December 21, 2012
— Open Blogger Stephen Bainbridge is a well-respected law professor and blogger who is a strong advocate of property rights. He writes here about the conflict between our right to bear arms and other's rights to control over their property. In Korb v. Voith Industrial Servs., Inc., 12CV0222 (W.D. Ky Nov. 28, 2012), a corporation terminated an employee for violating the company policy prohibiting weapons on company property.
I think he is perfectly correct, and the court made the right decision. And lest you think I am not a 2nd Amendment absolutist, ponder this: the virtual ban on full-auto is a ridiculous infringement on our rights. The founders didn't add the 2nd Amendment to protect our right to hunt or target shoot....they had bigger game in mind.
Posted by: Open Blogger at
06:29 AM
| Comments (165)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 06:30 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: alex at December 21, 2012 06:31 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 06:33 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: alex at December 21, 2012 10:31 AM (uFY4s)
Now that's just nuts.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 21, 2012 06:33 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Country Singer at December 21, 2012 06:34 AM (L8r/r)
My favorite gun picture
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:34 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: joncelli at December 21, 2012 06:34 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 06:35 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:35 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 06:35 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 10:33 AM (QupBk)
I see you subscribe to the Willy Wonka school of thought RE: squirrels. Very good.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at December 21, 2012 06:35 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 06:35 AM (GBXon)
When you remove the right of self defense from someone, YOU assume the obligation to provide for it.
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 10:35 AM (GFM2b)
That is what I mean. Any location that bans guns must provide the necessary security for the defense of the denizens within
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:35 AM (uFY4s)
::: the virtual ban on full-auto is a ridiculous infringement on our rights:::
No kidding. I need a 7.62mm minigun in the worst way.
I have racoons.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2012 06:36 AM (CJjw5)
Posted by: alexthechick - Told you we weren't worthy of SMOD at December 21, 2012 06:36 AM (VtjlW)
No kidding. I need a 7.62mm minigun in the worst way.
I have racoons.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2012 10:36 AM (CJjw5)
Damn Coons
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:37 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 06:37 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 10:35 AM (GFM2b)
and that's the thing- security for employees walking out to their cars after midnight consists of available lighting in the parking lot- a parking lot which is a right of way between several apartment complexes on one side, and several local watering holes on the other
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 06:37 AM (8sCoq)
Which VERY few places do.
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 10:37 AM (GFM2b)
And they should be sued into oblivion
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:37 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: Phinn at December 21, 2012 06:37 AM (+IPd1)
Posted by: RWC at December 21, 2012 06:38 AM (fWAjv)
Will you stop at nothing?
Posted by: Phinn at December 21, 2012 10:37 AM (+IPd1)
It would make things interesting
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:38 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: jwest at December 21, 2012 06:38 AM (ZDsRL)
Well this is simple, the company has a right to protect their property too, any way they see fit.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 21, 2012 06:38 AM (69Mdf)
My favorite gun picture
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 10:34 AM (uFY4s)
Linky no worky.
Posted by: RWC at December 21, 2012 10:38 AM (fWAjv)
Try the link below
http://tinyurl.com/y9cmj2o
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:38 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 06:38 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 10:38 AM (53z96)
why, were they afraid of someone going postal or something
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:39 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 06:39 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Tobacco Road at December 21, 2012 06:39 AM (4Mv1T)
Posted by: awkward flounder davies at December 21, 2012 06:40 AM (USjX1)
Posted by: awkward flounder davies at December 21, 2012 06:40 AM (USjX1)
Posted by: Phinn at December 21, 2012 10:39 AM (+IPd1)
Guns are property, I have a right to my property
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:40 AM (uFY4s)
A headline on Drudge:
Gun Supplier Sells 3.5 Years Worth of Magazines -- in Just 3 Days!
CNS News: http://tiny.cc/33aopw
Brownells, the world's largest supplier of firearms, has reportedly sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in just seventy-two hours.
Guns.com reports that Bronwnells spokesman Jason Corpus said:
"I wanted to take a minute to shed some insight on the magazine situation if I can. First of all I wanted to offer an apology for the situation... with magazines being 'In-Stock' and back-ordered moments later... [The] demand for magazines actually exceeded the ability for the system to keep up with the volume that was being ordered.
"To shed some more light on the magazine situation at present, it really has been unprecedented in the last 5 days. During a roughly 72 hour period...we sold the 'average demand' equivalent of about 3.5 years worth of PMAGS, and an even greater amount of our Brownells magazines."...
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at December 21, 2012 06:40 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: RWC at December 21, 2012 06:41 AM (fWAjv)
Here is another good gun picture
http://tinyurl.com/2cy2j2m
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:41 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: Butters at December 21, 2012 06:41 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: RWC at December 21, 2012 06:42 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: alexthechick - Told you we weren't worthy of SMOD at December 21, 2012 06:42 AM (VtjlW)
One of my co-workers got a brand new AICS .338 lapua. He brought it inside and as me and a few other coworkers were looking at it, the boss walked by. He stopped, said "hooooly shit" and then demanded to see it.
New gun show and tell is kinda mandatory now.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 21, 2012 06:42 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:43 AM (uFY4s)
My old company banned guns on company property, including the parking
lot. And they searched all cars coming into the parking lot.
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 10:38 AM (53z96)
You worked at the Post Office?
Posted by: Count de Monet at December 21, 2012 06:44 AM (BAS5M)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at December 21, 2012 06:44 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: nerdygirl at December 21, 2012 06:44 AM (WfUOw)
Posted by: Max Wedge at December 21, 2012 06:44 AM (RLkAE)
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 06:44 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 06:44 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 06:45 AM (GFM2b)
"The founders didn't add the 2nd Amendment to protect our right to hunt or target shoot...."
It's so refreshing to have cobloggers who understand basic concepts.
Posted by: jwest at December 21, 2012 06:45 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 10:44 AM (8sCoq)
Ummmmm, you're welcome!
Posted by: TEH WON at December 21, 2012 06:45 AM (RLkAE)
Yes.
Posted by: Phinn at December 21, 2012 10:44 AM (+IPd1)
Sorry, you're going to have to explicate that one because I'm seeing some pretty intangible rights there.
Posted by: joncelli at December 21, 2012 06:45 AM (RD7QR)
And only for good, cue AtC.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 10:44 AM (QupBk)
have to go to english finals now, bye everybody.
Posted by: Alex at December 21, 2012 06:45 AM (uFY4s)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at December 21, 2012 06:45 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Butters at December 21, 2012 06:46 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Nighthawk at December 21, 2012 06:47 AM (paPv4)
single shot ... check
no pistol grip ... check
no bayonet lugs ... check
Nope, definitely not an assault weapon.
Posted by: Rule #2 at December 21, 2012 06:47 AM (CypDC)
Posted by: Max Wedge at December 21, 2012 10:44 AM (RLkAE)
Link and pics required.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 21, 2012 06:47 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: alexthechick - Told you we weren't worthy of SMOD at December 21, 2012 06:47 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 21, 2012 06:48 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: RWC at December 21, 2012 06:48 AM (fWAjv)
Come to AZ My fellow morons
On July 13, 2009 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a
new law restricting the ability of Arizona employers to
prevent employees from storing lawfully owned firearms
in locked vehicles in the employerÂ’s parking lot. With
some limited exceptions, beginning on September 30 an
Arizona employer will not be able to prohibit an employee
from storing a lawfully owned gun in a privately owned
car parked in the employerÂ’s parking lot.
Posted by: Hard Right at December 21, 2012 06:48 AM (uhftQ)
Everyone has the right to go to hell in their own way, just as you have a right not to associate with them. Get a job with an outfit that doesn't hate guns. Work for your self. Live your life in a manner that this is possible.
By the way, gun show loophole is lefty language manipulation speak for ban or record all private sales. You can't confiscate a gun if you can't find it, and you can't find it if they move freely without record in private party sales.
Of the many gun shows I've been to in the last few years, I have only seen two or three private parties, and they were only advertising a single gun. Every single one of those several thousand firarms for sale at each of those shows required a federal background check, which the dealers do right there while you wait. Cell phones are good for something.
