A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late last month that firearms capable of automatic fire, or machine guns, are not protected under the Second Amendment. The case in question was a challenge by Texas resident Jay Hollis, who petitioned the ATF for permission to build a select-fire M-16 from commonplace AR-15 parts. The ATF initially granted the request, but later denied it since the firearm would violate a 1986 federal law that bans the private possession of machine guns. Judges Carolyn Dineen King, Leslie Southwick and Catharina Haynes upheld that law on June 30, ruling that machine guns were not a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

In their opinion, the judges referred to the landmark decision in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. Following the previous ruling, the judges found that automatic firearms were both “dangerous” and “unusual,” and could not be protected under the Second Amendment since they were not in common use. The judges noted that there are well over eight million AR-15 and AK-style semi-automatic rifles in the United States, but only 175,977 pre-1986 automatic firearms in civilian hands.

“The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because a weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service,” stated the appeals court.

The judges said if every weapon used by the military was protected by the Second Amendment, there was little stopping private citizens from purchasing hand grenades—an idea that the Supreme Court already refuted. Furthermore, the 5th Circuit Court opposed the reasoning that select-fire guns are necessary to ward off tyranny.

“Hollis next argues that the Second Amendment is what protects ‘the Right of the People to alter or abolish’ a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights,” Southwick stated in her opinion. “Hollis seeks equality between the people and the Government so that those seeking to abolish the government will have a fair chance. But self-defense, not revolution, ‘is the central component of the Second Amendment.”

The judges concluded that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the individual right to protect “hearth and home,” rather than guaranteeing the right to own specific firearms.

Image is public domain

What's Your Reaction?

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

111 thoughts on “Court Rules That ‘Machine Guns’ are Not Protected by Second Amendment

  1. “the Right of the People to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of the people’s rights”

    That’s one of the funniest (and most pathetic) things I’ve read in years!

    Anyone who thinks they have a snowball’s chance in Tucson of altering or abolishing the U.S. government through the use of weaponry is seriously deluded. Even if hundreds of like-minded confederates joined forces against the government, they’d be little more than a gnat pestering a bison.

    Look no further than Malheur Wildlife refuge. Those slack-jawed idiots were immediately surrounded and could have been starved out in weeks, but authorities let things play out peacefully and picked them off one by one. The alternative, which only the slack-jawed seem to favor, is a Ruby Ridge-like confrontation. Guess who loses?

    You cannot successfully fight the government with weapons. The fact that you continue to prepare for such possibilities says more about your intellect than any IQ test could hope to reveal.

    Wiped out in the blink of an eye.

    1. Hey moron, how many legal gun owners are there in the U.S. Guess how many are vets.

      Now compare that number to the total U.S. military (which hasn’t won a modern insurgency war ever….) and add to them the total number of LEOs. Deduct from them those in the military and LE that won’t fire on their own citizens.

      Then Take away morons like you who will hide in your basement the same way you hide your commenting history.

      Then ask us if ANYONE gives a FLYING you know what your opinion is on anything.

      1. Hahahaha! You americans are crazy and super paranoid. This post made my day! LOL Thank you!

      2. Weyulp, since you aren’t American, we really don’t give a crap what you think.

        How’s ‘at for ya? HAH?

      3. my guess is you are not allowed to have guns in your country. we believe in freedom and the right to chose. in Switzerland there is not standing army and everyone has an automatic weapon at their house and ammo to defend the nation. Hitler did not invade them. I wonder why.

      4. Actually there IS a Swiss Army, First Formed in 1848. And there’s STILL Conscription in that Army…

      5. if there is it is small, and I do believe that they voted on whether to have those automatics in their houses supplied by the government with ammo. the vote was close if my memory serves me, but they voted to keep them not turn them in. all those guns do not cause more crime with guns there either. just as crime has gone down here with an expediential increase in guns.
        my guess is you are anti gun.

      6. One SLIGHT Problem? The Automatic Rifles BOUGHT by Serving Swiss Army Soldiers, ARE “De-Milled” before they are Giving to the Soldier in Qusetion (NO FULLY AUTOMATIC Feature)…

      7. sorry but I believe that is BS. they population has had those automatics since before the second world war. and over 50% voted to keep them. so they are in also every house with ammo. not sure what they do with the very small army if there is one, but it does not make sense to de-mill them since they are so prevalent in their country. their army might mostly be officers to help coordinate the population and citizens that are expected to go in the army for training, in the event they needed to call on their citizens. who I believe all are expected to train in the army at one time before given the autos. sounds like a good system to me. de-milled means not usable unless you replace the parts that are torched or cut. at that time they could make a semi auto or an auto. just as someone could break the law here and do the same. rifles all of them are only used in 6% of the crime and AR’s are used a lot less. crime rate is going down, except in those states that have the most restrictions on guns, I wonder why?

