{"id":109875,"date":"2025-05-08T08:45:56","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T13:45:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=109875"},"modified":"2025-05-08T08:45:56","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T13:45:56","slug":"109875","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=109875","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Trump Administration Position on Machine Guns – Not 2A Protected<\/a>
\nThis Position Undermines Its Second Amendment Credibility<\/p>\n

\u201cTrump administration says machine guns aren\u2019t protected by Second Amendment,\u201d\u00a0The Washington Times reports<\/a>. \u201cThe Trump administration is taking heat from gun rights advocates after the Justice Department argued in court that machine guns fall outside the scope of firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

The story quotes Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Case, who, in arguing a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court ruling, asserted \u201cMachine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

District Judge Carlton Wayne Reeves of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi had properly ruled that the Supreme Court\u2019s Bruen decision, codifying that text, history and tradition at the time the Constitution was ratified, defined the standards to be used in determining Founding Era intent.<\/p>\n

Besides, the Second Amendment says \u201carms.\u201d It doesn\u2019t say \u201ckinds of arms.\u201d Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe\u2019s views were reflective of what the understanding was at the time, when he wrote, \u201cCongress 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.”<\/p>\n

And for what purpose?
\n\u201cAs 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,” Coxe declared.<\/p>\n

Where\u2019d you pull \u201ckinds of weapons\u201d out of, AUSA Case? She\u2019s relying on the \u201cin common use at the time\u201d artificial construct that restricts \u201clegal\u201d ownership to what has not been banned by infringements, and limits gun uses to \u201cself-defense.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

While some leading Second Amendment voices are calling it our salvation, this column has been an almost lone voice in warning how \u201ccommon use<\/a>\u201d can be a trap, exploited to sustain current gun bans and deny new weapons developments to the people. We have also been one of the few advocates warning that ignoring the\u00a0Militia clause<\/a>\u00a0and relying exclusively on self-defense makes the Second Amendment more vulnerable to infringements.<\/p>\n

Viewed properly, the function of the Militia was to field citizen soldiers bearing arms in common use at the time, in other words, having \u201cordinary military equipment\u201d to take into \u201ccommon defense\u201d battles. Make no mistake: they mobilized with the intent to match and best a professional military threat. A modern Militia would require citizens to keep and bear exactly what the gun-grabbing politicians are trying to take away from them, what they denounce as \u201cweapons of war.\u201d<\/p>\n

But AUSA Case wasn\u2019t done being wrong.
\n\u201cMachine guns are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Instead, they are uniformly restricted, highly lethal and well suited to criminal purposes,\u201d she flat-out lied.<\/p>\n

First, per ATF records, there are about three quarters of a million registered machineguns in the United States, and crimes committed with those have been exceedingly rare, with some reports documenting as low as four in all the time since the National Firearms Act went into effect, with two of them committed by police officers, and one by a sailor with a Navy-issued weapon. As for being \u201cuniformly restricted,\u201d the (certainly unconstitutional since Congress has no legitimate delegated authority to ignore \u201cshall not be infringed\u201d) Hughes Amendment, banning civilian ownership of post-1986 machineguns, makes my \u201ccommon use is a trap\u201d argument for me.<\/p>\n

Editor-in-Chief of Firearms News, Vincent L. DeNiro, who has spent four decades in the gun industry and who successfully led the first defeat of a municipal \u201cassault weapons\u2019 ban in 1989 (which made national news), had this to say, \u201cIt is nonsensical for any so-called \u2018pro-gun\u2019 individual to state that they believe that the Second Amendment is in place for the individual to defend against tyranny, and then in the same breath state that machine guns should be illegal. How can a citizenry defend themselves against a tyrannical government which is armed with superior weapons?<\/p>\n

They cannot, and it was the Founder\u2019s intent that the citizenry owns such modern military-grade weapons. Had they not felt that way, they would have restricted citizens to crossbows and catapults instead of muskets and cannon \u2013 they did not, and their writings are very clear. The Founders inserted the Second Amendment specifically as a God-given recognized right for the individual to have the ability to defend their liberty and life against tyranny and genocide. The Second Amendment was not put in place just for defense of robbers and rapists, it was put into place as a defense against a possible future tyrannical government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Trump Administration Position on Machine Guns – Not 2A Protected This Position Undermines Its Second Amendment Credibility \u201cTrump administration says machine guns aren\u2019t protected by Second Amendment,\u201d\u00a0The Washington Times reports. \u201cThe Trump administration is taking heat from gun rights advocates after the Justice Department argued in court that machine guns fall outside the scope of … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,11,50,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-crap-for-brains","category-goobermint","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=109875"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":109876,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109875\/revisions\/109876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=109875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=109875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=109875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}