Government Has Known from the Start There IS a Right to Own Machineguns

Orwellian much? ATF invites us all to celebrate Founding intent while encouraging us to call their tip line to turn in other citizens for not complying with infringements. (ATF/Facebook)

“Feds Say Wyoming Man Has No Right To Make His Own Machine Gun,” Cowboy State Daily reports, citing developments in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. “Jake Stanley DeWilde in January sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), saying the government wrongfully denied his application to build his own M16 machine gun and a federal ban on such weapons is unconstitutional.”

Of course, that would be ATF’s position. And their excuse, “that courts have consistently ruled that the Second Amendment protects weapons in ‘common use’ but does not protect ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” get a legal boost from of all people, the late “originalist” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his District of Columbia v. Heller opinion. For reasons of his own, he felt he had to help advance that idea in the minds of those trying to justify infringements.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia volunteered, “[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” He used that to imply banning weapons such as “M-16 rifles and the like” would not be an infringement. Otherwise, he asserted, “it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns … might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.”

You have to wonder what it takes to get through to some of these guys.

Yes, it’s unconstitutional, and that can be demonstrated logically and legally through the case and the law Scalia cited.

Miller recognized the militia as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Its function was — and still is — to field citizen soldiers, and these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia deployed with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.

To suggest the Framers of the Constitution meant anything else is to accuse them of being insane by codifying into the supreme Law of the Land that sending an ill-equipped citizenry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Irrefutable evidence that the government knew when proposing the National Firearms Act that a ban on machineguns would be unconstitutional is presented in the Tennessee Law Review, Volume 62, Number 3, Spring 1995; A Second Amendment Symposium Issue:

“Attorney General Cummins was then asked how the peoples’ protection under the 2nd Amendment was escaped. Cummins then replied, ‘Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power (taxation and interstate commerce). You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved.’”

The government knew the people had a right to machine guns. The issue here is one of taxing a right as a prior restraint on exercising it.

And the unstated issue is, just like with latter-day “commonsense gun safety laws,” Cummins knew his scheme would have no effect on the criminals it was fraudulently passed to deter:

“[W]ith regard to reaching a man like Dillinger: There is nothing specific in this act that deals with that situation.”

The tax “workaround” was camouflage and subterfuge. The intent was to ban when no authority existed.

Now, in light of precedent established subsequent to the passage of the National Firearms Act, such as 1964’s Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 1966 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections decision abolishing poll taxes as a prerequisite for exercising voting rights, and the recent Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen establishing a “text, history, and tradition” standard, there’s really only one conclusion that can be drawn:

The National Firearms Act is unconstitutional. The same holds true for bans on “bump stocks,” pistol braces, forced rest triggers, “ghost guns,” “Glock switches,” and the like. And the treasonous “gun sense politicians” and their “only following orders” edict enforcers know it

So do all those officeholders we’re told are “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment.”

Further Reading


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

David Codrea
36 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Arizona

EXACTLY. The senate debate of the NFA admitted they had no authority to legally police or restrict citizens’ firearms usage or selection, including full auto weapons. The Miller case stated that weapons protected by the 2nd were those for use in modern warfare, military grade weapons used in battle. They only said short barreled shotguns were not covered because there was no defense, and the gov attorney lied in saying the military didn’t use sbs’s in war.

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

So liars where lying? SURPRISE!

Montana454Casull

Citizens of the United states have all the rights granted in the constitution and the government only has the rights granted to it by the citizens. Time we get back to that !

PMinFl

Recognized  by the constitution if you please.

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

Except rights aren’t “granted” in the Constitution. They are PROHIBITED to be INFRINGED on by those administering the government.

Stag

The constitution doesn’t grant rights. It grants certain powers to government and enumerates a few rights the we inherently hold. However, we have much more than that. The 9th and 10th amendments make that perfectly clear.

Desert Guy

Further proves the illegitimacy of “government”.

Hazcat

Of THIS government. Not the government that ‘we the people’ did establish and ordain.

Roland T. Gunner

Our cumulative various levels of government, and the scope of their intrusion in our lives, MUST be reigned in and rolled back. I sm sick to death of the thousands upon thousands of laws, rules and regulations. I am even mor sick of the constant attempts to coerce me into changing my opinions and behavior. Leave me alone snd let me cook on the stove I want, drive the car I want, eat and drink and smoke whst I want. Amd if I decide there is some minority out there I dont like, I am free to say so, and… Read more »

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

You’ll love this saved article. HOW MANY MORE CARL DREGAS? By Vin Suprynowicz

Roland T. Gunner

Sad and scary; but a great read, thank you.

USMC0351Grunt

Only problem there is that WE, aren’t “those” People that ordained this. WE are the stewards of the greatness they bestowed upon us and WE, The People, NOW are failing to maintain this great gift of freedom and liberty.

Roland T. Gunner

Good morning Mr. Codrea; and let me say, right off the top, I have missed your writing. And this morning’s piece is on my number one issue. I am cautioualy hopeful the can of worms those sons-of-bitches at BUTF opened over pistol braces will lead to a greater examination of the unconstitutional NFA. Regarding the 2A, I believe the right is absolute, barring genuine chemical, radiological, bioligical and nuclear weapon WMD’s; and perhaps others yet to be developed. At minimum, to start, Hughes must be repealed, along with the absurdly onerous registration requirements. Pass the normal background check, fill out… Read more »

Logician

NOOOO!!! We’re going for broke here on this matter!! The FF didn’t have any test of any kind as to what type of gun you were allowed to buy and have, save for this one, and this one ONLY!! Could you afford to acquire it lawfully? Meaning, could you pay for it in gold and silver coins, or work off the debt through the efforts of your labors (bartering)?? If you could, then the gun was yours to do with as you pleased, unless you were directly causing injuries to another or damaging their property!