      8. Have you Actually Read the Swiss Gun Laws? If NOT DO, or Contact the Swiss Embassy or Swiss Consulate That Covers Your Area…

      9. Our Muhrican citizens are a special bunch, aren’t they? Legato and SamAdams1776 have been reported to the authorities. The next knock on their doors could very well be the beginning of their end.

        You can’t talk crazy trash like they’ve been talking and go unnoticed forever. Good luck guys. If you can’t afford an attorney, the court system will provide one for you. Everything you’ve said will be used against you in court when you’re tried for sedition.

    2. Not affirmatively, no. But defensively?

      I think you’d find MILLIONS motivated into action, not a few hundred, especially if the government turned its army on its own citizens. And there are at least 100 million gun owners. If even 10 percent of them took up arms a la “Wolverines”, that’d be an armed militia of TEN MILLION pissed off people.

      You pooh-pooh the significance of that at the risk of looking like an an arrogant fool should the SHTF.

    3. Try Thinking “Proclamation 104” (The Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus), by Executive Order in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln. The “Lock and Key” of the Patriot Act…

    4. I just say Afghanistan was not defeated by Russia and the US. they started with black powder weapons and took weapons and ammo from the occupier. or how about Nam. it has happened all through out history. that is why the government wants to disarm the public so this cannot happen here. that is why throughout history the government tries to disarm the citizens. leaving them with no means to protect themselves from others that want to do them harm, which can be the government itself. if the government attacks the people there would be a lot of deserters.

    5. I just want to see the RESTORATION of our Constitutional Republic to be honest, trustworthy and in OUR interest.

    6. 3% of gunowners represents 58,000 in EVERY state. Imagine that in an asymmetrical war. Your out of your mind

      You would have police, former police, military and former military and other civilians and all with amazing skill sets.

      We can;t even deal with a few 10,00s of thousands TOTAL in Afghanistan, imagine 50-60K in every STATE.

      Overthrowing this tyranny would be almost guaranteed–if quite bloody and a lot of non-combatants killed (a lot of lefties, but so what…)

      I am OK with that if we can restore the republic and the Constitution

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      No Fort Sumters
      Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c um pars servitutis esset

      1. “Your [sic] out of your mind”

        “We can;t [sic] even deal with a few 10,00s [sic] of thousands TOTAL in Afghanistan

        “Overthrowing this tyranny would be almost [almost = close, but no cigar!] guaranteed–if quite bloody and a lot of non-combatants killed (a lot of lefties, but so what…)”

        “I am OK with that if we can restore the republic and the Constitution”

        OK, some questions for you:

        1) Is your real name Rush Limbaugh???

        2) You undoubtedly mean to restore the Constitution to the time when blacks were considered 3/5s of a man and women had no right to vote, don’t you?

        3) With writing skills like yours, how the hell did you ever get into any of the Armed Forces? Air Force… right?

        4) Molon Labe? That somewhat akin to Charlton Heston’s “cold, dead hands” quip, isn’t it. Let me know when/where.

      2. Ahhh-you’re one of those who hate our founding fathers! Absolutely makes perfect sense now. By the way, I am using voice to text on my phone, which is probably how the mistake with symmetrical took place now that I think about it.

        Well you just go on hating our founding fathers. I’m sure you’re very popular with your statist friends.

    7. Your example are a handful only against dozens of government agents–it wouldn’t be that way. It would be nearly 3,000,000 against less than 100,000 agents max—most of the military will be on our side. I should know I am a former (recent) military officer. Believe me we have talked about it.

      Everyone knows it’s coming, It is not IF, but WHEN

      You have NO idea what you’re talking about–or you’re a government agent trying to discourage it. It will be 50-60K in EVERY state in a VERY violent and covert/asymmetrical war.

      SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
      Molon Labe
      No Fort Sumters
      Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
      Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
      Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
      Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c um pars servitutis esset

      1. “I am a former (recent) military officer.”

        Drummed out as unfit for duty or passed over for promotion once too often? Those are the only two reasonable explanations for your exit.

        “It will be… a VERY violent and covert/asymmetrical war.”

        OMG… RED DAWN all over again! Bet you’ve had a woody ever since that movie came out. Fancy yourself a regular Powers Boothe, do you? More likely a Ted Nugent wannabe. I’ll bet you drive a Hummer, don’t you? Your living an adolescent’s wet dream if you think an armed revolution will overthrow the U.S. government. The only thing asymmetrical will be your ass.

      2. So you don’t think that 3% of the gun owning population which would include military and former military and police and former police as well as civilians might rise up against tyranny?

        It’s okay. You leave your little dream of safety under a statist world where you’re taken care of and coddled, oh and by the way, owned by your masters.

