Gun Control

 

 
History of Countries who have banned firearms: BANNED Pt 1-2

Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Maps
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Source:
The Federalist
http://www.federalist.com/

For the Record on Gun Control
http://www.federalist.com/current/fedbrief-00-20.html

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
 From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
 From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1928, Germany established gun control.
 From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally
ill, and others, who were unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1935, China established gun control.
 From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend
themselves and were rounded up and
exterminated.

In 1964, Guatemala established gun control.
 From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control.
 From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control.
 From 1975 to1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives -- because they were unable
to defend their liberty -- at approximately 56 million in the 20th century.

======================================================

Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-keg/21300-confiscation-registered-guns-begins-illinois.html


The Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police have teamed up
to make good on Mayor Daley's pledge that, if it were up to him, nobody would
have a gun. Daley and his elite "CAGE" unit are apparently taking advantage
of gun privacy loopholes to pinpoint certain individuals for inclusion in
the confiscation program.

The ISRA is following up on leads in one case that has distrubing
implications. An elderly first-generation Chicago resident was recently paid
a visit by an Illinois State Police trooper. After asking to come inside the
man's home, the trooper asked if the man owned a gun - to which he replied
yes. The trooper then directed the individual to surrender the firearm. The
man complied with the officer's demand and the trooper left with the gun.
And the story gets better...

The gun in question was purchased legally by the man in the 1970s shortly
after he became a U.S. citizen. When Chicago's infamous gun registration
scheme went into effect in the early 1980s, the man registered the firearm
as per the requirement. However, over the years, the fellow apparenlty forgot
to re-register the firearm, and forgot to renew his Illinois FOID Card.

So...what does this all mean?

In the last edition of The Illinois Shooter, we reported on the activities
of a shady taskforce known as the Chicago Anti Gun Efforcement (CAGE) unit.
This elite squad, operated jointly by the Illinois State Police, the
Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office,
supposedly exists to identify illegal gunrunners. However, information
gained by the ISRA makes it clear that the CAGE unit is targeting law-abiding
citizens, not criminal gunrunners.

Thanks to a ruling by a liberal federal judge, the CAGE unit now has the
name of every single person in the United States who, since 1992, lawfully
purchased more than one handgun in the period of a week. The CAGE unit
also has all the makes, models and serial numbers of those guns. In essence,
the Chicago Police Department is now registering guns and gun owners
nationwide.

The ISRA has also learned that the CAGE unit has compiled a list of families
where more than one person in that family holds a FOID card. Acting on that
information, the CAGE unit is now contacting gun shops where those families
have shopped, and is illegally registering all guns purchased by those
families.

Now, it appears that the CAGE unit is scrubbing Chicago's gun registration
list against the list of FOID card holders. Indications are that folks who
have let their registrations and FOIDs lapse will have their guns
confiscated. We have to wonder how long it will be until state troopers
show up at the doors to confiscate the guns of non-Chicago residents who
have let their FOIDs expire.

==============================================================================
Gun Battle Expected in the House Tomorrow - July 17, 2001
goamail@gunowners.org
http://www.gunowners.org/a071601.htm

In Defense of the Second Amendment (Select Documents)
http://www.libertygunrights.com/

If an Agent Knocks
Federal Investigators and Your Rights - pjaques@cs.oberlin.edu
http://web.archive.org/web/20011115015634/http://www.cs.oberlin.edu/students/pjaques/etext/ifanagentknocks.html
 

The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/2nd.htm

APFN PAGES AND LINKS ON GUN CONTROL:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gun.htm

Women to Arms visit
http://web.archive.org/web/20021014200151/http://www.truthresources.org/armed-women.htm

Should America ban the handgun? Your reaction Votes so far: Yes 19% No 81%

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 04:19:29 -0500

======================================================

Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 13:13:34 -0400
From: "Mark A Smith" msmith01@flashnet
Reply-To: msmith01@flashnet
David Rydel eagleflt@eaglefltcom


Descriptions of the supreme court gun cases
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/supreme_cases.html