Roland T. Gunner

I absolutely agree; I was only expressing a willingness to manage the pace of integrating machine guns back into oyr society by STARTING with a repeal of Hughes. To show the loony left that the guns are not some super-dangerous game changer that imperils public schools.

Like their fanciful notions about constitutional carry, the Left thinks if we send NFA to the shredder, overnight we will have Demokrat voters waving cold malt liquor in the streets and doing full auto mag dumps at the sky.

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor
DIYinSTL

As I await approval for my carefully considered comment, let me post the quote it contained from Heller. If this is also delayed for approval then no need if my previous comment eventually gets posted.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.

DIYinSTL

Let’s try a 3rd time without quoting Heller or using digits: Dave, like so many others you are in error concerning Heller’s statement on the Msixteen. Scalia wrote that anyone who say’s Msixteens and the like can be banned have de facto separated and nullified the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” from the operative “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, you cannot claim that the Second Amendment right is both limited to the militia and machine guns can be… Read more »

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

The limited degree of fit would be nuclear weapons.

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

YES, YES, and YES. And one of the MAIN REASONS we need the 1st 13 words of the 2nd amendment to be FOLLOWED!
Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 WordsWhy we need our citizen militias back…

Logician

Since I am obviously not capable of the mental gymnastics required to understand this all on my own, I need someone to explain to me in the simplest terms possible, as to why we need to look to the legal system to tell us ANYTHING!! Last year, the USSC/SCOTUS told us that they had to reverse Roe v. Wade, a decision that had stood for 49 long and miserable years, just because it was a mistake that had been made back then! No new evidence of any kind was brought forth, no new witnesses were called, no new arguments were… Read more »

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

Let’s you and I co author an article…https://courageouslion380.substack.com/

USMC0351Grunt

One of the biggest frustrations for many is when a civil society wanders from its roots and gets lost in the weeds. Many don’t even bother to research and rediscover those roots to get a grasp of where we were then and how we got to where we are now, nor do they even bother to try to reconstruct that which had worked so well for society. Most just seem to give up and recluse into their own personal belief system and molt their way through life, usually at the expense of others. (Moral decay) In regard to the abortion… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by USMC0351Grunt
Get Out

I’d love to own a couple of machine guns, but I wouldn’t be able to feed them properly.

Roland T. Gunner

I own a couple, and I have, in various calibers, about half a ton of ammunition. Truth is, though, if I shot up any significant portion of my stockpile, I could not afford to replace it. As a result, one of my machine guns hasn’t been fired in about 15 years, and the other is still NIB.

Removing any gun chambered for a currently produced rimfire cartridge from the NFA would be a good TEMPORARY compromise as a starting point, to be expanded upon.

GunInstructorDotCom

There are plenty of gun owners who would state something to the effect of, “No one has a need for owning machine guns.” It shows they don’t trust their fellow American citizens to own machine guns. They buy into the notion that some guns are just too dangerous to be owned by commoners. Those gun owners are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

DIYinSTL

I give up. Three posts to this article all awaiting for approval. I hope the censor only let’s the first one through or there will be a lot of redundancy.

DIYinSTL

Dave, like so many others you are in error concerning Heller’s statement on the M-16. Scalia wrote that anyone who say’s M-16s and the like can be banned have de facto separated and nullified the prefatory clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” from the operative “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.”

USMC0351Grunt

Good one! Point and SET!

StLPro2A

Hmmmm…..Scalia’s stance got him a one-way hunting trip to a Lefties’ lodge, never to return. If it’s good enough for our government to protect Ole Slo Joey, Imbecile and Ice-Cream-Licker In-Chief, it’s good enough for We The Little Peeps to protect ourselves and kiddos, and defend against this tyrannical leaning government. This IS the government our Founders warned about….and, for which they penned the Second Amendment. A right not exercised, is a right not held.

AJChwick

So, Bush’s restraint on MGs beyond a certain date, IS TRULY un-constitutional, as well.

So who wants to be the test case?

Protect defend serve

The notion of citizens not being armed equivalent to the military is bogus at best!! Common citizens were the militia until 1916 when the National Defense Act was passed. Up until then state militias were the normal units to support a small standing federal Army. These militias were combat units of citizens who volunteered when states call on citizens to come to the defense of state and/or nation. There was no such thing as “National Guard” until then. Additionally, many states still have state militia, dense forces, or guard units. WHO arms these men and women??? Certainly not the federal… Read more »

Orion

Fredrick’s opinions ( in 1934) would decimate our Second Amendment today but then, at that time NRA was focused solely on marksmanship. You can rag on WLP all you want but because of his drive to counter unjust federal legislation our Right To Bear is still alive.

Stag

I see you’re still ignoring the fact that WLP has both advocated for and helped enact several arms laws. Since WLP has been involved we’ve got the Hughes Amendment, import bans, NICS, red flag laws, bumpstock ban, and FixNICS.

I’m sure you’ll pull out the old “iT wOuLd HaVe BeEn WoRsE WiThOuT mUh CoMpRoMiSe” while completely ignoring the fact that the NRA went way beyond mere compromise when they actively supported several of these infringements.

If the NRA is as effective as you claim then imagine what we could have had if they had opposed these infringements.

USMC0351Grunt

Gee? I wonder where we would be as a nation if the U.S. Marines ‘compromised’ in the many battles fought across the globe?

Last edited 11 months ago by USMC0351Grunt