    8. Afghanistan has been going on for 14 years now. The enemy are gaining numbers enough so that Obama had to renege on his promise to draw down the troops! Those freaks have AK-47’s made from shovels and bailing twine. Never underestimate the will of a people! Just saying!

  2. If the Second Amendment does not specifically allow the private ownership of automatic arms it also does not preclude the ownership of automatic arms . That was made law in the Twentieth century as a crime control measure . The huge increase of organised crime is directly traceable to the Prohibition of Alcohol , a previously legal substance ,done against the wishes of at least a large minority of the people if not a majority . It is obvious that this group of Judges is as dismissive of the will of the people as those misguided fools that Prohibited Alcohol leading to the largest crimewave in our history that still affects us yearly a century later .
    Interestingly the repeal of Prohibition was a major plank in the political platform that lead to the first term of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt .

    1. the war on drugs has gone much further then the war on alcohol! we have lost more freedom from that then anything. put money into the worst peoples pockets and created crime and death all over. we are suppose to learn from history, what crap. we know prohibition does not work ever in any form. yet we still go down that path. we let the government decide what our freedoms should be, that does not make any sense!

  3. There WAS an 18th Century Machine Gun of Sorts, the “Puckle”. A Flint-Lock Machine Gun with a Maximum Rate of Fire of JUST 9-Rounds/Minute, Reloading was a “BITCH”…

  4. I understood them invoking the “in common use” Miller criteria, but they lost me on the “self-defense, not revolution, is the central component of the Second Amendment.”

    That is exactly, diametrically WRONG. Personal self-defense is the central component of the preexisting individual right to arms, but it is NOT the central component of the Second Amendment. The enshrinement in the Constitution of this guarantee had everything to do with the Declaration of Independence’s right “to alter or to abolish” a rogue government, and nothing whatsoever to do with common self-defense. It says in the first clause “security of a free state”, not “security of hearth and home”, and while the prefatory clause neither creates nor limits the right declared in the operative clause, it DOES announce the purpose for guaranteeing it in an official instrument, and that purpose, clearly, is FREEDOM, not day-to-day security.

  5. to find the definition of militia you have to find an old dictionary. there was no standing army when it was written. it is all able bodied men and now women would train in the community to protect the community from whom ever when the emergency bell or what ever would ring. they were to assemble with the best weapon they could afford in good working condition. it was all their responsibility to protect the community. no one can protect anything unless he can protect himself also. so, we give the person the right to chose what weapon he will use not the government choice!
    as far as being able to defend against the government, well all over the world small groups have done just that. Russia in Afghanistan. then us in there. yes people can defend against powerful demons. when the military starts to engage it’s citizens then there will be a lot of the military coming to the citizens side of the equation. these rights are our rights and were written done just to make sure that the government does not try and take those rights away. to bad the citizen have allowed those rights to be taken away in exchange for the government to protect them. the government knows it can not protect the citizens, it just wants to make sure the citizen can not rebel against them and their idiotic laws put on the books. all of this is to protect the minority not the majority. we will let some guilty go free in exchange for not convicting the innocent!
    prohibition does not work. it never has in the history of the world, but we let politicians weave their web to convince us they are right. for instance, the war on drugs, no-knock search warrants, taking money from people and making them prove it is theirs legally. guilty until proven innocent. torturing prisoners, the end justifies the means. no due process. what the f***!
    we have become what we were against. we need to take back our freedoms. if I want to do heroin it is my choice. I am the one that has to live with my mistakes. the ability to protect yourself is an inalienable right, no one can take that right away or give it to you. that has been stated for centuries. such as the Magna Charta. that does not mean a weapon that someone decides you can use to accomplish that task. it is my choice!
    how do you eat an elephant or whale, one bite at a time. that is how they are taking your rights to defend yourself away and a lot of other rights. when will the population stand up and say no more and reverse our course. I want my freedoms back and I hope a lot of other folks feel the same. they can make all the laws they want, but I will not give up my guns. the only person responsible for your protection is you. do not let them take that right away. it is not given by the government, it is my right. I am the only one that has to live with my mistakes and I am a big boy now and will make my choices and live with them!

    1. “Militia” is a 14th Century Term, describing a Organization of Well Trained Armed Men. The Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Right were Written in “New English”. NOT “Modern English” which DIDN’T Exist before 1826. The Dictionary USED in Writing THESE Historical Documents was Published in 1690 in England…

      1. might be so, but there were not standing armies when it was written and the meaning in a 50 year old dictionary plainly states, I have one, it is composed of the members of society that were to get together and train for the day when they were needed. it had nothing to do with an arm of government. it had to do with the citizens protecting themselves and their property from a force of more then one. no pay and has nothing to do with any government. just as the Magna Charta was to protect the pheasants from a government that would not allow them to have swords to protect themselves. it is all about an abusive government. I believe we are seeing one today in America. I believe it will only get worse. they always try and make it patriotic, by saying the war against whatever. the reality is one or more loses of freedom and your right to due process. I hope people will wake up and demand changes, they certainly are needed. the Magna Charta was written way before 1690. the right to protect yourself is a inalienable right, it can not be taken away, it is always there.

