What if SCOTUS affirms..

[MinotBob]

Anybody have any idea what will happen to the NFA Act of 1934 with regards to Suppressors and Full Auto firearms if SCOTUS affirms the individual right to KABA? Could it be argued that these regulations are unconstitutional?
MinotBob

[Dakotaranger]

I would think so, but with the thought of Stari sys (I have no clue how to spell it) with the 1939 case deciding that there is no constitutional right to a sawed-off shotgun it is possible SCOTUS will not over turn the NFA of 1934.  (eventhough from my reading of the Federalist Papers say otherwise)

[gunman42782]

Someone would probably have to bring an entire new case to the court before they would overturn the 1934 ruling. 

[warhawke]

In US v. Miller, the court found that the defendant had not shown that a shotgun with a barrel length below 18" constituted a "Militia Weapon". The court did not recognize that the NFA of 1934 also taxed machineguns, nor did the court recognize that the tax imposed exceeded the value of most arms on which it was imposed, which therefore violated the Bailey v. Drexel furniture decision which requires taxes be only for revenue generation and not back-door prohibition. The failure to bring these issues before the court is what caused the court to find for the government. The defendant did not appear, nor did anyone else appear for the defendant, had anyone appeared to bring these issues to light the NFA would have gone down. You will note that the NRA SUPPORTED the NFA and had no interest in acting in the matter.

IF the court finds for the Individual rights understanding, I expect that the vast majority of anti-self defense to be challenged in court. However, what I also expect is that the court WILL find for individuals, whereupon the congress will invoke Article III section 2 and exempt second amendment cases from supreme court review, and proceed to pass whatever they want. Once this happens the 2nd amendment will be a dead letter, and America will cease to exist in under 24 months as armed insurrection begins (probably of the "Unintended Consequences" variety). Of course I have been accused of pessimism before.

[Pathfinder]

IF the court finds for the Individual rights understanding, I expect that the vast majority of anti-self defense to be challenged in court. However, what I also expect is that the court WILL find for individuals, whereupon the congress will invoke Article III section 2 and exempt second amendment cases from supreme court review, and proceed to pass whatever they want. Once this happens the 2nd amendment will be a dead letter, and America will cease to exist in under 24 months as armed insurrection begins (probably of the "Unintended Consequences" variety). Of course I have been accused of pessimism before.

Geez, Warhawke, and I thought I was pessimistic! Thanks for the insights, though, very nicely done.

[Sponsor]

[canon6]

warhawke,what is the old saw"If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention"    Doug

[tumblebug]

Have plenty of 7.62x39????308x51???45acp???9mm??.22.

[SIG229DAK]

I would say it meant anything the current US military is carrying would be legal for every citizen over 16 to carry (1791's version of "militia").   

[DDMac]

If I have correctly distilled all the writings down to my level, this case seems like this to me. An armed security guard in DC wants to legally take home and keep his on-duty pistol, an act now prohibited. That is the issue before the Court. As there is no militia in the District of Columbia, a collective right decision equals a total ban in the issue at hand. The Supreme Court would therefore have to find that the Second Amendment is no longer relevent. With highest regard to our founding father's efforts to secure a safe and prosperous future for their posterity, I pray we, the people, will not have to write a new chapter in US history to clarify their vision of the purpose of a Militia. However, if that be their course, call on me Colonel. I'll be ready in a minute.