Nitram vs. Shep Gun debate From Labor day thread

[SirNitram]

I will certainly agree it's a cumbersome, rather silly document now(For instance, there's a vast difference between a gun that can fire a few rapid shots on auto and a 'true' GPMG, and I can see no problem in legalizing some of the slower firing ones). But that's not the same as what Sheppard demands must happen(Strike it from the books and strike all gun control away because of a judge's decision about sawed offs).

Many laws have been struck down on technicalities, why exactly shouldn't that be the case here?

I agree it's a bad law; but it would be in the best interest of most, I feel, to rework it so it's less ridiculous and still serves the purpose of keeping the weapons it was designed to stop going out from going out.

If I wanted to be an ass, I could point out many stupid laws are left on the books. Why should this one be repealed? Moreover, why should we toss out all the rest just because this one has become too cumbersome and has lost focus?

[Raptor 597]

I will certainly agree it's a cumbersome, rather silly document now(For instance, there's a vast difference between a gun that can fire a few rapid shots on auto and a 'true' GPMG, and I can see no problem in legalizing some of the slower firing ones). But that's not the same as what Sheppard demands must happen(Strike it from the books and strike all gun control away because of a judge's decision about sawed offs).

Many laws have been struck down on technicalities, why exactly shouldn't that be the case here?

I agree it's a bad law; but it would be in the best interest of most, I feel, to rework it so it's less ridiculous and still serves the purpose of keeping the weapons it was designed to stop going out from going out.

If I wanted to be an ass, I could point out many stupid laws are left on the books. Why should this one be repealed? Moreover, why should we toss out all the rest just because this one has become too cumbersome and has lost focus?

Yes, so too speak. The groundbasis should be reworked for modern times and keep the basic goal in mind. Thing thing remind me of the 1921 Louisiana Constitution: the bloated corpse that needed a rework and no one wanted to touch it or the others wouldn't change it. Thats why numerous amendements were added until someone got enough balls and lead to change it. The same is taking place here. The Anti-gun hipsters refuse to sit and Pro-Gun guys can't get any point across, so I feel the 1934 act will be here for awhile.

[Alyeska]

I agree it's a bad law; but it would be in the best interest of most, I feel, to rework it so it's less ridiculous and still serves the purpose of keeping the weapons it was designed to stop going out from going out.

Problem is people who would be capable of buying said weapons would never be inclined to use them in a crime. Its like saying sports cars should be made illegal. The only people who can afford to buy them tend to want to keep them and won't be speeding in them THAT obviously.

If I wanted to be an ass, I could point out many stupid laws are left on the books. Why should this one be repealed? Moreover, why should we toss out all the rest just because this one has become too cumbersome and has lost focus?

A big difference is that this one is still enforced from time to time.

[MKSheppard]

and that where too expensive for anyone but gangsters to afford

Not really. Guess what gangsters used? Shotguns and the Colt .45 Automatic
to kill. Tommy Guns, the Gun that Made the Twenties ROAR was just hollywood hype, though automatic weapons were used during the St.
Valentine's day Massacre.

The law is one more example of gun control legislation that was sensible when enacted, yet has been expanded and warped far beyond its original intention. Thus it should be repealed.

It was never sensible in the first place. Prohibition was repealed in 1933,
so it's raison de etre went away even before it was enacted. A far more
important concern to the Bill's designers was the Bonus Army March of 1932.

It's estimated that US Veterans of WWI brought home over one MILLION
full automatic weapons from the battlefields of France. Imagine how the
Bonus Army mess would have turned out if a few combat vets there
had had Browning Automatic Rifles and had used them when the Army
moved in and began attacking and burning the vets out. Unfortunately,
the ruling elite's distrust of the general populace is nothing new.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's estimated that US Veterans of WWI brought home over one MILLION
full automatic weapons from the battlefields of France. Imagine how the
Bonus Army mess would have turned out if a few combat vets there
had had Browning Automatic Rifles and had used them when the Army
moved in and began attacking and burning the vets out. Unfortunately,
the ruling elite's distrust of the general populace is nothing new.

That figure might be accurate for WW2, but not WW1. We never issued BAR's to any troops and did not have that many crew served machine guns, hell the whole US Army at its peak was only 3 million men with somthing like half still in training.

[MKSheppard]

The transcript of the original court session where Judge Heartsill Ragon
simply bitchslapped the DA around, which led to the feds appealing the
case to the Supremes:

"All rise. District Court, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division, is now in session, Judge
Heartsill Ragon presiding."

"You may be seated. First case, UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al. Mr. Gutensohn?"

GUTENSON (The Defendant's Laywer): "Right here, your Honor."

GUTENSON (The Defendant's Laywer): "Your Honor, if it please the Court, my clients, Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, are guilty of no crime
whatsoever. Their arrest under Section 11, 48 statute 1239, is clearly in violation of their Constitutional
rights for two obvious reasons. First, the so-called National Firearms Act, though presented as a revenue
measure, is clearly a Federal attempt to usurp power reserved to the States. This should be obvious as the
so-called 'tax' of two hundred dollars is greatly in excess of the value of the arms on which it is levied.
Second, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is completely in conflict with the second article to our
Constitution's Bill of Rights. To wit, 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

"Inasmuch as both Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton are able-bodied and between the ages of sixteen and forty-
five, they are clearly members of the Militia of which the framers of our Constitution spoke. Further, unlike
the Fourth Amendment against 'unreasonable' search and seizure, the Second Amendment makes no
mention of 'reasonable' infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The article states that this
right shall not be infringed, period. There is no way to interpret our government's attempts to levy a tax of
two hundred dollars on any weapon which can be used to defend oneself and one's freedoms as anything
other than a gross and willful infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

"Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton are guilty of nothing more than exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Indeed, the arresting agents reported that both my clients obeyed all orders given by the agents, and that at
no time did either of the defendants threaten either agent in any way, with or without the weapon in
question. In fact, the agents both admit that the shotgun in question was found by one of the agents on the
seat of Mr. Miller's unoccupied vehicle when the arrest was made.