      2. English is Germanic in Origin. There are at Least 31 Variations of the English Language, the English SPOKEN in the 10th Century would be “Gibberish” by 2016 Standards. The English Spoken in 2100, will be be Unrecognizable to English Spoken Today in 2016…

      3. changing the definition of something does not change the meaning when it was written. it is an un-paid group of people in the community. that get together and train for the day they might be called upon to protect their society from whatever evil is there to harm them, including a government that has gone bad. in fact it was their taking control of governing themselves from England their oppressive government. it was written to get rid of their government. which states that it means that could happen again. like I said it is an inalienable right, it is not given or taken away. stated back in I believe the feudal times by the Magna Charta. I am sure it has been stated even earlier but you seem to have all the dates and do not want to discus the Magna Charta. the right to have weapons of war to protect yourself and the community from whom ever. pretty simple unless you are trying to take control of others through an abusive government. I also am willing to give my true name in an discussion. how about you? if I am not mistaken we have locked horns before. admittedly I have only a bs in ME and I dropped out of the MBA program. I did get the equivalent of a BBA though. not much English so I am not much of a writer, but my logic is good.

      4. Talk to a “Philologist”, He/She might have Differing Opinions on that Subject…

      5. that is what freedom is all about. that does not make opinions right. why don’t you get the FBI statistic and see for yourself. it is there in black and white. you see I am good with math and logic. anti-gun people play on emotions because they have not logic. I am going to put soda in all the drinking fountains. the dems cannot control the blacks and Indians like they use to so they want to control the whole population now. I just hope there are not a lot of people that do not think for themselves. loosing the right to have guns which is where they are headed will make prohibition and the war on drugs look silly compared to what will happen then. it will also cost a lot of life because the criminals will not turn in their guns, and as a matter of fact a criminal cannot legally own ammunition or any gun right now. so what is the problem? those that think prohibition will work with guns are living in fairy land and sprinkling their fair dust. sorry this is my last reply, your logic needs improving, I wish you all the luck in convincing the crowd with no proof.

      6. I Live just outside WDC (Washington DC) since 1962. There are at Least 100 Different Countries PEOPLES Living in the Area. Yes there is Crime, But No More than Any Other Area that has 50-Plus Cities Bordering the Federal City…

      7. WELL LIVE I in the west and I am sure there are not 50 cities right around me. not sure about DC but I know crime is up in the big cities to the north that have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. MORE GUNS LESS CRIME BY JOHN LOTT proves that gun crime has gone down ever since the gun laws were relaxed. Katie show claiming to give an unbiased view was so biased it was unbelievable. they talk to john lott for 4 hours and did not put a cut of him in their show. just because there are justices in the supreme court or lower courts does not mean guns are bad and we do not have a right to own them for whatever reason. they took on this court claim because the last vote was 5 to 4 that it is an American right. it is now 4 to 4 since the death of one pro-gun judge. in the Heller decision in DC the supreme court ruled it is our right to own guns. it really does not matter what the supreme court rules in the future. if they try and take the guns from the people there will be problems. also, only the people that need them the most will be victimized by the criminals. that is the definition of criminal, they do not follow the law. if you think prohibition on alcohol or drugs caused problems, just wait and see what happens if they try and take the guns. their answer is to eat the second amendment one bite at a time until the second amendment does not mean anything. well I say it is the most important amendment it protects the rest, the minorities, and even the majority. crime is going down with expediential increase in gun ownership. yet, they want the guns as Hillary says. criminals want to get the guns out of the hands of honest people to ply their trade with little resistance. yes we should be allowed automatics they were restricted heavily during prohibition. it did not help, black market people always have lots of money and can buy what ever they want. idiots like Obama want gun control so bad he sold guns to criminals to help his case. Holder resigned over that crap, you know fast and furious. it has killed Americans and hundreds if not 1000s of Hispanics in Mexico. they sold the guns to criminals and never picked them up. they said they were going to follow the guns to the heads of the cartels. of course that is ridiculous as it sounds. the heads have so much money they are guarded with automatics coming from Europe and China through South America. Holder resigned 2 days after the courts ordered him to release the document on fast and furious. he took the fall but Obama was there up to his neck. I feel terrible for the Terry family a boarder guard kill by 2 of those guns. we can place the blame of that on Obama, Holder, and the ATFE. no one was charge for that attempt at causing more gun problems to further their needs, even though what they did was illegal. politicians and rich people have get out of jail free cards. IT MAKES ME SICK TO THINK OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD DO SUCH A THING. THEIR REASON HAS NO LOGIC, THAT IS WHY HOLDER TOOK THE FALL AND RESIGNED. OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM IS CORRUPT POLITICIANS, NOT AMERICANS WITH GUNS. personally I would rather have a semi auto then an auto but I believe in FREEDOM. FREEDOM to make my own decisions. protect my self with the protection I want not some cap gun allowed by a corrupt government. I live in the West and daily fight organized drug gangs that have threaten to kill me. they killed my 2 rotties. police are of no help unless you live in a expensive part of town. so the president, the legislature, and the justice department can take their gun control and shove it where the sun does not shine. criminals have no balls the act of protecting yourself has saved many more then were killed by criminals. I do not even watch or read any of the big media, because they are anti-gun. it is amazing we have stopped gun control with everybody in the media trying to convince us guns are bad. people are bad and that is why we have guns. it could not be simpler.

      8. First “Gunwalking” Incident by the United States of America, took place in 1794 by President George Washington. But the First in the Americas took place in 1518…

      9. sir, I am talking about the ATFE telling gun stores to sell guns to criminals. this act is illegal according to our laws. you talk about history way back when there were no laws. as always your logic stinks. hundreds if not thousands now have died from this illegal event. the guns are still out there. the purpose of this event was to cause killings and help promote gun legislation to eat away at our right to protect our selves. strange all the people trying to get rid of our guns have many body guards using the same weapons to protect them. the first gun walking incident you talk about there were no laws. it talks time to take freedom away from the innocent citizens. one bite at a time, just as it takes time to make stupid laws to benefit those with deep pockets or the crooked politicians that are afraid they will have one of those people they swindled come after them or lose a deep pocket. just paranoia thinking no one can be trusted. that is all it is. so Holder resigned, no one in the AFTE were even punished, some were transferred, and I think a couple were promoted. is this the way you think the country should be run???? let me say it again. the ATFE told the gun shops to sell the guns to those people. they call them straw buyers. buying for someone else and making a profit. since my guess is you might be a politician or work for one, you probably already know anyone with a criminal record can not own a fire arm or have any ammo in their possession. it is already against the law. so the people trying to make it tougher for the people who have little money to own a gun is just plain putting them at risk and the criminals know this. just as when in Florida gang members were targeting people in rest stops with rented cars. when they finally caught up to them they ask why they were doing it this way and were told we knew they did not have weapons. you see Florida was the first to allow concealed carry. I know I am talking to a brick wall and no matter what I say you will be anti-gun, even though you have tried not to show it. some people will read this and maybe I will start some people thinking about what our F-N president and Hillary and other anti-gun dems are trying to do. disarm the masses of honest hard working Americans. the equalizer of guns allows women and small frame people to defend themselves against the evil and crazy people in this world. if I am not mistaken the guy in Florida was checked out by the FBI, because of his ravings. he carried a gun as a security guard and was OKed by our government. so what the f*** do you mean about this gun walking many centuries ago. you seem to be a history teacher or something. do you believe what you said was against the law like it was in the border gun shops. at the same time this was going on the press was saying that the border shops were selling guns to straw buyers. funny how they really put their foot up their own asses over that one and the press hardly gave it any notice once they realized it was Obama giving them the guns. no matter what, I do not believe many will give up their guns, it will make the war on drugs look small to the consequences that will follow them trying to take guns from the public. the majority of the people think guns are not the problem or have not talked to anyone that can show them how stupid the anti-gun crowd is. they do nothing but play on the fear of people. so give me some logic instead of pulling shit out of your whatever that is not even relevant. you are just trying to waste my time like the last time we went at this. crime is going down, everything is a statistical curve. why try to take guns when crime is going down? doctors kill more people by messing up then guns take lives. more people are killed with knifes let us make them illegal. being a statistic curve you will always find the fringes that no matter what is done will make bad things happen. I am for FREEDOM. FREDDOM TO MAKE MY OWN CHOICES AND NOT HAVE THE GOVERNMENT DO IT FOR ME. the most inefficient business is government, the more government the more waste. our leader has doubled the national debt since the nation started in 8 years. QE has 4 times the money supply, this is going to come back and haunt us. we are looking at the greatest depression the world has ever seen. it is going to get ugly. thank you mr president. no one can live on credit for ever not even a government!!!! let us worry about the things that when they happen will cause way more deaths in this country and the world, because a lot of nations are following the same path. that is from my business education my guess is you have had LITTLE education there or maybe you would be talking about what our government is doing to put off an adjustment until after this fn president is gone. no thought given as to how many will suffer, just as long has his presidency is looked on in history as a great president. I THINK NOT.!! hell you have my name maybe you could get me on the no flight list, call me a terrorist and not give me my due process. this country is in the shit hole. we torture prisoners, talk money from people and assume they are guilty, we break down doors instead of serving a warrant. and you want to make it even worse. spend your time trying to make things better not take guns.