Notice the definition of "militia" used here

Perpich v Dept of Defense, 496 US 334 (1990)
This is a 1990 Supreme Court case that pretty well extinguishes the
argument that the 2nd amendment means states can have a
National Guard w/o interference from the feds Perpich was governor
of Minn, who didn't want any of his National Guard troops being put on
active duty for training in Central America In 1987 the federal law that
made state Guards part of the US Guard was amended to take away from
governors the power to veto active duty miss ions, except for very limited
circumstances; being a commie governor opposed to missions in Central
America wasn't one of them The court said that the feds could if they
wanted make state Guards part of the US armed forces, as they had, and
subject to be ing called to active duty as part of the Army, w/o the
consent of that state's governor The court identified the Guard as the
"active militia" drawn from the general population of the state, which
was the militia While the court said it might violate the constitution for
the feds to do such training with a truly state militia, (under the
militia clause of the Constitution) the National Guard was just an
extension of the US Guard, which was almost Half of the manpower of the US
Army, although not on active duty except when needed Minnesota never made
an argument that the 2nd amendment prohibited having the state militia
be under the thumb of the feds Even though that is precisely what HCI
would have you believe it means The National Guard is clearly a
militia, but it can hardly be the one in the 2nd amendment, given the
otherwise constitutional relationship it has to the federal government And
the opinion in this case was unanimous ----------------- Descriptions of
the supreme court gun cases

Copyright by James O Bardwell, 1995, 1996 Permission is given to
reproduce this document or portions thereof with attribution, for
non-commercial, or non-governmental use only No claim to US statutes,
regulations or case opinions quoted herein

Supreme court case links with no descriptions

* Bailey v US, - US - (1995)
In this case the Supremes look again at the drug crime sentencing
enhancement provided when a suspect uses a gun in a drug offense In
this case they review the enhanced sentences of drug dealers who were
caught with guns, and drugs at the same time, but the circumstances
suggested they merely possessed the guns, and did not use them in any
active sense of the verb One had the gun in a closet at home, the
other in his locked trunk while in his car The court decides that
some kind of active employment of the gun needs to be shown for the
law to apply Mere possession is not sufficient * Barrett v US,
423 US 212 (1976)

This case decides whether you have to acquire a
gun interstate in order to violate part of the GCA, or if the gun just
needs to have moved interstate at some point in its life The court
opts for the more broad interpretation * Beecham v US, - US -
(1994) A supreme court case on whether a removal of felony status
under state law, for a state conviction, also operates to remove the
felony status from a federal conviction, for the purpose of owning
guns

The court says no, relief from the federal conviction must come
from the feds * Brief for appeal of US v Bryan, 122 F3d 90 (2d Cir
1997) (see original case) * Church of Scientology v IRS, 484 US
9 (1987) In this case the Supreme Court construes 26 USC 6103, the
Watergate era statute that prohibits the release of a tax return by
the federal government In this case the court decides that section
6103 prohibits the release of a return under the Freedom of
Information Act, even if the information identifying the taxpayer is
blocked out from the released copy

The court construes the statute
literally, that the return document may not be released, period Since
the NFA transfer forms are treated by ATF as tax returns (rightly in
my opinion, I don't know of any cases on the subject, but I would
expect a court to agree with that interpretation), they are not
available under FOIA The taxpayer can get a copy of his returns, in
fact he is entitled to them Section 6103 doesn't apply to government
entities either, so possibly transfer forms of government entities may
be obtainable by FOIA

owever, as the court notes, a recompilation of
tax return data, which strips out identifying information is
releasable That clause was apparently meant to allow IRS to continue
to release generic information gathered from income tax returns,
however it may have application in the NFA context, since ATF does
prepare recompilations of transfer information * Dickerson v New
Banner Institute, Inc, 460 US 103 (1983)

This case is the supreme
court deciding if one is convicted of a felony, that operates to
prohibit someone from having an FFL, or being a principal in a company
with an FFL, where someone gets a deferred sentence, and succesfully
completes it, such that under the laws of the state where they were
prosecuted, they are not a felon The court decides that pros counts,
and such a person is a felon, and decides Congress cannot have meant
to have "conviction" governed by the law of the state where the person
was prosecuted, although they do not really suggest an alternative In
any case, Congress overruled this case by amending the GCA in 1986 to
expresly indicate that a state conviction was governed by state law
As indicated in the Beecham case, a federal conviction can only be
negated by federal law, for purposes of owning guns * Haynes v
US 390 US 85 (1968)

This was an appeal from someone convicted of
violating the old NFA, failing to register a weapon in their
possession Prior to the changes to the NFA in 1968, as part of the
Gun Control Act (forced in part by this case, the case was decided in
Jan, the law changed in Nov) a person was required by law to
register an NFA weapon in their possession But it was illegal to
possess an unregistered weapon, the law punished you if you failed to
report a gun, and punished you (or potentially did) if you did report
a gun

The Supreme Court decided this arrangement violated the 5th
amendment, and decided that anyone charged with violating the NFA
could assert, as an absolute defense, the 5th amendement prohibition
on compelled self-incrimination Thus one could freely make NFA
weapons between 1/68 and the effective date of the changes to it, in
November, and ignore the NFA The Amnesty was designed in part to pick
up these weapons, as well as adding DEWAT's and DD's As a practical
matter the government would sometimes let you register unregistered
weapons in your possession, if your possession was non-criminal

Like the gun came in as a war souvenir and you were ignorant of the
registration stuff, or you bought a Thompson before 1934 and missed
the boat on registering it Or the government changed the
classification of the gun (sort of like the DD thing with the evil
shotguns) as they apparently did with the T-48's H&R sold publicly
after that program ended * Huddleston v US, 415 US 814 A
supreme court case construing the GCA In this one, the court decides
that when one gets a gun back from a pawn shop, one has to fill out the
4473, and getting your own gun counts as an "acquisition" such that if
you are a felon getting your own gun back (or your wife's, as was
claimed in this case) you cannot legally get it back, and can be
prosecuted for lying on the 4473 about your felon status * Lewis v
US, 445 US 55 (1980)

This is a 1980 Supreme Court case that notes
in a footnote that prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does
not violate the 2nd amendment The case itself is over whether a
felony conviction that is arguably void because it was obtained w/o
appointed counsel for the defense, still makes one a felon, and thus
makes it illegal for that person to possess a firearm The court
decides that yes it does; even if the conviction could have been
overturned, if the person had bothered, they need to do that before
they can possess a firearm * Brief of amicus Gun Owners Foundation, in
Mack v US * Malloy v Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964)

This case is
concerned with whether the right to be free from self incrimination,
as found in the fourth amendment, applies to the states through the
fourteenth amendment The court decides yes; and Malloy got out of
jail for refusing to answer questions from some stupid Conn body
investigating gambling

The interesting point of it is the second footnote in the court's
opinions, where it notes that the second amdnement is one of the
rights not yet held applicable to the states through the 14th
amendment * Maryland v US, 381 US 41 (1965) This is a very
very tangential case to second amendment issues It is with Perpich on
the militia concept

Here, in deciding if a Air National Guard pilot
who drove his plane into a passenger jet is an employee of the state
or of the feds, the court says that the National Guard is the modern
militia guaranteed to the states under article 1 sec 8 of the
constitution But the court does not have anything to say about what
the militia in the second amendment means

But this case provides more
info about the federal co-opting of the state militia, which is
certainly inconsistent with reading the 2nd amendment to mean states
can have militias, not to mention that it makes art 1 sec 8 redundant
in a big way BTW the court decides the pilot was a state employee in
this context * Miller v Texas, 153 US 535 (1894) This is a very
short case, in which the Supreme court refuses to hear a 2nd Am
challenge to a Texas law prohibiting carrying weapons on the person

As the issue was not raised in the lower court, the Supreme court
refuses to review it And the court also suggests that the 2nd
amendment does not apply to states, although it does seem to recognize
an argument could be made that it does apply to the states through the
14th amendment (as most, but not all of the Bill of Rights now does)
This case was cited in the challenge to the Ca AW ban, Fresno Rifle
Club v Van de Camp * Morissette v United States, 342 US 246 (1952)

In this case the Supreme court considers the intent required to be
convicted of stealing US Government property, and decides that the same
intent required at common law is required under the statute, and that
just because Congress didn't recite any intent doesn't mean they
intended to make the theft a strict liability crime Compare this
discussion to the Staples case * Perpich v Dept of Defense, 496 US
334 (1990) This is a 1990 Supreme Court case that pretty well
extinguishes the argument that the 2nd amendment means states can have
a National Guard w/o interference from the feds Perpich was governor
of Minn, who didn't want any of his National Guard troops being put
on active duty for training in Central America

In 1987 the federal
law that made state Guards part of the US Guard was amended to take
away from governors the power to veto active duty missions, except for
very limited circumstances; being a commie governor opposed to
missions in Central America wasn't one of them The court said that
the feds could if they wanted make state Guards part of the US armed
forces, as they had, and subject to being called to active duty as
part of the Army, w/o the consent of that state's governor The court
identified the Guard as the "active militia" drawn from the general
population of the state, which was the militia

