# Are Machine Guns Protected By The Second Amendment



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

I say yes.........

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules

As Hillary Clinton would put it, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit got it wrong...........


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Considering _only_ the Founders' intent, the answer has to be "Yes, machine guns are protected by the Second Amendment."
And for that matter, so are rockets and cannon.

However, the Supreme Court has held that, although the Second Amendment guarantees the natural right of both self defense and the defense of the nation, that natural right is subject to regulation by both federal and state governments.
Thus, it is within the purview of our government to decree that the larger and more powerful weapons better suited to battlefield use are to be reserved for our military forces, and that only personal weapons are to be widely permitted to the citizenry.

However, it must be said that personal-size, fully-automatic weapons, for instance "assault rifles," must certainly fall into the category of "personal weapons." Our various governments may regulate their possession and use, but any sort of prohibition against them should be improper and unconstitutional.
And until our government stupidly prohibited the use of alcoholic beverages, and thereby gave rise to big-business, well-organized crime cartels, possession and use of personal-size, fully-automatic weapons was indeed unregulated.
Gun prohibition began when legislators believed that the government's police were outnumbered and under-gunned, in relation to the criminal opposition. It was a fear reaction, and the legislators' panicked and unreasoned response was to disarm the law-abiding. This trend continues today.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

It is reasonable to conclude that the arms the people would keep and bear would be their small arms, since they would be unlikely to possess cannons (or rockets).


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I have listed before and will state again that the people were bettered armed than the armies at the time. The British marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the arms and munitions at these towns which included cannons, rack guns, and rifles. Just the rifles were superior to the muskets carried by the soldiers. It has only been 82 years that restrictions on machine guns short barreled shotguns and rifles has been in affect. All to protect the people from the violence cause by the Volstead Act. When it was repealed in 1933, many Law Enforcement Officers who were federal employees were going to be out of work until the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1934 National Controlled Substance Act went into affect and they had new crimes to fight and continued federal employment.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

tony pasley said:


> ...The British marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the arms and munitions at these towns which included cannons, rack guns, and *rifles*...[emphasis added]


Not rifles.
New England was not much of a place for rifles, back in the time of the Revolution.
Rifles were more the province of the "long hunter," who had to carry his own personal supply of lightweight ammunition, each shot of which had to be extremely effective. The "long hunter" was to be found in the western areas of the colonies, for instance western New York, western Pennsylvania, western Virginia, far-western Maryland, and the southern colonies.

New England relied upon the fowling piece (single-barrel shotgun) and the musket, since hunting in that area was normally a short-range proposition.

The exception to this statement was Vermont (but not New Hampshire) and, by extension, not-yet-separate Maine.
But still, rifles were rare, and not the normal firearm of the place.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> However, the Supreme Court has held that, although the Second Amendment guarantees the natural right of both self defense and the defense of the nation, that natural right is subject to regulation by both federal and state governments.
> Thus, it is within the purview of our government to decree that the larger and more powerful weapons better suited to battlefield use are to be reserved for our military forces, and that only personal weapons are to be widely permitted to the citizenry.


There in lies the problem....... The Supreme Court changes the meaning of keep and bare arms without infringement by ruling the government can regulate the Bill of Rights...... As Hillary Clinton would say the Supreme Court got it wrong........


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

tony pasley said:


> I have listed before and will state again that the people were bettered armed than the armies at the time. The British marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the arms and munitions at these towns which included cannons, rack guns, and rifles. Just the rifles were superior to the muskets carried by the soldiers. It has only been 82 years that restrictions on machine guns short barreled shotguns and rifles has been in affect. All to protect the people from the violence cause by the Volstead Act. When it was repealed in 1933, many Law Enforcement Officers who were federal employees were going to be out of work until the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1934 National Controlled Substance Act went into affect and they had new crimes to fight and continued federal employment.


You seem to be confusing 'the people' with the municipality.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

No individuals owned the weapons and formed a militia around what weapons were available from the people.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

When is a silencer a weapon?
And private individuals (companies) owned canon back then. To project their ships (where? Along the Barbary coast).
Yes a canon isn't an EDC, but we should be able to own modern automatic weapons.


----------



## OldManMontgomery (Nov 2, 2013)

In fact, fully automatic weapons were legal to own up until the passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The NFA has never been seriously challenged in court in terms of Constitutional adherence, so the standing law is they are allowed only by permission of the government. Fat chance of that changing in this Administration and SCOTUS, or with either the incumbent or his chosen heir appointing any SCOTUS Justices.

But since there was a 'time before' the passage of NFA '34 when citizens could own such weapons, and since such an act (owning) is not 'evil in itself' (the legal term is I believe 'malum in se') I would think the ability, the right, would be Constitutional.


----------



## OldManMontgomery (Nov 2, 2013)

AZdave said:


> When is a silencer a weapon?


Silencers were unregulated (Federally at least) prior to the NFA '34 act. The 'justification' in the minds of the legislators was much the same as the justification for regulating fully automatic weapons and the later regulation of switch blades: it was a reaction to certain political groups who lived their entire life being offended or afraid of someone else doing some thing they - the political group - didn't like.



AZdave said:


> And private individuals (companies) owned canon back then. To project their ships (where? Along the Barbary coast).
> 
> Yes a canon isn't an EDC, but we should be able to own modern automatic weapons.


Actually, 'cannons' are defined as 'destructive devices' and may be owned by permission of the Federal Government - and probably the state as well. They are regulated under that same NFA '34 act. In short, any firearm over .50 caliber, excepting shotguns (also defined) is defined a 'destructive device'. This includes mortars, rocket launchers and presumably cannons.

(By the way, 'canon' is a rule or set of rules which define or describe certain intellectual or artistic 'sets'; the most common use is the 'canon of the Bible' which determined - still does - which 'books' or writing is to be included. Cannon - two "n"s - is the large bore boomy thing.)


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Thompson sub-machine could be ordered and delivered mail order for the sum of $125.00, Ranchers along the southern boarder would buy them to protect their livestock and property.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

OldManMontgomery said:


> (By the way, 'canon' is a rule or set of rules which define or describe certain intellectual or artistic 'sets'; the most common use is the 'canon of the Bible' which determined - still does - which 'books' or writing is to be included. Cannon - two "n"s - is the large bore boomy thing.)


Thanks! I was trying to save a few electrons the same way GM did with ink by spelling employe instead of employee.

;-) Actually I messed up the spelling.

Yes I agree with you, mufflers and full auto weapons used to be legal. I'd settle for a three round burst weapon.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

"Canon" can also refer to a piece of music or song which repeats in a particular manner.
Thus, the final section of Tchaikovsky's _1812 Overture_ contains a canon of cannon.


----------



## Bobshouse (Jul 6, 2015)

Hello!


----------



## Cofaler (Oct 19, 2012)

Is mass media protected by the first amendment? I realize this isn't a new concept, but I think there are some parallels.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Cofaler said:


> Is mass media protected by the first amendment? I realize this isn't a new concept, but I think there are some parallels.


Pencils cause spelling errors. Pencils should be illegal.
Spoons cause obesity. Spoons should be illegal.
Condoms make 'teen sex possible. Let's get rid of condoms.
And so on...


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The 4 boxes of Liberty the Soap box, the Ballot box, the jury box, the Cartridge box.


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

Even SCOTUS says that weapons in common use by the military are protected under the 2nd. See the Miller ruling I believe. So, are machine guns used by the military? 

The GCA OF 68 and NFA of 34 are in my opinion, illegal as they violate the constitution. When we get into things like cannons and artillery, we're now into the area of ordnance rather than arms.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------