Posted by: bil at December 21, 2012 06:49 AM (EhSF0)
Posted by: jj at December 21, 2012 06:49 AM (gWO5X)
Just a thought, but doesn't a workplace ban have the effect of prohibiting someone from carrying when not on work property (ie on the way to work or home from work?)
To me it seems a worthwhile compromise would be to allow people to at least lock up their guns in their cars if they so choose. I wouldn't want to force a business to allow carry if they didn't want, but I don't want people to be endangered by the unintended consequences of that policy either.
Posted by: JohnTant at December 21, 2012 06:49 AM (eytER)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 21, 2012 06:50 AM (bb5+k)
when does the enSwiftBoatening begin?
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 06:51 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Socratease at December 21, 2012 06:51 AM (QpQNh)
Oh, yes....
Posted by: TheQuietMan at December 21, 2012 10:48 AM (1Jaio)
In case you weren't aware that VietNam Vet John Kerry served in VietNam, he is a VietNam vet that served in VietNam.
Posted by: Country Singer at December 21, 2012 06:51 AM (L8r/r)
Posted by: Butters at December 21, 2012 06:51 AM (NIZHJ)
Let's hope the Swift Boat Vets crank up the machinery again against that piece of shit Kerry. It appears it's official that he's being nominated for Secretary of State.
Get him under oath and let loose on his sorry ass. Make Kennedy's rant against Bork seem like praise in comparison. Time to take the gloves off.
Posted by: jwest at December 21, 2012 06:51 AM (ZDsRL)
I think there are some states- Texas comes to mind- that says employees may keep a gun in their car parked on employer's property
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 06:52 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Butters at December 21, 2012 06:52 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 06:54 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: alex at December 21, 2012 10:54 AM (uFY4s)
I feel horny, yet vertiginous.
Posted by: joncelli at December 21, 2012 06:55 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 21, 2012 06:55 AM (3GtyG)
Posted by: RWC at December 21, 2012 06:55 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: RWC at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: joncelli at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (RD7QR)
My old company banned guns on company property, including the parking lot. And they searched all cars coming into the parking lot.
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 10:38 AM (53z96)
My old company bought a really nice temperature and humidity controlled gun safe for my office.
Guess you just got to pick the right employer.
Posted by: jwest at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: EC at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (doBIb)
We can have incorporation or not have any incorporation.
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (53z96)
OT, but the Norks have confirmed today that they arrested an American back in early November and he is awaiting trial.
Linked at Drudge.
AFP - North Korea confirmed Friday that it had arrested a US citizen in November, saying legal action would be taken against him but giving no details of the charges.
The man, identified as Pae Jun-Ho, entered North Korea on November 3 as a tourist, and "committed a crime" against the country, the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.
"He was put into custody by a relevant institution," it added.
...
The arrest was first reported earlier this month by a South Korean newspaper which had identified the detainee as a a 44-year-old Korean-American tour operator...
Who goes on a tour to NORTH KOREA? Seriously?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at December 21, 2012 06:56 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Al at December 21, 2012 06:57 AM (V70Uh)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, keeper of the Sacred Ampersands at December 21, 2012 06:57 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 06:58 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Al at December 21, 2012 10:57 AM (V70Uh)
Yes. There is a contractual component at work here.
Posted by: joncelli at December 21, 2012 06:58 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 10:58 AM (Z9EHQ)
Someone should tell him to shut his trap before they stuff that hideous Christmas tree of his right up his ass.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at December 21, 2012 06:59 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 10:58 AM (Z9EHQ)
Then he can go collecting guns in Bedford Stuyvesant.
Posted by: joncelli at December 21, 2012 06:59 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: EC at December 21, 2012 06:59 AM (doBIb)
NRA is about to make their first statement since the shootings.
Let's hope they don't go all wobbly on us.
Posted by: jwest at December 21, 2012 07:00 AM (ZDsRL)
103 BCochran,
The 870 is one of the best shotties you can buy. Go for it.
Posted by: EC at December 21, 2012 10:56 AM (doBIb)
Just waiting for the check to clear. The wife has given me, limited, freedom for purchases. Shotgun, looking around for a carry gun, plenty of ammo for everything. I asked her last night if she wanted anything. If she wanted a carry gun for her purse. As of right now, she says no.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 21, 2012 07:00 AM (da5Wo)
Day ain't over yet!