      10. actually ” getting together to train ” is/was merely an option, the emphasis was to be well trained to use the ” weapon ” of your choice, , as long as you were proficient with your ” weapon ” that’s all that was required

      11. the important point is the militia had nothing to do with a standing army it was citizens plain and simple. also, the second amendment was not giving us our inalienable right to protect our self it was just enforcing the point. the right to protect yourself goes back to before the Magna Charta. the right to protect yourself with weapons in common use by the military. it use to be swords, it is now guns.

  6. If there ever is some kind of armed conflict to restore our government and Constitution, ALL so-called gun laws will be negated. We would be able to acquire, obtain or capture all nature of weapons to fight in our cause.

      1. And how are we going to win? You are incorrect……once ANY conflict starts, regardless of how it starts, we will be embroiled in a conflict to restore our Republic. We will ALL be considered in rebellion in this. At that point, once involved a fully engaged armed conflict, do you really think anyone will care about guns laws? We will steal, obtain or otherwise capture any and all arms required in our fight. It will be WAR, sir. We, on both sides, will be killing each other, wholesale, so what difference are any gun laws going to make?

      2. The First Modification of the Constitution of the United States of America, was by President George Washington in 1788. With the Disqualification Act by Executive Order. Originally there Were TEN Amendments, as of 2016 there are THIRTY-THREE Amendments…

      3. Absolutely correct, Mr. Stanton!!

        I wonder how fast are people going to be converting AR-15s into M-16s, of which maybe 50% will actually function?

        More importantly, does anyone actually think that 100 men with M16s are going to hit their targets at a higher ratio than 100 men with AR-15s? They’ll certainly expend their basic ammo loadout quicker if they’re pumping out bursts instead of single shots. Contrary to what internet warriors say, it is very difficult to get even a 12″ group at 50 yards in auto fire with an M16. Ask me how I know.

        Auto fire is great for mass charges, multiple exposed targets, and suppression fire. Auto fire is cr*p for aiming at & hitting targets unless you have all the time in the world and an ammo mule following behind you.

      4. A mere 3% of gun owners which WOULD include many police/sheriffs or former and same with military–all who as private citizens own guns, would make up a good portion of that almost 3,000,000.

        Imagine a covert symettrical war being fought by as many as 58,000 in EACH state and DC.

        What do YOU think?

        SamAdams1776 III Oath keeper
        Molon Labe
        No Fort Sumters
        Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
        Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
        Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, c um pars servitutis esset

      5. Correct me if I’m Wrong, But didn’t the “Bundy’s” PREACH “Molon Labe” in their Siege. And Yet GAVE UP Anyway. Apparently Saying Alive, overrides “Molon Labe and Martyrdom”…

      6. “Imagine a covert symettrical war being fought by as many as 58,000 in EACH state and DC.”

        I’m pretty sure you meant “asymmetrical”. Are you absolutely certain you were an officer is this country’s armed services? I think they require at least a GED. I’m not convinced you’d pass that test.

      7. Indeed, asymmetrical. Typing fast under a time constraint. It happens.

        But I never insult people. You could learn manners. And my education is in engineering and physics.

        But thanks for your concern about my education.

  7. Using the argument that they are not covered since they are “not in common use” is disingenuous precisely because there is a law making them “not in common use”.

    1. Also, an army of 170-plus thousand is not “uncommon” or “unusual” in the real world the judges do not inhabit!

    1. One difference is the citizens won’t have automatic weapons like the gov. Similar to the Revolution, only 3 percent of the people are expected to actually put their lives on the line when shtf.
      Still, that’s +3 million fighters who would have better odds with auto’s than without.

  8. This court – like the other Circuit Courts, and many state courts – has been prone to consider that the Second Amendment’s stated purpose was in the “militia clause” – so any weapon capable of militia use would be covered by their own arguments! The salient point of the Second Amendment is to protect EACH state from invasion “…militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” MEANS just that – EACH state is what “a” references in “security of a free state”. The communists have been trying to alter the INTENT of the Founders since the Royalists were permitted to remain after the Brits were defeated – they should have kicked them all into the ocean to find their way BACK to their mother lair. But, no, the Framer Founders decided to be benevolent. Look what it has wrought, and still they are doing it – letting all manner of riff raff into our Republic. Termites. The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” part of the amendment was stating a time-proven FACT of LIFE – a settled lawful practice. But, the diversion to that part has allowed for weakening of the STATES’ [plural and individual] to protect themselves from the mushroom grown from DC and now infecting the entirety of the 50 states. So that governors and others are claiming they can be hamstrung – our governor says “there is nothing we can do if the Feds want to plant refugees among us”. To which I say B—s—.

