Follow our friend Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner on YT.
In a significant judicial development that has set the Second Amendment community abuzz, a federal district court judge has declared the federal ban on the possession of unregistered machine guns unconstitutional.
This ruling stems from a case in the District of Mississippi, where the judge recognized machine guns as “protected arms” under the Second Amendment.
This decision, while confined to the specifics of this case, sparks a crucial conversation on the future of firearm regulations in America.
The Good
The ruling is a triumph for gun rights advocates who argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a broad range of arms [Tanks, Bombs, Jets], not just those considered non-threatening by modern standards. Thankfully, the judge’s decision showed a commitment effort to a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, respecting the right to keep and bear such arms.
The Bad
Despite the favorable outcome for the defendant, this case features several complications.
- First, the ruling is narrowly applied, only affecting the parties involved, and lacks the power to change law nationwide.
- Second, the judge involved has a noted history of skepticism towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, which could suggest his ruling was more about making a point than setting a precedent.
The Ugly
The broader implications of this case could be troubling. The decision might provoke a backlash, leading to more stringent laws or a push to redefine what arms are considered acceptable under the Second Amendment. This could potentially lead to unfavorable outcomes in higher courts, where the composition might not be as sympathetic to expansive gun rights.
Looking Ahead
As the case likely progresses through the appeals process, all eyes will be on how higher courts handle the controversial yet pivotal stance taken by the Mississippi district court. The decision taps into a fundamental debate about individual rights versus the less compelling community safety arguement, a debate that is far from settled in the judicial and public arenas.
For now, supporters of the Second Amendment it’s a reminder of the constant legal and ideological battles over the interpretation of the Constitution’s guarantees. As always, the Second Amendment community must stay heavily armed, informed, and engaged, prepared to defend its rights in courtrooms and public forums alike.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
Daniel Defense Rifle Length Gas Tube Assembly 04-013-09094 | EuroOptic.com | $ 28.00 |
|
|
Daniel Defense DDM4ISR .300 Blk (Integrally Suppressed) 9" 1:8 Black Rifle 02-103-02041 | EuroOptic.com | $ 3445.00 $ 3086.91 |
|
|
|
Daniel Defense DD5 V3 .308 Win/7.62 Semi-Automatic AR-10 Rifle - 02-157-07258-047 | Palmetto State Armory | $ 3032.99 $ 2449.99 |
|
|
Daniel Defense DD5 V3 7.62x51 Rifle - 16" | Rainier Arms | $ 2731.00 |
|
Justice Still Stonewalling on Its Authority to Create a New Class of Prohibited Person
The good old days before the illegal 1934 NFA.
I wonder how many servicemen brought home full autos from WW1? Or from WW2?
The judge’s decision also contains plenty of language to almost guarantee it will be overturned; the judicial equivalent to a legislative poison pill.
But will we just keep going in circles? Will SCOTUS some day in next 4yrs, continuing from the past 8, rule with decisive words?
Markey, mark esquire. Why not become famous, argue that penning the Second amendment, our founders intended, expected little peep citizens to show up to “…defend the security of a free state…” with current technology, fully military capable keep’n’bearables, not Libturd approved SuperSoakers’n’rubber band guns. Full squirters, all shorty thingies, and shushies for all. Case closed.
There was no precedent for the NFA or GCA. THEY are both UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They violate our rights as does every gun law, which all government agencies were specifically prohibited from passing, as every gun law restricts (infringes) our right to keep and bear arms. All these laws do is empower criminals, those who will not abide them, while turning the citizens who follow laws into defenseless victims.
I think we all knew there’d be a major legal battle regarding 2A in someway happening under the second Trump term (He won three times though).
Maybe this will be the one which leads to the big one?