Posted by: Paladin at December 21, 2012 07:01 AM (mCOPv)
Posted by: jwest at December 21, 2012 11:00 AM (ZDsRL)
I would not take that bet.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at December 21, 2012 07:01 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: SFGoth at December 21, 2012 07:01 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 07:01 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit [/i][/u][/b] at December 21, 2012 07:01 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Hank Johnson at December 21, 2012 07:01 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 07:02 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 11:02 AM (Z9EHQ)
Nice looking gun. Wife insists that she'll feel more comfortable with a pistol grip. Honestly, I prefer that "look". Also, the model I'm interested in has a "recoil reduction system" which is beneficial for the lady.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 21, 2012 07:05 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: jmel at December 21, 2012 07:05 AM (5EBXZ)
If you can justify forcing business owners to ban smoking, you can force them to allow weapons.
Just call it a safety issue. More responisible gun owners means less chance of dying from a violent robbery.
Posted by: Invictus at December 21, 2012 07:06 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 07:06 AM (Z9EHQ)
RemEmber those OLD moviEs that made the cowboys drop their gunns off with the SHeriff before they could enter the TOWn?
Posted by: polyspurwing at December 21, 2012 07:06 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 10:56 AM (Z9EHQ)
I stand corrected.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 21, 2012 07:06 AM (bb5+k)
We can have incorporation or not have any incorporation.
Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2012 10:56 AM (53z96)
One of my favorite questions was "What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 21, 2012 07:08 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: JeffC at December 21, 2012 07:09 AM (A3tpD)
Posted by: jmel at December 21, 2012 11:05 AM (5EBXZ)
It's fun. And could save your life one day.
Posted by: Jones in CO at December 21, 2012 07:09 AM (8sCoq)
I'm really confused now...are we talking about threesomes here?
Posted by: Country Singer at December 21, 2012 07:11 AM (L8r/r)
Posted by: EC at December 21, 2012 07:11 AM (doBIb)
Hubby is insisting I learn how to shoot. Not a big fan.
Out of curiosity, why aren't you a fan? Is it the act of shooting a gun? The recoil? Are you just not interested?
Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 21, 2012 07:12 AM (3x3F6)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 07:13 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Baldy at December 21, 2012 07:13 AM (opS9C)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 07:14 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: yankeefifth at December 21, 2012 07:14 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Country Singer at December 21, 2012 07:15 AM (L8r/r)
Who's the big Tom Cotton fan? He has a column in WSJ today, against Hagel.
Posted by: comatus at December 21, 2012 07:18 AM (qaVK+)
Posted by: Eisenhorn at December 21, 2012 07:19 AM (OjQYm)
Posted by: EC at December 21, 2012 07:22 AM (doBIb)
I'm saving the doughnut joke for later, but I'm warning you, it's coming.
Posted by: comatus at December 21, 2012 07:22 AM (qaVK+)
NRA offers its 11000 police trainers as resource. "We've done it before."
Substantive. Wonder what The Profession of Journalism will do to it.
Posted by: comatus at December 21, 2012 07:25 AM (qaVK+)
Posted by: NativeNH at December 21, 2012 07:27 AM (Dwf07)
Ugly hag from CODEPINK just disrupted NRA presser
Your gonna have to be more specific for an ID. Could be anyone of them. Except the one in the pic on the park bench with her gunt visibly hanging down under the hem of her "sundress." She probably doesn't lumber around too much.
Posted by: Count de Monet at December 21, 2012 07:29 AM (BAS5M)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ® at December 21, 2012 07:31 AM (BDH94)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at December 21, 2012 07:34 AM (FsUAO)
Competing interests are at play, and that is the purpose of a court system, but more importantly one where supreme authority rests with a jury of your peers. When a court is immune from the consequences of it's decisions justice will rarely prevail.
Posted by: ThomasD at December 21, 2012 07:40 AM (FA+FN)
Ceiner used to make .22lr conversions for AR-15s, if you had a legal M16 then the device could be modified to be used in your full auto weapon.
Posted by: ThomasD at December 21, 2012 07:42 AM (FA+FN)
Posted by: ThomasD at December 21, 2012 07:44 AM (FA+FN)
Posted by: Baldy at December 21, 2012 07:46 AM (opS9C)
Yes.
