![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/lawyer.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
It technically isn\u2019t illegal to buy and own a machinegun in the United States, it\u2019s just very difficult and expensive to buy one. Back in 1934, the Federal Government decided that it was time to start closing down the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment, (Roosevelt administration and he was a dictatorial fascist), and passed the National Firearms Act<\/a>. Among other things, it put a $200 tax on machineguns among other firearm related things. This was meant to make it very difficult for citizens to buy things like Thompson Sub-machineguns. They ran about $225 back in 1927. Add a $200 tax and you were looking at something like $6000 in today\u2019s money.<\/p>\n Then we had the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act<\/a>, which closed the book on any new machineguns being sold to citizens. Only those that already had the tax stamp could be sold, and of course, prices skyrocketed. This brings us to the case in question, the United States v. Tamori Morgan<\/a>. Morgan had been charged with possessing machineguns without them being registered. Last week a Federal Judge said the machinegun ban was unconstitutional. Here are some of the details from Newsmax<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a machine gun, saying prosecutors failed to establish that a federal ban on owning such weapons is constitutional. <\/b><\/p>\n Here is a simple answer. It\u2019s not constitutional and never was.<\/p>\n The decision by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita on Wednesday appeared to mark the first time a court has held that banning machine guns is unconstitutional after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 issued a landmark ruling that expanded gun rights. <\/b><\/p>\n Once again, the wisdom of Bruen comes to the fore. Of course, if the founders of this country had seen the hash made of the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment both by Congress and the Courts, they would be breaking out the guns, tar, feathers and rope.<\/p>\n In that ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court established a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” <\/b><\/p>\n The \u201cTradition of firearms regulation\u201d is simple, other then safety, making sure the firearm isn\u2019t defective, there never was any regulation. Frankly, SCOTUS, while slamming the brakes on the Gon Grabbers, decided to play some word games instead of just saying that the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment means what it says and that preventing law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court clarified that standard in June as it upheld a ban on people subject to domestic violence restraining orders having guns, saying a modern firearms restriction needs only a “historical analog,” not a “historical twin,” to be valid. <\/b><\/p>\n That decision on banning citizens who have committed no crime, (And to be honest, the person in question was no saint), other then a restraining order is very questionable. We\u2019ve seen way to many people issued restraining orders who had done nothing. These are usually done in things like divorces when one side lies about what the other has done, or worse, the lawyer uses it for leverage.<\/p>\n The U.S. Department of Justice can appeal the decision, which the gun safety group Everytown Law in a statement called “extreme and reckless.” Prosecutors did not respond to a request for comment. Morgan’s lawyer declined to comment. <\/b><\/p>\n And they will. I have little doubt that this might end up in the Supreme Court. Considering that the DoJ, which wants to disarm the American People, they don\u2019t have a choice. Their argument is that machineguns aren\u2019t covered by the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment.<\/p>\n Prosecutors said the weapons at issue in Morgan’s case did not fall within the protections of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. <\/b><\/p>\n Ok, there is a mistake in that sentence. There is no mention of \u201cSelf Defense\u201d in it, although that is a part of it in general. Here is the actual text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:<\/p>\n A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n We won\u2019t be going over the well regulated militia part much. Back when this amendment was written, regulated meant in good working order. The militia? That\u2019s every man between 17 and 45. (These days it would also include women and the upper age would be increased) The people has already been decided as the individual citizen.<\/p>\n As to the actual weapons? When this amendment was written citizens had military or better small arms and also cannon. There were even a few privately owned warships. The founders, if they had known about machineguns would have assumed that the people would be buying them. Judge Broomes appears to share the same opinion.<\/p>\n But Broomes disagreed, saying the “the machinegun and Glock switch are bearable arms within the plain text of the Second Amendment.” <\/b><\/p>\n Needless to say, the prosecutors are unhappy. They are trying to use the \u201cDangerous or unusual weapons nonsense. Part of the case was the defendant demonstrating that machineguns are not unusual, and they aren\u2019t. They\u2019ve been around for over 120 years. As to dangerous? That is a load of manure. All guns are dangerous if misused. So is a pencil. Just ask John Wick<\/a>.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve seen a number of Youtube people talking about this, including lawyers. All agree that this is going to be appealed. This is one that is probably going to hit the Supreme Court. I can\u2019t see any way for them to legitimately dodge this case. I\u2019m sure a few of the justices will give it the old college try of course. If it does get up there, we can count on the three anti-constitutional justices to rule in favor of the Government. The rest? Who knows?<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good day all. There is a case moving through the legal system regarding a criminal charge for someone who had unregistered machineguns. The firearms weren\u2019t used in any other crime, the defendant simply had possession of them. There may have … Continue reading <\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n