9th Circuit Ruling Says Federal Ban on Homemade Machineguns Exceeds Authority

[Richard G]

9th Circuit Ruling Says Federal Ban on Homemade Machineguns Exceeds Commerce Clause Authority

Naturaly, there is no mention of this in the mainstream media.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2854

[Tony]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I'd never thought Id agree with the 9th circuit.

I think I’m gonna make a homemade machine gun. Why? Because I can. Why do I need it? None of your business.

[DavidJames]

"I think I’m gonna make a homemade machine gun. Why? Because I can. Why do I need it? None of your business."

I wonder if that's what Mr. Bryant was thinking?

http://www.brandonshouse.org/Articles/3Bryant-2-23-02.htm

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"I think I’m gonna make a homemade machine gun. Why? Because I can. Why do I need it? None of your business."

I wonder if that's what Mr. Bryant was thinking?

http://www.brandonshouse.org/Articles/3Bryant-2-23-02.htm


:cry: :cry:


Yep, that idiot killed his family, therefore I should have no rights.

[BTox]

Good news! I hope this also applies to the home-made fission bomb I am working on...

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"I think I’m gonna make a homemade machine gun. Why? Because I can. Why do I need it? None of your business."

I wonder if that's what Mr. Bryant was thinking?

http://www.brandonshouse.org/Articles/3Bryant-2-23-02.htm

were you born that stupid or did you have to practice? sorry, sorry, i didn't mean that. i know you were born that way. :D all levity aside, the fact that one person committed such a horrible cime has no bearing on law abiding citizens. if crimes like that could be held against everyone else, then knives, cars, and can openers would all be illegal.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by BTox
Good news! I hope this also applies to the home-made fission bomb I am working on...

can i come over and watch the explosion when you finish it?

[BTox]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


can i come over and watch the explosion when you finish it?

Cincinnati? Just look east :D

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by BTox


Cincinnati? Just look east :D

will do :D

[NightG1]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


were you born that stupid or did you have to practice? sorry, sorry, i didn't mean that. i know you were born that way. :D all levity aside, the fact that one person committed such a horrible cime has no bearing on law abiding citizens. if crimes like that could be held against everyone else, then knives, cars, and can openers would all be illegal.
Mr. Bryant was a "law abiding citizen" up until the point when he blew his kids away with a shotgun.

[DavidJames]

By evidence of your responses I sense a significant sensitivity to the simple question I asked. Why do you think Mr. Bryant had a shotgun? Do you think if the police had asked Mr. Bryant why he had a shotgun he would have said, to kill my family, or might he have said something similar to Tony? Simple questions, but you, on the other hand, made a series of assumptions about me, my motives and beliefs, none of which you can substantiate with facts.

I have never advocated taking guns away from you, nor have I advocated you should not be able to buy them.

In fact, please, go buy as many guns as you like and let the Darwin Principle play out. A little levity Mr. Reks, no? :D.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by BTox
Good news! I hope this also applies to the home-made fission bomb I am working on...

Wow, how'd you ever afford the materials and technology to build it? Good thing we've got these laws preventing you from building one or we'd be in a world of trouble. Can you imagine the damage terrorists would do if we didn't have these laws preventing them from building fission bombs? Oh that's right, they don't care about the law.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by NightG1

Mr. Bryant was a "law abiding citizen" up until the point when he blew his kids away with a shotgun.

all criminals are law abiding until they break the law. what is your point?

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by DavidJames
By evidence of your responses I sense a significant sensitivity to the simple question I asked. Why do you think Mr. Bryant had a shotgun? Do you think if the police had asked Mr. Bryant why he had a shotgun he would have said, to kill my family, or might he have said something similar to Tony? Simple questions, but you, on the other hand, made a series of assumptions about me, my motives and beliefs, none of which you can substantiate with facts.

I have never advocated taking guns away from you, nor have I advocated you should not be able to buy them.

In fact, please, go buy as many guns as you like and let the Darwin Principle play out. A little levity Mr. Reks, no? :D.

yes, indeed, a little levity. that doesn't make your point any more valid, however.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Richard G
9th Circuit Ruling Says Federal Ban on Homemade Machineguns Exceeds Commerce Clause Authority

Naturaly, there is no mention of this in the mainstream media.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2854

The link is coming up blank for me.

Anyway, assuming this is true it does go with my general theory that gun nuts would be better served looking towards the commerce clause rather than the 2nd amendment when trying to establish gun rights, as the framers made the 2nd amendment a weak statement of gun rights more or less on the theory that since the federal government lacked general police power there really was no real need for a strong pro-gun statement in the bill of rights.

The expansion of the commerce clause gave the feds way more power than the framers anticipated. They never really envisioned a federal government with the power to enact a gun ban against individual citizens. That seems a more historically valid argument against most federal gun laws than does a 2nd amendment argument.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
:eek: :eek: :eek:

I'd never thought Id agree with the 9th circuit.

I think I’m gonna make a homemade machine gun. Why? Because I can. Why do I need it? None of your business.

Better make sure that:

1) You are in the 9th circuit. These decisions aren't binding on other circuits.

2) There is no state law against this sort of thing. This decision, since it is based in the commerce clause will not effect state laws one little bit.

[Troll]

Originally posted by NightG1

Mr. Bryant was a "law abiding citizen" up until the point when he blew his kids away with a shotgun.

So was Gary Ridgway until he killed 48 people without a gun.

It's not the object. a freaking rock can kill and has several hundred times in recent years when moronic kids drop them off bridges. There's far too many rocks available. Ban them first.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Troll

It's not the object. a freaking rock can kill and has several hundred times in recent years when moronic kids drop them off bridges. There's far too many rocks available. Ban them first.

I would recommend it if more people were killed by rocks than guns. But whay the hey, they're only Yanks

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



:cry: :cry:


Yep, that idiot killed his family, therefore I should have no rights.

That's right, when you can't make your own machinegun, you have already lost all your other rights.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Richard G
9th Circuit Ruling Says Federal Ban on Homemade Machineguns Exceeds Commerce Clause Authority

Naturaly, there is no mention of this in the mainstream media.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2854

Caring...
Caring...
Caring...
Caring...

Caring failed after four attempts.

Why aren't the papers alerting loyal readers that they can now make machineguns?

Richard: believe it or not, most people cannot find it within themselves to care about guns all that much. Even though a clear majority of citizens (in the U.S.) consistently favor restrictions on gun ownership, it's but one of many issues. On the other-hand, gun fanatics (this includes you) are usually organized and obsessed with the issue (as evidenced by the obscene number of threads on the topic). Furthermore, they're often single-issue voters -- sorta like pro-"life" activists.

It's not the object. a freaking rock can kill and has several hundred times in recent years when moronic kids drop them off bridges. There's far too many rocks available. Ban them first.

With rocks so widely available, why haven't criminals used them in the commisson of their crimes? Alternatively, why don't homeowners defend themselves with a fistful of rocks? But you're right, they can inspire the same fear and destruction of firearms. Imagine a teacher reprimanding an unruly student. Before storming out of the room in rage, the pupil offers the following death threat: "Mr. Lopez: I'm gonna f**king kill you. One of these days you're going to find yourself passing underneath a bridge, and I'll be there with, uh -- I'll be holding a rock. A big rock. Watch your head."

That's right, when you can't make your own machinegun, you have already lost all your other rights.

What next, toilet bowl regulations???

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cain


With rocks so widely available, why haven't criminals used them in the commisson of their crimes? Alternatively, why don't homeowners defend themselves with a fistful of rocks?

You've hit the nail on the head here. I can hardly wait for Richard's next thread about the "Bag of Rocks" protest they will be holding outside their court. 15 pot bellied men will be turning up carrying a bag of rocks each.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right, when you can't make your own machinegun, you have already lost all your other rights.

But if you want to, there are instructions here:
http://www.porchwithhouse.com/lego/shoot/machinegun.html

Rich

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Matabiri


But if you want to, there are instructions here:
http://www.porchwithhouse.com/lego/shoot/machinegun.html

Rich

Cool. My youngest will be looking at that with interest tomorrow.

[Crossbow]

Here is another account I have seen of the story:

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/031117/b23a99931ed070659a7922fb1aaa1aca_1.html

In a ruling with medical pot implications, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government cannot prosecute an Arizona man who assembled and kept a machine gun at his home but never bought or sold it.

...

The key point in this case seems to be that since the person made the weapon himself and since he did not try to sell it, nor did he even have any intentions of selling it, the government cannot pursue a case against him.

I am not sure that is right. After all, there have been people who have been busted for making other home-made weapons such as bombs and suppressors, so I would think that laws about home-made machine guns could be enforced as well.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Here is another account I have seen of the story:

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/031117/b23a99931ed070659a7922fb1aaa1aca_1.html

In a ruling with medical pot implications, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government cannot prosecute an Arizona man who assembled and kept a machine gun at his home but never bought or sold it.

...

The key point in this case seems to be that since the person made the weapon himself and since he did not try to sell it, nor did he even have any intentions of selling it, the government cannot pursue a case against him.

I am not sure that is right. After all, there have been people who have been busted for making other home-made weapons such as bombs and suppressors, so I would think that laws about home-made machine guns could be enforced as well.

This is a commerce clause case that only effects federal law w/r/t homeade weapons. A state statute banning such activity would be unaffected by the decision, as the point of the case is that the federal government lacks authority to pass such a law.

The federal government, unlike the states, lacks general lawmaking authority. The feds sought to justify the statute in this case by claiming it falls within their ability to regulate interstate commerce, and the 9th circuit disagreed.