Posted by: Phinn at December 21, 2012 10:44 AM (+IPd1)
Sorry, you're going to have to explicate that one because I'm seeing some pretty intangible rights there.
All property rights originate with self-ownership. Ownership of the self is the reason we have ownership over the other objects we use (i.e., "the fruits of our labor").
By merely engaging in ethical argument (or legal argument, as a variant of ethical argument), a person affirms the existence of objective ethical propositions.
Likewise, by the very act of engaging in violence (exercising control over the property of another), a person denies the existence of ethical propositions, and therefore has no ethical basis to complain about being shot, killed and ground into food for pigs, for example.
Either we relate to one another without ethics, in which case there is no property and no limits on violence other than what one can physically accomplish, or ethical propositions are universal and objective.
There is no formulation of universal or objective ethical principles that could possibly grant someone else a superior claim over the use of my body.
Posted by: Phinn at December 21, 2012 07:48 AM (oFH2D)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ® at December 21, 2012 07:52 AM (BDH94)
Posted by: occam at December 21, 2012 07:58 AM (bNPll)
Oh look a troll. How does losing feel troll? Cause your side just got pounded.
Did you know that the homicide rate right now is much lower than it was when the 2nd amendment was adopted. Of course you don't you're a troll.
Did you know that semi-automatic weapons are over 100 years old. Of course you don't you're a troll.
Did you know that rifles with detachable magazines are over 100 years old.Of course you don't you're a troll.
Did you know that the US lowest homicide rate occurred in 1957, with the same weapon technologies we have today and far fewer gun laws. Of course you don't you're a troll.
So go ahead and slay that strawman. 'Cause that's what the impotent do.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at December 21, 2012 08:07 AM (0q2P7)
They could still ban guns if they wanted. But they'd be less likely to want to.
Posted by: Matt at December 21, 2012 08:52 AM (M5aS1)
My personal defense doctrine is overwhelming firepower with a fallback of Mutual Assured Destruction.
So yes, I do need an assault rifle.
And an RPG.
Posted by: Frankly at December 21, 2012 05:30 PM (bXNJM)
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at December 21, 2012 06:09 PM (DaUUd)
Posted by: Goatweed at December 21, 2012 06:35 PM (kgemg)
Posted by: Ben338 at December 21, 2012 08:40 PM (+rTGN)
National Firearms Act 4, 11, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c, 1132j; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 2. Federal Supplement p.26
On January 3, 1939, the District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fort Smith Division ruled the NFA '34 unconstitutional. Two men, Miller and Lansky, were seen outside a bank with a sawed off shotgun. They were arrested and charged with violation of interstate commerce. The violation was that the men had brought the gun into Arkansas from Texas without an NFA tax stamp. The men had indeed brought the gun into Arkansas from Texas. The court rejected all arguments by the prosecution. The court ruled the NFA '34 was unconstitutional:
"A provision in the National Firearms Act prohibiting delivery of firearms in interstate commerce without a stamp-affixed order is violative of the constitutional amendment providing that right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Arkansas appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus was born the "Miller case" that anti-gun people say ruled the 2nd Amd is not an individual right. That's bogus, of course. All the USSC ruled was that a sawed off shotgun was not the type of gun protected by the 2nd Amd because it was not a "normal" type of gun used by the militia or the U.S. armed forces.
The court was wrong about that, of course. The blunderbuss was the original short barrel shotgun (SBS), developed around the 1100's in Holland and specifically used as a military arm.
But more than that the US Supreme Court, in taking Arkansas' appeal of the lower court's ruling in the Miller case, remanded the case back to the Arkansas Distict court. However, nowhere in their review and remanding of the Miller case back to the Arkansas District court did the US Supreme court EVER OVERTURN THE ARKANSAS DISTRICT COURTS' RULING THAT NFA 1934 WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THUS...THE NFA LICENSING, TAXATION, AND REGISTRATION SCHEME IS STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Posted by: Maximus at December 22, 2012 02:53 PM (/gaXE)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2827 seconds, 293 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: My shit is liberal at December 21, 2012 06:30 AM (uFY4s)