  9. This is ridiculous. Revolution is exactly what the second amendment protects. It is a core part of founding American ideology that the people should revolt and destroy/reestablish government that ceases to serve the people.

    1. Only if its a Non-Violent Revolution? If it TURNS to a Violent Revolution, the President of the United States, can INVOKE the Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 USC 331-335)…

      1. Your Arguments “IS”, that the Constitution of the United States of America “IS” INVIOLET! And Yet in Almost 227-years since “IT’s” Inception, it Has Been Modified at least 11,000 times, plus 17 Amendments Added to it and Another 7 Amendments Pending Ratification. What YOU what the Constitution tb be, NO LONGER “EXISTS” and hasn’t Since 1789 when it was written…

      2. I readily accept amendments to the Constitution. Anything not amended into the Constitution can be overturned by the Supreme Court. An act, a law, a statute or a regulation have no glue to keep them in play. If someone decides anyone of those violates the constitution, they can take it to the courts. Just because a law exists does not make it constitutional. The 5th CC decision can still be reversed by the SC.

      3. as far as I Know NEITHER the Disqualification Act of 1787/88 HASN’T been Overturned EITHER by Congress or the US Supreme Court, the Insurrection Act of 1804 or Proclamation 104 (the Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus). Article IV Section 2 Clause 2 (the Comity Act) or the Privileges and Immunities Clause was “Nullified” by the US Supreme Court in 1873.

        You HONESTLY Think That NO Government (Including the US Government) “ISN’T” going to Set Up “Safeguards” to Insure it’s Survival, “OF” that Government.

        When was the Last Time You Talked to you’re Congressman, and HE ACTUALLY Listened to You. Eric Cantor, Lost Reelection, BECAUSE He DIDN’T Listen to the People that HE Represented…

      4. My original question was since when does an act supercede the Constitution. You have cited lots of other laws, but still, my question is unanswered.

      5. An ACT is A Modifier to the Constitution. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 USC 570 (2008) WASN’T part of the Original Second Amendment US Constitution of 1789. A “Modifier” to the US Constitution…

      6. No it doesnt. An Act of Congress does not modify the constitution. Where are you reading this stuff from? Go back to school. Heller was a Supreme court ruling you ninny.

      7. TRY Reading the Supremacy Clause (Article IV, Clause 2)? ALL OF IT, and NOT “Snip-it’s” of it…

      8. I feel like you may be locked in a mental hospital and unable to think rationally. First it is Article VI not IV. I’ll accept that as a typo on your part. The Supremacy clause put supremacy of law on the states for any constitutional law or federal law. It has nothing to do with an Act of congress being of higher supremacy than the Constitution. Who is your law teacher? Elmer Fudd? Please stop embarrassing yourself. Bottom line here is this. No matter what the 5th CC rules, the Supreme court can overrule it. Machine guns are not banned, they just need a class 4 license and are super expensive. Anyone who wants a machine gun can go right down the street to their local gun shop and buy one if they have the money, or you can order one from an online dealer and have it shipped to an FFL who does class 4 transfers. The Hughes amendment that banned the import and manufacturing of machine guns in 1986 is what this case is about. This guy wanted to violate the law and manufacture a machine gun. Why? I have no idea, he can go on Amazon and buy a bump fire stock for $99. They are legal and will fire rounds at the same speed as a machine gun. You dont even need an FFL to buy one.

      9. Wrong, a Supreme Court decision either affirms the constitutional legality of or anulls a law, it is not supposed to create a law where none was before. They are not the legislative branch of the government.

      10. Look up Popular Sovereignty. If more than 2/3 popular vote none of the branches can override it.

  10. Shall not be infringed …. Not hard to know that means all guns and their equipment are legal to Americans

  11. In 1775 the government came to Lexington, Massachusetts to take the people’s guns.
    In 1835, the government came to Gonzales, Texas to take the people’s guns.

    Both of those governments were gone shortly thereafter, and the people still have their guns…

  12. The second amendment was put into the Bill of Rights not only for the purpose of self protection, but for the purpose to protect against a tyrannical government, and to be able to depose said government, as so stated in The Declaration of Independence.
    “”Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security””

    1. Well stated…. It is exactly the personal conflict Thomas Jefferson had as he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and set forth the ground work to the abolition of many governmentally influenced social paradigms, i.e. slavery, etc.

  13. I mean you are asking the tyrants themselves if it’s ok if you have something that can be used against them. Of course they are going to say no. We hung tyrants back in the good old days. Just saying.

