic pistols sold in Ca. To require micro stamp. May 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Barry O'Drama May Skirt Congress to Ban Semiautomatics Nov 21, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum 2nd Amendment "No Obstacle" to Banning Automatic Weapons Oct 16, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Heads Up Nevada: Semi-Automatic Rifle Classification: 8/28 Aug 27, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Semi-Automatic Firearms Mar 11, 2008