{"id":91327,"date":"2023-03-28T03:01:06","date_gmt":"2023-03-28T08:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91327"},"modified":"2023-03-28T03:06:15","modified_gmt":"2023-03-28T08:06:15","slug":"91327","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=91327","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Government Has Known from the Start There is a Right to Own Machineguns<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cFeds Say Wyoming Man Has No Right To Make His Own Machine Gun,\u201d\u00a0Cowboy State Daily<\/a><\/em>\u00a0reports, citing developments in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. \u201cJake Stanley DeWilde in January sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), saying the government wrongfully denied his application to build his own M16 machine gun and a federal ban on such weapons is unconstitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, that would be ATF\u2019s position. And their excuse, \u201cthat courts have consistently ruled that the Second Amendment protects weapons in \u2018common use\u2019 but does not protect \u2018dangerous and unusual weapons,\u2019\u201d get a legal boost from of all people, the late \u201coriginalist\u201d\u00a0Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia<\/a>\u00a0in his\u00a0District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>\u00a0opinion. For reasons of his own, he felt he had to help advance that idea in the minds of those trying to justify infringements.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u201cLike most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,\u201d Scalia volunteered, \u201c[United States v.<\/em>]\u00a0Miller\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those \u2018in common use at the time\u2019 finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.\u201d He used that to imply banning weapons such as \u201cM-16 rifles and the like\u201d would not be an infringement. Otherwise, he asserted, \u201cit would mean that the National Firearms Act\u2019s restrictions on machineguns \u2026 might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

You have to wonder what it takes to get through to some of these guys.<\/p>\n

Yes, it\u2019s unconstitutional, and that can be demonstrated logically and legally through the case and the law Scalia cited.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Miller<\/em>\u00a0recognized the militia as \u201call males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.\u201d Its function was \u2014 and still is \u2014 to field citizen soldiers, and these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, \u201cordinary military equipment\u201d intended to be taken into \u201ccommon defense\u201d battles. The militia deployed with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.<\/p>\n

To suggest the Framers of the Constitution meant anything else is to accuse them of being insane by codifying into the supreme Law of the Land that sending an ill-equipped citizenry to their slaughter was \u201cnecessary to the security of a free State.\u201d<\/p>\n

Irrefutable evidence that the government knew when proposing the National Firearms Act that a ban on machineguns would be unconstitutional is presented in the\u00a0Tennessee Law Review<\/a><\/em>, Volume 62, Number 3, Spring 1995; A Second Amendment Symposium Issue:<\/p>\n

\u201cAttorney General Cummins was then asked how the peoples\u2019 protection under the 2nd Amendment was escaped. Cummins then replied, \u2018Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power (taxation and interstate commerce). You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The government knew the people had a right to machine guns. The issue here is one of taxing a right as a prior restraint on exercising it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And the unstated issue is, just like with latter-day \u201ccommonsense gun safety laws,\u201d Cummins knew his scheme would have no effect on the criminals it was fraudulently passed to deter:<\/p>\n

\u201c[W]ith regard to reaching a man like Dillinger: There is nothing specific in this act that deals with that situation.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The tax \u201cworkaround\u201d was camouflage and subterfuge. The intent was to ban when no authority existed.<\/p>\n

Now, in light of precedent established subsequent to the passage of the National Firearms Act, such as 1964\u2019s Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court\u2019s 1966\u00a0Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections<\/em>\u00a0decision abolishing poll taxes as a prerequisite for exercising voting rights, and the recent Supreme Court ruling in\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen<\/em>\u00a0establishing a \u201ctext, history, and tradition\u201d standard, there\u2019s really only one conclusion that can be drawn:<\/p>\n

The National Firearms Act is unconstitutional. The same holds true for bans on \u201cbump stocks,\u201d pistol braces, forced rest triggers, \u201cghost guns,\u201d \u201cGlock switches,\u201d and the like. And the treasonous \u201cgun sense politicians\u201d and their \u201conly following orders\u201d edict enforcers know it<\/p>\n

So do all those officeholders we\u2019re told are \u201cstaunch supporters of the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Further Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n