  14. If you think this is bad, what do think will happen if Hillary gets elected President, and appoints a liberal judge to the Supreme Court? I think you’d see a ban on “assault weapons” pretty damn fast – She has already shown her capacity to play fast and loose in regards to actual facts – why doesn’t anyone bring up the fact that at one time, “assault weapons” ie; the AR15, (the most popular rifle in America) was, actually, illegal? Remember when this law was “sunsetted” out – ie; Bush( – I think it was Bush #1) let the law expire, so that it was once again legal to own or buy an AR, and this happened because there was no impact whatsoever on crime rates when it was illegal to own one?
    I pray that she doesn’t get elected – if she does, kiss your rights goodbye, we’ve had a balanced Supreme Court for so long that no one quite understands what will happen if it swings to the left – remember, those judges are serving for LIFE!

    1. You think Hillary is a Worse Case Scenario in the Making, Consider TRUMP. It’s No Secret that Trump want to Open Trump Resorts in Both Russia (Moscow) and Crimea. If Putin ask Trump the Condition of the Sale was to Return Alaska to Russia. Do you Honestly THINK that Trump would Hesitate on that Deal. Or the PRC asking for Hawaii.

      1. TRUMP is ONLY in it for HIMSELF, ANYTHING ELSE is a Waste of Time For Him. And ALL Chris Christie WANT’S out of this Deal is a Presidential Pardon by Executive Order by Trump. To Absolve him of ALL His Past Sin’s INCLUDING “BRIDGEGATE”!

      2. The president does not hold the power to sell states. He would need approval from Congress to complete that transaction.

      3. As Little as Trump understands how the Government Works! Do you Honestly think TRUMP wouldn’t try?

  15. If not under the President’s job description, it’s up to the States and the People. Last time I checked and I could be a little off, but I know the Constitution says NOTHING about full-autos, the president’s job is to protect us against foreign invaders and to sign treaties, LAWFUL TREATIES! So, that would leave this up to the states. Now, just how many ppl have been murdered by LEGAL full-auto weapons in the last five years? I’d venture to say NOT ONE DAMN FIREARM!

    1. When the Constitution of the United States, was Written in 1789. The ONLY Full-Auto Weapon Available was the “Puckle”, A Muzzle-Loading Flintlock Machine Gun with a cyclic rate of fire of NINE Rounds/Minute…

      1. If you wish to use that argument then your first amendment right to free speech is not protected because only the printing press was available at the time the Constituition was written and Facebook wasn’t around. The argument is invalid. The people must have the ability to be armed and use the same weapons available to government. Government does not trump its citizens nor should it trump its firepower. To suggest otherwise means you accept the premise that govt is sovereign over its citizens in every circumstance and especially where deadly threats are present. This ruling would seek to punish all the law abiding for the actions of a few in some future scenario. This ruling is rubbish!

      2. But then again, SO IS YOUR’s. The Guy’s at Concord facing the British, WERE Unorganized Militia. And US. Congress, DOESN’T Recognize an Unorganized Militia. The Organized Militia under George Washington, were ~6,700 Strong. The Unorganized Militia, were ~280,000 Strong. BUT STILL NOT an Organized Militia. “Militia”, is a 14th Century Term describing a Well Trained Organization of FIGHTING MEN, NOT “FARMERS”…

  16. Anything the government can use against the people, the people should have to defend themselves. This ruling seems to dare the people to go to civil war. This would also include tanks, rockets and any other devise the government can muster. The Constitution was built on a system of checks and balances. Professional politicians have hid themselves behind threats of retaliation by forces they think the public won’t be able to defend against. If the people can be banned from Constitutional balance, then tyranny can enslave us all.

  17. Isn’t this the same court that gets most of it’s rulings overturned because they either are found to violate the Constitution or are just plain idiotic?

  18. Protection of hearth and home is certainly a right that no government has the right to restrict, but did they miss the larger reasoning that the possession of weaponry by the citizenry was necessary to the protection of a free State? Such weaponry should certainly be equal to that of the government assets usurped by the tyrant when, not if, he or she arises.

    1. You guys already have enough problems killing yourselves and eachother with guns, best not worry about your government until you’ve got your civil issues sorted.

      1. Negligence with a firearm is rarely a cause of death in the United States. Suicides and murders would happen with or without guns, as can be seen by examining cultures around the world. If you will examine the history of the world, you will find that the most prevalent cause of non-natural deaths has been government forces killing their own citizenry. In the last hundred years, tens of millions have died at the hands of their own governments. We, in this nation, have fought battle against such tyrants around the world. To think that such people could never arise here is ludicrous. The Second Amendment is the best defense we have for the preservation of a free State. It is a civil issue. It is our most important civil right.

  19. Oh, the 5th Circus Court ruled? And when will their liberal ruling be overturned, like 90% of the rest of the shit they do?

  20. Are you kidding me?!?! The second amendment exists primarily to empower the citizens and to give them the power to overthrow its government if it ever became tyrannical. This country is literally imploding its a damn shame the direction this country is going. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves seeing the political establishment spitting on the constitution. If this country does not fix itself soon we wil certainly collapse. I pray everynight hoping things get better and many people need to wake up and do the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *