Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns

[PiggyBank]

Interesting post.. and the facts just make sense. We see stories on here constantly about inner city Chicago being a war zone etc. If the people were properly armed I doubt it would be that way. We all know there are neighborhoods where police don't even patrol because they are scared lol. they are just people with lives and families and it is a tough job but why should these people have to rely on them when they also have a right to bear arms? These peoples lives are on the line.

As for the class III license, I'm assuming only the police or govt security can obtain them. If so that is bullshit, another instance of our courts failing us. I would have to agree that is Unconstitutional, police are just citizens like the rest of us.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from PiggyBank:

....As for the class III license, I'm assuming only the police or govt security can obtain them....

If not prevented from owning a firearm you're likely eligible for a Class III FFL.

(edit: I don't know if the feds are currently issuing class III FFL's)


You're just not allowed to get the FFL for the sole purpose of adding to your firearms collection. Which is kinda stupid, you simply have to complete a min number of transactions to make the bureaucrats happy. As if that proves or prevents anything.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Lucrum:

If not prevented from owning a firearm you're likely eligible for a Class III FFL.
You're just not allowed to get the FFL for the sole purpose of adding to your firearms collection. Which is kinda stupid, you simply have to complete a min number of transactions to make the bureaucrats happy. As if that proves or prevents anything.

Oh I guess I didn't understand that part of your post. So u need a reason for the class III, aside from your right to bear arms? And they try to prevent ownership through a financial barrier?

 

[BSAM]

Quote from Lucrum:

If not prevented from owning a firearm you're likely eligible for a Class III FFL.
You're just not allowed to get the FFL for the sole purpose of adding to your firearms collection. Which is kinda stupid, you simply have to complete a min number of transactions to make the bureaucrats happy. As if that proves or prevents anything.

Lukie, what purpose does one have to state to get an automatic weapon?
And, are you certain that the rule is $500 every year to maintain your license?
You probably have the license, so I'd be confident in what you state, but I thought it was every two to three years for the renewal.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Oh I guess I didn't understand that part of your post. So u need a reason for the class III, aside from your right to bear arms? And they try to prevent ownership through a financial barrier?

It's just a game like most everything else today, brother Pig.
(Ever try to do your own taxes???)

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from PiggyBank:

Oh I guess I didn't understand that part of your post. So u need a reason for the class III, aside from your right to bear arms? And they try to prevent ownership through a financial barrier?

More or less, yes.

Similar to sound suppressors ("silencers"). Except in a few states where they are illegal, you pay the feds $200 in tax for a stamp that gives you the "right" to exercise your 2nd amendment uh...right. And despite the fact that they do an extensive background check the first time. You have to pay an additional $200 tax for each additional suppressor. The $200 amount was establish in 1934 BTW. Considering that, it's clear what their intent was. Somehow or another the incompetent feds never updated the $ amount though so after decades of inflation it's now relatively affordable.

A little more trivia, the feds in the 1930's were scared shitless that suppressors would be used in assassinations and murders so rather than tackle the 2nd amendment they simply created the need for a tax stamp. There are currently 27,000 legal suppressors sold in the US alone every year. Yet you virtually never hear (no pun intended) of one being used in a murder. Obviously the concerns of the feds in the 1930's were grossly misplaced.

The BATF has a $1.1 BILLION annual budget. Yet alcohol tobacco and firearms are all legal here in the US. Nearly 10% of our federal budget deficit could be eliminated by eliminating this one outdated and largely useless federal agency.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from BSAM:

Lukie, what purpose does one have to state to get an automatic weapon?
And, are you certain that the rule is $500 every year to maintain your license?
You probably have the license, so I'd be confident in what you state, but I thought it was every two to three years for the renewal.

I don't have an FFL. I think your "purpose" would be an arms dealer. (domestic of course) and I'm all but certain it is $500 per year every year as long as you hold the FFL.

I am NOT an expert on the particulars but I think there is a class of full autos (such as WWII weapons for example) that can be had IF you have some sort of designation as a collector or some such. I don't own any and haven't really looked into it to be honest.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Lucrum:

If not prevented from owning a firearm you're likely eligible for a Class III FFL.

(edit: I don't know if the feds are currently issuing class III FFL's)


You're just not allowed to get the FFL for the sole purpose of adding to your firearms collection. Which is kinda stupid, you simply have to complete a min number of transactions to make the bureaucrats happy. As if that proves or prevents anything.

A serious question. Once you have the full auto license are there restrictions on how you can fire the weapon? In other words, can I legally allow someone with a class 3 to shoot unlimited rounds on my farm? Safely into a backstop dirt pile or cliff, of course. Deer rifles and other shooting is allowed in the township. We skeet shoot all the time

Surf

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Lucrum:

More or less, yes.

Similar to sound suppressors ("silencers"). Except in a few states where they are illegal, you pay the feds $200 in tax for a stamp that gives you the "right" to exercise your 2nd amendment uh...right. And despite the fact that they do an extensive background check the first time. You have to pay an additional $200 tax for each additional suppressor. The $200 amount was establish in 1934 BTW. Considering that, it's clear what their intent was. Somehow or another the incompetent feds never updated the $ amount though so after decades of inflation it's now relatively affordable.

A little more trivia, the feds in the 1930's were scared shitless that suppressors would be used in assassinations and murders so rather than tackle the 2nd amendment they simply created the need for a tax stamp. There are currently 27,000 legal suppressors sold in the US alone every year. Yet you virtually never hear (no pun intended) of one being used in a murder. Obviously the concerns of the feds in the 1930's were grossly misplaced.

The BATF has a $1.1 BILLION annual budget. Yet alcohol tobacco and firearms are all legal here in the US. Nearly 10% of our federal budget deficit could be eliminated by eliminating this one outdated and largely useless federal agency.

Someone has done their due diligence on this issue.

It amazes me how eroded our rights already are.. each successive generation is increasingly ignorant (if only slightly) to what this nation has become. Due to the fact we all grow up in a less free environment than what there once was. For example I grew up and have always lived in the Northeast, it is super liberal and not that many people I know own guns, almost none have a license to carry.. so I am largely unversed both with firearms and my RIGHT to bear them. Me thinks this is unacceptable and must be corrected quickly.

 

[Tom B]

Quote from Lucrum:

I don't have an FFL. I think your "purpose" would be an arms dealer. (domestic of course) and I'm all but certain it is $500 per year every year as long as you hold the FFL.

I am NOT an expert on the particulars but I think there is a class of full autos (such as WWII weapons for example) that can be had IF you have some sort of designation as a collector or some such. I don't own any and haven't really looked into it to be honest.

Here is the 1986 law regarding "machine guns".

Firearm Owners’ Protection Act

In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/