While the court said
it might violate the constitution for the feds to do such training
with a truly state militia, (under the militia clause of the
Constitution) the National Guard was just an extension of the US
Guard, which was almost half of the manpower of the US Army, although
not on active duty except when needed Minnesota never made an
argument that the 2nd amendment prohibited having the state militia be
under the thumb of the feds Even though that is precisely what HCI
would have you believe it means

The National Guard is clearly a
militia, but it can hardly be the one in the 2nd amendment, given the
otherwise constitutional relationship it has to the federal
government And the opinion in this case was unanimous * Presser
v Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886) This is one of the two post-Civil War
19th Cent cases addressing the 2nd amendment (the other is
Cruikshank) In this case Presser was part of a citizen militia group,
(the Lehr und Wehr Verein) and was caught parading through Chicago
with a group of other men, carrying guns He was convicted of
violating an Illinois law making it a crime to be a part of an armed
unit parading or existing w/o a permit from the Governor (Presser got
a $10 fine) He claimed the law violated his rights under the 2nd
amendment, among other things

The court disagreed, and upheld the law
and his conviction Basically they decided that the 2nd amendment was
not a right to form or be part of a militia It related to people
(individuals, it seems) bearing arms for the use of the US government,
and as part of the militia as called up by the government * Printz
v US, - US - (1997) In this case the Supreme Court reverses the
9th circuit's decision in Mack v US, and decides that the burdens
placed on local law enforcement by the Brady handgun control law are
unconstitutional, under the 10th amendment, and general federalism
principles * Robertson v Baldwin, 165 US 275 (1896)

This is a Supreme Court case from 1896 Like the Verdugo-Urquidez case it only mentions the 2nd amendment tangentially The case is over whether a
federal law that made it a CRIME for a seaman to refuse to do his
seaman thing, after signing a contract to work as such, is
constitutional, under the 13th amendment prohibition of slavery and
involuntary servitude

The court decides that is ok, the seaman can be
sent to jail for refusing to work according to the terms of employment
contract Justice Harlan dissents, and I tend to agree with him; I
don't think this case, if it hasn't already been overruled, would be
followed today In any case, they mention that the rights in the Bill
of Rights are not unlimited, in trying to explain why being a slave
isn't being a slave if you work on a ship

And two of their examples are limits in terms of libel/slander, blasphemy and indecency on the first amendment, and that limits on carrying concealed weapons do not violate the second amendment Then of course this case is cited in Cases, for the proposition that the second amendment is limited,
without mentioning the limitation expressed in it; to justify their
own, very different conclusions as to the second amendment A subtle
pattern of misrepresenting prior cases emerges, until you reach the
perversions exemplified in the 1970's by Warin * Scarborough v US,
431 US 563 (1977)

A supreme court case deciding whether a felon
needs to acquire a gun before or after his felony conviction to be
busted under sec 1202(a), the former no felons with guns law, it was
changed in 1986, as part of FOPA The court decides the person must
ditch all their guns when they become a felon If they had guns before
hand they become instantly guilty of violating 1202(a) as soon as they
are a felon * Smith v US, 508 US -, (1993)

In this case the Supreme Court takes a look at what it means to "use" a firearm in a drug crime, for purposes of enhancing one's sentence for the drug
crime Smith traded, or attempted to trade, a MAC type machine gun for
cocaine Such activity adds 30 years to the sentence The court holds
that using the gun as a medium of exchange falls under the law; the
gun need not be used as a gun in the traditional sense, ie as a
weapon A similar holding was reached by the DC Circuit in the Harris
case, also on the server * Sonzinsky v United States, 300 US 506
(1937)

This is a case before Miller where the court reviewed the
constitutionality of federal regulation of gun dealers; by requiring a
special occupational tax (SOT) of dealers in NFA weapons Sonzinsky was
pedding NFA guns w/o the SOT The court decides, based in large part of
its review of the Narcotic Act previously, that the government may
enact a tax for whatever it wants As long as it facially raises
revenue, it is fine

This case is often cited as upholding the transfer
taxes, which have serious 2nd amendment implications when it does not
It only reviewed the dealer regulation This case does not address the
registration of guns, or transfer taxes, although it is often cited to
that effect * staples_briefstxt This is the text of the briefs
submitted by the parties to the Supreme Court, in the case noted
below * Staples v US, - US - (1994)

