On October 20, 2023 at 12:07 pm, Frank Clarke said:
I detest the “in common use at the time” restriction. Comes the day some enterprising young inventor develops the first StarTrek-ish “phaser”, that device will immediately be banned at the federal level and its production enjoined, and it will all be legal because that new invention is clearly not yet “in common use at the time”.
On October 20, 2023 at 5:08 pm, Paul B said:
Need to abolish the ATF and strike all gun regulations. Course it will be a cold day before either of those come true.
“…in common use…” is NOT a Law or regulation. It is from the Dicta in the U.S. vs. Miller case, which tested the NFA. Militarily useful muskets, bayonets, and cartridge boxes, as well as pistols and sometimes rifles, were the arms in common use.
The government CANNOT restrict something then come back and say, “Because of our restriction on the freedoms of the American people, these weapons are not in common use by the American people, thus justifying our restriction.”
The National Firearms Act is a house of cards. If you simply pull the easiest card, already ripe for the plucking (short barreled rifles), the whole thing comes down.
The NFA was unconstitutional, by court precedent the very day it was signed into law by the Bolshevik President Franklin Roosevelt. I am NOT talking about the obvious violation of the Second Amendment. Look up the Drexel furniture case from 1929. This was a child labor case. Congress used the power to tax as the power to destroy, just like they did in the NFA. However, the US Supreme Court said, (paraphrasing here) “Any tax Law which is so burdensome that it inhibits commerce and thus raises no revenue (or costs more to administer than it raises in revenue), is not a tax measure but a prohibition, thus null and void”.
All it will take is the right 2A attorneys to make this argument.
This article is filed under the category(s) AR-15s,Second Amendment and was published October 19th, 2023 by Herschel Smith.
If you're interested in what else the The Captain's Journal has to say, you might try thumbing through the archives and visiting the main index, or; perhaps you would like to learn more about TCJ.
On October 20, 2023 at 12:07 pm, Frank Clarke said:
I detest the “in common use at the time” restriction. Comes the day some enterprising young inventor develops the first StarTrek-ish “phaser”, that device will immediately be banned at the federal level and its production enjoined, and it will all be legal because that new invention is clearly not yet “in common use at the time”.
On October 20, 2023 at 5:08 pm, Paul B said:
Need to abolish the ATF and strike all gun regulations. Course it will be a cold day before either of those come true.
On October 20, 2023 at 8:42 pm, Longbow said:
Frank,
“…in common use…” is NOT a Law or regulation. It is from the Dicta in the U.S. vs. Miller case, which tested the NFA. Militarily useful muskets, bayonets, and cartridge boxes, as well as pistols and sometimes rifles, were the arms in common use.
The government CANNOT restrict something then come back and say, “Because of our restriction on the freedoms of the American people, these weapons are not in common use by the American people, thus justifying our restriction.”
The National Firearms Act is a house of cards. If you simply pull the easiest card, already ripe for the plucking (short barreled rifles), the whole thing comes down.
The NFA was unconstitutional, by court precedent the very day it was signed into law by the Bolshevik President Franklin Roosevelt. I am NOT talking about the obvious violation of the Second Amendment. Look up the Drexel furniture case from 1929. This was a child labor case. Congress used the power to tax as the power to destroy, just like they did in the NFA. However, the US Supreme Court said, (paraphrasing here) “Any tax Law which is so burdensome that it inhibits commerce and thus raises no revenue (or costs more to administer than it raises in revenue), is not a tax measure but a prohibition, thus null and void”.
All it will take is the right 2A attorneys to make this argument.