Court rules machine guns not protected by 2nd Amendment

[Fly320s]

Short article here: http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/07/06/court-rules-machine-guns-not-protected-second-amendment/

I'm not surprised by the opinion, but the logic of the judges leaves me shaking my head.

[roo_ster]

Why would the black-robed tyrants put their own rice bowl at risk? 

[Devonai]

It seems that they (inadvertently?) affirmed the right to own semi-auto "assault rifles."

[cordex]

Oh yeah, the dangerous and unusual clause of the bill of rights. Rats. I forgot about that.

Does this mean we should ban dangerous and unusual religions?

[Fly320s]

Or dangerous and unusual knives, cars, TVs, plastic buckets, hammers, etc?

[Hawkmoon]

Oh yeah, the dangerous and unusual clause of the bill of rights. Rats. I forgot about that.

Unfortunately, so did the drafters of the Bill of Rights.

[grampster]

How about dangerous and unusual judges.?

[TommyGunn]

Did anyone expect the court to take any other decision,  after U. S. V  Miller, and the two Obamacare decisions?


Yea it stinks.....and I don't like it, but let's face it;  SCOTUS is now a political animal.

[roo_ster]

Did anyone expect the court to take any other decision,  after U. S. V  Miller, and the two Obamacare decisions?


Yea it stinks.....and I don't like it, but let's face it;  SCOTUS is now a political animal.

Rule of law: we miss it now that its gone.

[RevDisk]

"The judges concluded that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the individual right to protect “hearth and home,” rather than guaranteeing the right to own specific firearms."

I must have missed that wording in the Second Amendment. Because you know, it's not actually there.

As others have said, not shocking. With respect to our local law critters, generally government employees tend to think more government power is always a good thing.

[Nick1911]

I'm curious, now that it's been established as a non-protected privilege instead of a right; how long will it will take before that privilege is further sanctioned or revoked?

[RevDisk]

I'm curious, now that it's been established as a non-protected privilege instead of a right; how long will it will take before that privilege is further sanctioned or revoked?

Since NFA, it's always been the opinion of the government that NFA toys are privileges rather than rights. Although economically raising the bar for ownership was their intent, so it's pretty much self-protecting privilege. The true point of gun control in every country in the world is to raise the bar so that poor or unconnected people cannot have guns. Bodyguards to the political or economic elite always have access to whatever they want.

[De Selby]

This is an unsurprising opinion when you read it.  Hollis made the "unintended consequences" argument for machine guns, and lost badly.  It's a terrible claim.

[Perd Hapley]

The true point of gun control in every country in the world is to raise the bar so that poor or unconnected people cannot have guns. Bodyguards to the political or economic elite always have access to whatever they want.

Of course.

[BReilley]

Rule of law: we miss it now that its gone.

The law has placed power into SCOTUS' hands.  The rule of law is what you have now.  Everything being done is constitutional, because the constitution hasn't stopped any of it.

Lysander Spooner had something worthwhile to say about that.

[Pb]

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"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." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

 

[Fly320s]

Those are just words.  They don't mean what you want them to mean.

[De Selby]

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"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." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

 

Might want to read the opinion:  http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-10803-CV0.pdf

It's pretty obvious that Hollis is a moron who argued a loser.  He should have to reimburse the taxpayer for his frivolous lawsuit.

Some gems:

Hollis contends that it is not he, personally, who would make and possess the machinegun but rather the Hollis Trust.
...
This argument strains common sense and misunderstands trust law. Historically, “a trust was not considered a distinct legal entity[;]” it was “a ‘fiduciary relationship’ between multiple people.” Americold Realty Tr. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1012, 1016 (2016). While in some jurisdictions trusts have a separate legal existence, Texas is not one of those.

Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are “possessed at home” and are in “common use at the time for lawful purposes like self- defense.” See id. at 621−27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service.

Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects “the Right of the People to alter or abolish” a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights. Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, “is the central component of the Second Amendment.”

[Fly320s]

Not that it matters, but I Disagree with the court's argument.

A Trust is often considered a distinct legal entity which is why so many people use a trust to purchase NFA items.  My trust owns my NFA items, not me.  When I die, my possessions, including all of my guns and accessories, will stay owned by the trust so my wife and kids can use them without having to do any transfer.  A trust is as much a legal entity as a corporation, which does have "rights" according to SCOTUS.

The Second Amendment does not create rights, it affirms the rights.  Since the Founding Fathers were so against a standing army, they wrote the 2nd A. so that the people could be the military in times of need.  A military needs access to all of the modern equipment, not just self-defense focused arms.

The right to self-defense exists regardless of, and outside of, government regulations.  It is a natural right that all living organisms have.  The Founding Fathers knew that, therefore they didn't need to write a sentence in the new Constitution to protect it.  In other words, even if the government is dissolved, the right still exists. 


 

[De Selby]

On trusts, I hear you, but as a technical legal matter he was wrong and the court is exactly right.  From the Supreme Court case it cited:

That said, Americold’s confusion regarding the citizen- ship of a trust is understandable and widely shared. See Emerald Investors Trust v. Gaunt Parsippany Partners, 492 F. 3d 192, 201–206 (CA3 2007) (discussing various approaches among the Circuits). The confusion can be explained, perhaps, by tradition. Traditionally, a trust was not considered a distinct legal entity, but a “fiduciary relationship” between multiple people. Klein v. Bryer, 227 Md. 473, 476–477, 177 A. 2d 412, 413 (1962); Restatement (Second) of Trusts §2 (1957). Such a relationship was not a thing that could be haled into court; legal proceedings involving a trust were brought by or against the trustees in their own name. Glenn v. Allison, 58 Md. 527, 529 (1882); Deveaux, 5 Cranch, at 91. And when a trustee files a lawsuit or is sued in her own name, her citizenship is all that matters for diversity purposes. Navarro, 446 U. S., at 462–466. For a traditional trust, therefore, there is no need to determine its membership, as would be true if the trust, as an entity, were sued.
Many States, however, have applied the “trust” label to a variety of unincorporated entities that have little in common with this traditional template. Maryland, for example, treats a real estate investment trust as a “sepa- rate legal entity” that itself can sue or be sued. Md. Corp. & Assns. Code Ann. §§8–102(2), 8–301(2). So long as such an entity is unincorporated, we apply our “oft-repeated rule” that it possesses the citizenship of all its members. Carden, 494 U. S., at 195. But neither this rule nor Na- varro limits an entity’s membership to its trustees just because the entity happens to call itself a trust.

In other words, some states give a trust legal existence apart from its common law roots. In that case, it's an unincorporated entity that fits the definition of "person" who is banned from transferring machine guns (quoting below from the Hollis opinion:

As defined in the Gun Control Act, the “term ‘person’ . . . include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.”

His argument was literally that because "trust" wasn't listed in the statute, a trust can buy a new machine gun.  It was dumb, pure and simple.

On the second amendment, the argument that the second amendment protects an individual right to self defense (and not a right to match military arms with the US government) is extremely compelling - it largely refutes this crap about your right being dependent on participation in a well regulated militia.  

As they noted in the opinion, personal arms were useful for militia purposes at the time, but that wasn't the source of the right.  There is no recognised common law or "natural law" (not a basis for the constitution) right to provision a private army.  

[Perd Hapley]

If the second amendment doesn't concern the right to own and carry the weaponry that would be appropriate to militia, what is the purpose of the militia clause? How does owning pistols or hunting rifles contribute to a "well-regulated militia"? Or, more importantly, how would ownership of, say, fully-automatic assault rifles, not be even more conducive to the second amendment's purpose (the aforementioned militia) than the ownership of less war-like weaponry? Where does the amendment distinguish between the different classes of weaponry?

[Nick1911]

Heller, therefore, distinguished between two classes of weapons: (1) those that are useful in the militia or military, and (2) those that are “possessed at home” and are in “common use at the time for lawful purposes like self- defense.” See id. at 621−27 (quotation marks omitted). The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to the second category of weapons, though that category at times may overlap with the first. The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because the weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service.

This seems very circular.  "The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to... those that are "possessed at home" and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self- defense."

However, the arms being sold to individuals for possession at home, and are in common use for lawful purposes like self defence, is defined by what people can purchase - arms purchases that have been protected by the second amendment.

[De Selby]

If the second amendment doesn't concern the right to own and carry the weaponry that would be appropriate to militia, what is the purpose of the militia clause? How does owning pistols or hunting rifles contribute to a "well-regulated militia"? Or, more importantly, how would ownership of, say, fully-automatic assault rifles, not be even more conducive to the second amendment's purpose (the aforementioned militia) than the ownership of less war-like weaponry? Where does the amendment distinguish between the different classes of weaponry?

The militia clause serves no purpose, is what heller decided and what gun owners have been saying for a long time.  Your participation in the militia does not affect your right to own personal firearms.  Also, hunting rifles or pistols aren't protected per se.  The courts reasoning is that firearms commonly used for self defense (whatever that means - they make a point of not deciding) are protected.

They arrived there based on an originalist interpretation - the founders recognised a right to personal weapons and routinely banned or regulated what they considered to be unusually dangerous weapons.  The right to self defense was what the rule protected, not the "right" (never existed) to be part of a military force with your own equipment.

Heller didn't decide that the purpose of the second amendment was to preserve the militia, and I agree.  If they had decided that we'd be stuck in the pre-heller days.  

[De Selby]

This seems very circular.  "The individual right protected by the Second Amendment applies only to... those that are "possessed at home" and are in "common use at the time for lawful purposes like self- defense."

However, the arms being sold to individuals for possession at home, and are in common use for lawful purposes like self defence, is defined by what people can purchase - arms purchases that have been protected by the second amendment.

Not quite - a ban that left you with no weapons useful for self defense would clearly fall afoul of the rule they've created.  Also, they quote approvingly of the Massachussetts taser case.  

My two cents:  what can and can't be banned was a gray area from heller.  Bringing dumb cases which are sure losers only means that many more cases for the opposition to cite in the next legitimate challenge over the scope of the right.

[Perd Hapley]

De Selby, don't you see a problem with ignoring portions of our fundamental law?

Your participation in the militia does not affect your right to own personal firearms.

I didn't say you had to participate, and neither does the Constitution. It merely states that the right to own and carry the weaponry shall not be infringed, as that is conducive to a well-regulated militia. It doesn't dictate that one has to participate in an organized militia, in order to avail oneself of the right.

Frankly, I'm tired of gun advocates being embarrassed by the militia clause. It works in our favor, and it's time we embraced it.