This is also a very interesting case, where the Supreme Court reversed the 10th circuit and decided that in order to convict someone under the NFA of
possessing an unregistered (untaxed) weapon, they must prove the
defendant knew it was the sort of gun regulated by the NFA In this
case they had to show the defendant knew the rifle in question was
fully automatic This case was really answered in the Freed case, where
the court said part of a violation of the NFA was the defendant's
knowing the weapons in question were the sort subject to regulation
Freed held explicitly, and Staples didn't touch, that the government
need not prove the defendant knew about the registration stuff, only
the nature of the weapon that made it subject to registration Lower
courts had however been ignoring Freed, claiming the government needed
to only show the guns were in fact the sort regulated, regardless of
whether the defendant knew they had that feature

In Freed the NFA weapons were hand grenades, which made showing the defendant knew the nature of the weapons sort of irrelevant, although I guess there could have been an issue about whether he knew there was explosive material inside them However with an mg, it can appear to be a regular
semi-auto This case will end a lot of stupid prosecution, for
possessing a weapon that didn't work, but the feds could work on till
it did, or for the feds to tape together parts kits - they can do
whatever they want, but they will have to prove the defendant knew the
thing was a machine gun, not just that they could make it behave as
one * Department of Treasury v Galioto, 477 US 556 (1986)

In this case the Supreme Court reverses and remands a district court
decision deciding under the pre-1986 GCA, that the prohibition on
relief from the firearms disability for former mental patients, but the
provision of a relief procedure for felons, violates due process Since
Congress changed the relief statute while the appeal was pending, to
allow anyone with a disability, for whatever reason, to apply for
relief, the issues dealt with by the District Court were now gone, and
the case was moot * US v One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 US 354
(1984) In this case the supreme court decides that an acquittal in a
prosecution for violating the GCA does not prohibit the feds from
trying to forfeit the guns in question to the government, for the exact
same conduct for which one was acquitted

In other words, if the feds strike out in court, they can try and steal the guns anyway, under the much lesser civil burdens of proof * US v Bass, 404 US 336 (1971) This case concerns the same issue as in US v Synnes, whether the gun
possessed by a felon for which he is prosecuted under a law that no
longer exists, 18 USC sec 1202, needs to have moved in interstate
commerce, or otherwise be connected to interstate commerce Other
courts, including Synnes, said no The court disagreed, looking only at
the language of the law However it foreshadows both the Lopez case,
and any challenge to 922(o), by deliberately ducking the issue of
whether Congress has the power to ban mere possession of a gun, w/o any
nexus to a enumerated Congressional power

The court they were reviewing apparently said Congress could not ban mere possession, there was no enumerated power allowing that, and construed the law to require an interstate commerce nexus The court also so construed it, but explicitly refused to decide the constitutional issue They decided the
text of the law suggested an interstate commerce nexus * US v
Biswell, 406 US 311 (1972) In this 1972 case, the US supreme court
upheld the warrantless search of FFL's under the GCA, against a
challenge based on the 4th amendment This case will explain the
"administrative search" concept, or why officials do not need a
warrant to verify compliance with primarily regulatory, as opposed to
criminal, laws, in areas that are considered to be "pervasively
regulated"

It is a crummy doctrine, this was before the law was
amended to only permit one such search per 12 months When the GCA was
passed, the feds could be at your shop tearing it apart every day, if
they wanted, without a warrant, and without probable cause *
United States v Cruikshank, 92 US 542 (1875) The case was over the
constitutionality of the Enforcement Act, which prohibited anyone from
interfering with the constitutional rights of others, either because
of race, or not It is a little sketchy, but it appears Cruikshank, et
al, were Klansmen in Louisiana, who killed two black men in 1873 The
court decided the law was unconstitutional, as outside the power of
Congress, at least in the way Cruikshank and cohorts were indicted
Part of the act made it a crime to interfere with anyone keeping and
bearing arms for a lawful prupose

The court said that was not a constitutional right as such, it was an inalienable right, not granted by the Constitution They said the second amendment only prohibited Congress from interfering with that right, and gave Congress no power to make it a crime for one citizen to interfere with that right of
another citizen The power to regulate that was in the States As
constitutional law Cruikshank is not very valid any longer Congress
now has virtually unlimited police power, something the Cruikshank
court says is beyond argument that they do not have The supreme court
could revive this doctrine, it is sort of the idea the 5th circuit
used to void the Gun Free Schools Zone Act in Lopez v US, now under
appeal to the court

And that the Bownds court used to void 922(o)
* US v Dewitt, 9 Wall 41 (1869) * US v Freed, 401 US 601
(1971) In this case the court re-examined the NFA after the revisions
of 1968, and found it was just fine, at least as to the 5th amendment
problem of the old NFA Freed was caught with hand grenades in Calif;
one of his claims was that he couldn't register them because that
would put him in violation of state law The court said that would be
compelled self incrimination, except that the NFA forbade the release
of registration info, so the feds could not tell Calif about his
grenades, nor could the fact of registration be used in a Calif trial
against him

The court also pointed out that the new NFA changed the
burden of registration, and admitting possession to the transferor,
not the transferee, as before Thus Freed could not register anything
in his possession, nor was he required to But possession of
unregistered items was still illegal, and he could be prosecuted for
that This also closed the ability for persons to add weapons in their
possession to the Registry; NFA weapons could be added to the Registry
only upon making or import (or by a law enforcement type agency, for
their own use) Any law that requries gun registration, w/o promising
confidentiality of the registration info, likely violates the 5th
amendment, as there is no protection from using the info to prosecute a
felon or other such person for possessing a firearm when they are not
permitted to by law

However it is questionable as to whether this
defense to non-registration can be used by anyone except someone who
would actually be incriminated; that is you must be actually unable to
lawfully possess guns, and then be prosecuted for failing to register
them, to take advantage of the loophole This is why registration
schemes are by definition only aimed at the law abiding Felons have a
5th amendment protection from being prosecuted for violating such
schemes * US v Lopez, __ US __ (1995) This case is from 1995,
where the court, on a 5-4 vote struck down the Gun Free School Zones
Act (18 USC sec 922(q)) as being beyond the power of Congress to
enact, under the Constitution Congress claimed, as it does with most
of its enactments, that it was exercising its power to regulate
interstate commerce, and had all sorts of made-up reasons why kids
with guns at local public and private schools affected interstate
commerce

The Court said no, it was too much of a stretch Yes, they
had let Congress run rough-shod over the principle of a limited
federal government, or enumerated powers in the past, they were
drawing a line now Check out Justice Thomas' concurrence, no one else
would join him In it he lays out a truly revolutionary idea - that the
fundamental ideas the court has used to review Congressional enactment
for constitutionality, at least since the 1930's are wrong, and need to
be scrapped Excellent thinking, too bad no one else there agrees with
him Anyway, this case is a good argument to use anytime a federal law
is nominally based on the power to regulate interstate commerce, but
goes far beyond that sort of commerce, or doesn't note any connection
to commerce Like 922(o), the mg making ban, for instance The federal
district court in US v Bownds used the 5th circuit opinion in this
same case, which the Supremes affirmed here, to strike down 922(o) as
beyond Congressional power It gives a good boost to a Bownds on appeal
to the 5th circuit * US v Miller, United States v Miller, 307 US
174, 59 SCt 816, 83 LEd 1206 (1939) - Supreme Court on 2nd
amendment

This is the only Supreme Court case where the court examined
whether the 2nd amendment inhibits the feds from regulating guns, in
this case the NFA regulation Two guys transported a sawed off shotgun
through the South (the case even lists the serial number and make) and
were charged with violating the NFA The lower court decided the law
violated the 2nd amendment, and let the guys out They promptly fled,
or died, take your pick, and the government pursued an appeal, with no
representation for Miller and his buddy The court decides the law does
not on its face violate the second amendment, at least as applied to a
sawed off shotgun The case is mostly ramblings about the meaning of
"militia"

The court does seem to hold the door open that if it is
shown a gun is a "militia weapon" then the 2nd amendment forbids the
feds from regulating that weapon Personally I see that as weaselly
crap, the court would never have decided the law violated the 2nd
amendment, even though it obviously did A militia weapon is totally
irrelevant, it is whatever one wields in defense of home and country
There is no class of weapons that are protected, and class that isn't
But the court decides the case on whether the possession of a sawed-off
shotgun by these persons furthers the militia, leaving the door for the
gross and unsightly twisting of the 2nd amendment regularly seen in
federal appellate court cases now * US v Powell, 423 US 87 (1975)
In this case the Supreme court upholds the federal law declaring
pistols, revolvers and other firearms concealable on the person as
"nonmailable", and the prosecution of a woman for sending a sawed off
shotgun with an overall length of 22 1/2" through the mail The court
decided the law applied to any firearm a jury found to be concealable
on the person, even the one in question, which was much larger than the
average pistol

The court also decided the law wasn't so vague as to
not apprise defendants of what was prohibited, and thus
unconstitutionally vague * thompson_briefstxt This is the text of
the briefs submitted by the Government, only * Brief of Thompson/Center
in the Supreme Court case * Brief of amicus curiae senators Larry
Craig,a Steve Symms and Robert C Smith in Thompson/Center v US
* US v Thompson/Center Arms Co, - US- (1992) This is another
recent examination of the meaning of the language of the NFA by the
Supreme Court, along with Staples Neither involves constitutional
law In this case the court was called upon to decide what constituted
a short barreled rifle T/C wanted to market a kit consisting of one
receiver for their Contender gun, a 16"+ barrel, a 16" barrel, a
pistol grip and a shoulder stock This kit could be used, as intended,
to assemble a rifle or a pistol, or it could also be used to assemble
a SBR As it could be so used, ATF decided it was a SBR T/C made one
unit on a Form 1, then sued for a tax refund, claiming it wasn't
subject to the NFA This is the way to challenge such a
classification

Doing the thing York or SWD did, in those cases, is an
invitation to a prosecution The Staples case will limit such things,
but one can easily loseHere all that was at stake was money The
court decided that the language of the definition of a SBR was vague,
and gave it the reading most favorable to the taxpayer, T/C They
decided the kit was not a SBR, nor was any set of parts where they
could be used for a legitimate purpose, even if they could also be used
to assemble a SBR However a SBR fully assembled was also clearly a
SBR Thus the other grey area was a SBR in parts form, like an Uzi
carbine and a Uzi SMG barrel A lower court had held in a prior case
that that set of parts was a SBR The court agreed; that if the parts
had only one use, to make a SBR, and a person possessed them all that
was a SBR also * United States v Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990)
This is a case with "dicta" (an offhand remark not needed to reach the
legal conclusion of the case, and thus may not carry the weight of
precedent with lower court judges) that the 2nd amendment, with the use
of the word people, means indiviudals, (and by extension not states)

The case itself concerns whether the 4th amendment rights as to search
and seizure apply to a foreign national, whose property located in
Mexico is searched by the DEA w/o a warrant or probable cause The
court decides the 4th amendment does not apply to property outside the
USA owned by a foreign national * US v Watts, - US - (1997)
In this case the Supreme court decides that facts underlying a crime
which a defendant was acquitted can still be used by the judge, if he
finds them to be true by a lower evidentiary standard, to give the
defendant a longer sentence than he would otherwise get, on crimes for
which the defendant was convicted In any case the sentence has to be
within the statutory maximum, but in one of these cases, even though
the defendant was acquitted of carrying or using a firearm in a drug
crime, the court enhanced his sentence based on his possessing a
firearm during the drug crime.

It's Not About Guns!

It's About Your Second Amendment Rights

UNARMED AND UNSAFE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/unarmed.htm

cowb_anm.gif (28094 bytes)

The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and
the Right to Self-Preservation
http://www.guncite.com/journals/


Big News on Second Amendment!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gunnews.htm


The Supreme Court’s Thirty-five Other Gun Cases:
What the Supreme Court Has Said about the Second Amendment
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/2nd.htm


"If only I had 'NOT' put those locks on my guns...!!!"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gunlocks.htm


WARNING! BATF CRACKDOWN COMING!
http://www.shotgunnews.com/


State by State Gun Laws in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state


We Are At War!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/atwar.htm


Constitution Ruled Inadmissable as Evidence
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/constitu.htm


Patrick Henry
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/phenry.htm


The Cult of Government
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cultof.htm


The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm

Gun Control
The Key to Genocide
Gun Control - The Key to Genocide!

gunline_md_wht.gif (7020 bytes)

Please freely distribute contents of this site

 

Subscribe to apfn-1
chooser.gif (706373 bytes)
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS 
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
http://www.apfn.org 

If you would like to pledge a contribution to APFN:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/contributions.htm


APFN Message Board

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org

 


 


 

Last updated on 01/23/13 12:57 AM