Class III unconstitutional?

[Jeronimo]

What do you think? Is the whole concept of having to have permission and pay MORE taxes to possess a "class III" firearm unconstitutional? Some will use the slippery-slope argument in the law's defense. But the 2nd Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear ARMS, not rocket launchers.

 

[Wabatuckian]

I see it as, we are allowed by the Constitution to possess anything the infantry in the military has.

This means full auto, and area weapons such as the hand grenade. Maybe claymores.

Does not include hydrogen bombs and such.

Folks with specialized training to run rocket launchers etc. should be allowed them as well.

If you were in the military and have background on specialized weaponry, you should be able to buy that weaponry upon HONORABLE discharge.

Josh <><

 

[hookedonjeep]

It should not matter what the "arms" are, as all free, law-abiding citizens have the constitutionaly guaranteed right to keep and bear them. The whole "class" system is just another way for sheeple to feel more secure.... I don't know abut you guys, but if my neighbor has some full auto toys, and TSHTF, I am headed for his house to hang out! But... if he is denied those toys because a few politicians think that everyone everyone will be safer, then they are sadly mistaken. They argue that we don't need them..... and they are right! But we also don't "need" private jets.... but surprisingly that doesn't stop them from owning them..... hmmmmmmm

 

[csaws]

It is unconstitutional

 

[HICKMAN]

hell, most of our taxes would be unconstitutional...

 

[Chefcook]

hell, most of our taxes would be unconstitutional...

Most of them are...

 

[Go Devil]

Conflict Escalation/Rules of Engagement

There's a concept for this argument.

Flint lock smooth bores, rifles with bayonets, and cannon were the prevelant munitions of federal weapon systems when the 2nd was authored.

If the intent of the 2nd was to prevent tyranny of the government at hand, it only makes sense that the weapons, we have the right to possess, should at the least equal what an American could possibly find himself looking down the barrel of.

 

[shooter521]

Totally unconstitutional.

Image courtesy of Oleg Volk, Make a choice

 

[Robert Richardson]

What do you think? Is the whole concept of having to have permission and pay MORE taxes to possess a "class III" firearm unconstitutional? Some will use the slippery-slope argument in the law's defense. But the 2nd Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear ARMS, not rocket launchers.

I agree this is unconstitutional and needless.Needless because it was made law to prevent gangsters and hoodlums access to machineguns,now they don't need them, they just put on a suit and get a job in Washington D.C.

 

[indykid]

As much as I detest the 1934 NFA, it was highly debated by congress back then. They realized that banning the weapons was uncontitutional, so to keep the firearms available to the correct people, they came up with the tax idea. If you can afford the tax, you can have the firearm. Who do you think they didn't want to own the firearms???

 

[originalhonkey]

totally unconstitutional!!!!!! it takes just one bullet from the smallest cal. single shot gun to kill but they dont tax me or regulate that.
one slash from any knife can be just as deadly but you can buy any size knife with no problems or license.
as a matter of fact you can hit someone in the head with a hamer or a bat and they will sell these to kids if they have the money.
have i mentioned that none but the gun is ser.# or recorded when sold.
but hold the f*%*K on if you have a full auto or the ever feared CAN !!!!!!!!!!!!
we all know its the one bullet that kills not the other 20 or 30 behind it and a CAN by its self,not one has ever killed a soul its always been the bullet! when has a quiter shot ever been the reason for someone dying?
we have let them regulate us to the bone and its aloud them to rape our constitution.

 

[kludge]

I see it as, we are allowed by the Constitution to possess anything the infantry in the military has.

This means full auto, and area weapons such as the hand grenade. Maybe claymores.

Does not include hydrogen bombs and such.

I disagree.

The constitution places no such limits on the definition of arms.

If the want to ban hydrogen bombs, then they need to follow the constitution and ratify a new amendment. Shouldn't be too hard to get consensus among the states.

The founders didn't forsee radio, television, or internet, but we all believe that all those mediums of communication are constitutionally protected...

So why not pass an amendment to ban civilian ownership of atomic weapons?

Because then they would be admitting that all the laws about automatic weapons are unconstitutional too (that, and they would never get enough states to ratify it... just like NAFTA... they call it an "agreement" so they don't have to ratify it like they would a TREATY, which is what it really is... slick wordsmith b@$t@rd$... and pass it with a simple majority).

 

[jedi]

Agree with you kludge no limits per our forefathers.
Makes me wonder if this will be a Class III as well?

Cause you know when those go on sale they will include a personal body guard like this one (the one in white). Sorry girls being a male pig here.

 

[Paul]

its unconstitutional

 

[NFANut]

On the bright side...

I AM glad however that they haven't revisited the tax amount for the transfer and adjusted it for inflation. As I understand it, the $200 amount was set because the going price for a Thompson sub-machine gun in 1934 was $200, so the transfer tax effectively doubled the price.

That was quite a bit of money back then. Think of setting the tax today at the going rate for even an UZI or an AC-556, let alone that Thompson!!

 

[orange]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was validated in the 1939 case of United States vs. Miller. Interesting case, in that it concerned itself with a sawed-off side-by-side shotgun. The lawyers for the US basically argued that the Second Amendment protected only the ownership of military-type weapons, and a sawed-off shotgun was not such.

Since neither the defendants nor their lawyers were present during the Supreme Court proceedings, there was nobody to tell the judges that this was in fact not true, that short-barrelled shotguns had in fact been used by the US Army. NFA'34 was judged constitutional and remained law.

Sometimes it seems to me like I'm the only one that sees something wrong here. This legal maneuvering is disgusting. And don't even get me started on the interstate commerce clause..

 

[eatsnopaste]

Ok. i'll play devils advocate. Should I be able to mount a couple 12 ga. to my car? how about a .50 cal. in or on my airplane? remember, you don't know me from Adam.

 

[bigcraig]

Ok. i'll play devils advocate. Should I be able to mount a couple 12 ga. to my car? how about a .50 cal. in or on my airplane? remember, you don't know me from Adam.

I wouldn't care if you had a Howitzer mounted on your car, the 1934 NFA is BS.

 

[dburkhead]

Ok. i'll play devils advocate. Should I be able to mount a couple 12 ga. to my car? how about a .50 cal. in or on my airplane? remember, you don't know me from Adam.

Should you be allowed to own ordinary household chemicals like bleach, ammonia, certain forms of water softener salt, battery acid, "muriatic acid" (often used as a driveway or garage floor cleaner), and so forth? Or maybe dung from the nearest cattle or horse farm? Iodine? How about hexamine fuel pellets (used for emergency and camping/hiking stoves)? How about propane tanks (as used in gas grills--heretical as that concept is--trailers and RVs, etc.)

Should there be a legal limit on the number of smoke detectors a person can buy?

If you have any idea what can be done with that stuff you'll see that a 12 ga on your car of a .50 on an airplane is pretty trivial.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ok. i'll play devils advocate. Should I be able to mount a couple 12 ga. to my car? how about a .50 cal. in or on my airplane? remember, you don't know me from Adam.

Would I trust you to weaponize your vehicles? Yes, right up until you violated that trust. Keep in mind as well, though, that everyone else can do the same thing, so if you open up on Snail Man driving in front of you, you better have your will written. It's very likely someone else is going to be stopping your vehicle in a big hurry with a few popped tires or a round in your gas tank.

An armed society is a polite society. --R.A. Heinlein.

Blessings,
Bill