"Accordingly, I have filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to
constitute a crime, and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being
in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A You have the
demurrer before you, your Honor." Gutensohn sat down.

JUDGE RAGON: "Mr. District Attorney?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: "Your Honor, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is not in any way in contravention with our United States
Constitution. The defendants were found transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Neither
defendant disputes this fact. Nowhere in the United States is a sawed-off shotgun of the type transported by
Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton issued to members of the military. Accordingly, it is entirely reasonable that the
Treasury enforce the National Firearms Act as a revenue-raising measure, and demand that those who are
in violation of it be sent to prison, just as we tax liquor producers and expect those people who make illegal
alcohol products to be sent to prison."

JUDGE Ragon : "Mr. Barry, there is no mention made in the Constitution about making whiskey. There is a very clear mention made
of the right to keep and bear arms. You may be entirely right that our government does not issue our
soldiers shotguns of the exact type that Mr. Miller had in his truck. However, you are forgetting everything
you were taught in grade school civics class. A militia, by definition, is a group of citizens who use their own
weapons for defense of themselves and their freedoms. We cannot throw them in prison or fine them five
thousand dollars for failing to have exactly the same type arms as are carried by the National Guard or any
other branch of our standing army, or expect them to pay two hundred dollar taxes at the whim of the Treasury merely to
exercise their Constitutional rights."

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "But, your Honor..."

JUDGE Ragon : "Mister Barry, I have carefully reviewed this 'National Firearms Act' of yours, and it imposes the same five
year prison sentence and $5000 fine on interstate transport of automatic weapons as well."

JUDGE Ragon : "Tell me, Mr. Barry. Are you familiar with the Browning Automatic Rifle, the model 1918 BAR?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "Yes, your Honor."

JUDGE Ragon :"So am I. In fact, my son carried one in France at the very end of the Great War. A marvelous weapon, and
one he could well have used at the beginning of the war and not just the end. In fact, the BAR is a weapon
which I wish I had had when I fought in the war with Spain in 1898. And, Mr. District Attorney, the
Browning Automatic Rifle is, I believe, currently issued to U.S. soldiers and members of the Arkansas
National Guard, is it not?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "I believe so, your Honor."

JUDGE Ragon : "Mr. Barry, if the Treasury agents had found a BAR and not a shotgun in Mr. Miller's truck, would they
have arrested him for violating the National Firearms Act?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "I can't say what the agents would or wouldn't have done, your Honor."

JUDGE Ragon : "I'll rephrase the question, Mr. Barry. If the agents had arrested Miller and Layton for possessing a
Browning Automatic Rifle without having paid a $200 tax and without possessing the stamp-affixed
federal order form as per this National Firearms Act, would you be prosecuting them under the National
Firearms Act as you are now doing?"

JUDGE Ragon : "Well, Mr. Barry?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "They would be in violation of the Act, so yes, I would prosecute them, your Honor."

JUDGE Ragon : "And if I happened to have a Browning Automatic Rifle at home in my bedroom, the very same type
weapon that my son carried proudly defending our country in 1918, and if this weapon in my bedroom was
not stolen from a government arsenal, but rather one that I had bought with my own money from the Colt
factory in 1920 so that I would be prepared to act as a member of the militia, or to defend myself from an
abusive government should the need arise, and if I had brought this BAR here to my Arkansas bedroom
from my former residence outside the state, would you prosecute me for violating the National Firearms
Act and recommend that I be thrown in prison for five years, Mr. District Attorney?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "Your Honor, I would never prosecute someone who has not been arrested."

JUDGE Ragon : "And if I were arrested, Mr. District Attorney? Should I then go to prison for five years, pay a $5000 fine,
and be disbarred, according to you and your National Firearms Act?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "Your Honor, the Treasury agents would never arrest you."

JUDGE Ragon : "Why not? Because I'm a judge? Because I'm not a moonshiner? Mr. District
Attorney, I see no exemptions in this National Firearms Act for judges or any other
categories of 'the people', to which our Bill of Rights refers. Do you?"

DISTRICT ATTORNEY "No, your Honor,"

JUDGE Ragon : "I didn't think so. I believe you understand my position, Mr. District Attorney. Mr. Gutensohn," he said,
addressing the defense lawyer, "the demurrer you filed is accordingly sustained. The National Firearms Act
of 1934 violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

"Case dismissed. Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, you are free to go."

[MKSheppard]

We never issued BAR's to any troops

Actually, we DID issue them to the troops.

Specifically the 79th, in July of 1918. Of course, that was the Division
that Val Browning, John Browning's son was in...

and did not have that many crew served machine guns, hell the whole US Army at its peak was only 3 million men with somthing like half still in training.

You forget that this was before all the PC crap. You see a Maschinenenpistole
or a MG/08? Ship it home, no questions asked.