Bumpstock ruling - from the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals!

Any bit of sanity coming out of the courts these days, military or otherwise would seem to be a good thing.

Now, the article also said,
“In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA], banning possession of machine guns not owned before 1986,” the judges wrote. “FOPA also banned any parts, to include frames and receivers, which were part of a machine gun or were designed for converting a weapon into a machine gun.”
Click to expand...

Haven't there been subsequent "rulings" that have declared that those weapons most protected by the 2nd are the ones with a military purpose? If that is the case, this 1986 legislation is in violation and needs to be struck down.
 
Seems like a great way to further test some arguments, and they went in our favor. So we have a military court and State Supreme Court both ruling in favor of the 2A.

That said, on the surface it seems incredibly stupid that a soldier is prohibited from possessing a MG yet we give them MG’s.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
Haven't there been subsequent "rulings" that have declared that those weapons most protected by the 2nd are the ones with a military purpose? If that is the case, this 1986 legislation is in violation and needs to be struck down.
Click to expand...
Have there? I thought that was just US v Miller back in 1939
the more recent cases say the 2A extends to weapons not imagined by the founding fathers, and the heller case says it covers non-military guns in sporting use and for lawful purposes
 
DrScaryGuy said:
Have there? I thought that was just US v Miller back in 1939
the more recent cases say the 2A extends to weapons not imagined by the founding fathers, and the heller case says it covers non-military guns in sporting use and for lawful purposes
Click to expand...
Well, hell, the ruling of 1986 should be vacated by default them.
 
noway2 said:
Well, hell, the ruling of 1986 should be vacated by default them.
Click to expand...
and if we, by 2A and Scotus, are guaranteed the right to all bearable arms that the military uses... all lesser things, like semi-auto rifles should be allowed as well.
But I can see govt trying to say "okay, you get machine guns, but now all those non-military guns are illegal."
 
DrScaryGuy said:
and if we, by 2A and Scotus, are guaranteed the right to all bearable arms that the military uses... all lesser things, like semi-auto rifles should be allowed as well.
But I can see govt trying to say "okay, you get machine guns, but now all those non-military guns are illegal."
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of any non military guns, are you? ;)

Even the “sawed off” shotgun served a military purpose at one time. Just about every platform constructed served or could a military purpose.
 
noway2 said:
I’m not aware of any non military guns, are you? ;)

Even the “sawed off” shotgun served a military purpose at one time. Just about every platform constructed served or could a military purpose.
Click to expand...
not according to USA v Miller...
 
DrScaryGuy said:
not according to USA v Miller...
Click to expand...
That’s where I read that Miller got it wrong, that short barrel shot guns were very much in military use. It just so happens that the defense never appeared for the trial. It’s really a warped ruling.
 
So, this means I can visit the landfill and try to find my bump stock?
 
DrScaryGuy said:
not according to USA v Miller...
Click to expand...

US v Miller said nobody claimed to the court that short-barrelled shotguns had military uses, therefore the court could not officially notice that short-barrelled shotguns had such uses.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Click to expand...

Miller had NO representation before the Supreme Court; his lawyer informed the court he was not getting paid, therefore he did not submit a brief on behalf of Miller or appear for oral arguments.

The Peculiar Story of United States v Miller (attached below) tells how the Miller case was a setup for the court to rule that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional.
 

Attachments

  • The Peculiar Story of United States v Miller.pdf
    220.1 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
DrScaryGuy said:
and if we, by 2A and Scotus, are guaranteed the right to all bearable arms that the military uses... all lesser things, like semi-auto rifles should be allowed as well.
But I can see govt trying to say "okay, you get machine guns, but now all those non-military guns are illegal."
Click to expand...
Recall that Bernie said he wants to ban every firearm from civilian use that was not primarily designed for hunting. He meant all hand guns and all rifles or shotguns that can hold more than 3 rounds.
 
The 1934 and 1986 laws will stand for perpetuity, not because they are constitutional, but because those who own registered FA firearms won't let the legislation be overturned. It would mean a massive loss of value in their investments.
 
ERE99 said:
The 1934 and 1986 laws will stand for perpetuity, not because they are constitutional, but because those who own registered FA firearms won't let the legislation be overturned. It would mean a massive loss of value in their investments.
Click to expand...
they say gun owners are our own worst enemies
 
So says US Military Court!

www.tacticalshit.com

US Military Courts Rules Bump Stocks Are Not Machine Guns - Tactical Sh*t

According to Firearm Chronicles The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns in the United States v. Ali Alkazahg. Marine Corp Private Ali Akazahg was convicted of possessing two machine guns, in violation of Articles 83, 107, and...
www.tacticalshit.com

DS
 
I still to this freggin day..........don't.see.the big deal with a bump.stock. I am more of a bench rest/bolt action guy myself.......but if you want to half-way control the muzzle, wear out a barrel and spend some coin on ammo.......that should be your freedom to do such.

I dont think i could hold a bump stock rifle steady enough to hit a van at 50 yards!
 
What does this have to do with civilian law?

Answer: Absolutely nothing.

There is not one thing about this ruling in a military court that applies to us in the civilian world.

NOTHING.

In fact, it doesn't even apply to the other branches.
 
Merged original thread and new thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom