This is a discussion on Should Full Auto's Be Legal? within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by TerriLi I think the major issue here is, where do we draw the line on 2A? The line has been drawn, and ...
Wait a minute, TerriLi, I thought you didn't know what overkill means? : )
I think it would make sense, politically, to push for elimination of the National Firearms Act. That would put the "assault guns ban" people on the defensive, trying merely to retain the territory they've already gained. It is my personal opinion that the NFA is unconstitutional anyway. When that issue went to the Supremes, they ruled that it was ok because it's only a tax/revenue provision, and the U.S. has the powers "necessary" to support those powers that the U.S. does have.
My view is that traditional canons of construction require that any amendment will control any provision to the contrary in the document amended. And because the Second Amendment is an amendment, it takes precedence over everything in the original version. Including the "necessary and proper" clause. And since the word is not "abolish", but "infringe", Congress cannot enact any restrictions on gun ownership or possession in any way. And any attempt to do so is void as an "ultra vires" act, i.e., beyond and outside of the scope of their power. So, as to the U.S., a person ought to be able to have tactical nukes if he wants to.
But, since the Second never applied to the states (and still doesn't despite recent dicta by the Ninth Circuit), each state has the power to govern itself with respect to such matters. If Maryland, for example, wants to be a pro-crime state by restricting one's ability to defend himself and his family, that's their business. Those who don't like the way Maryland does things can move out, or vote for change, or run for office.
So I'm in favor of (1) a constitutional amendment making treaty obligations subordinate to the Constitution; and (2) abolition of the NFA.
Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com
Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
It would be fun to shoot but that's a lot of extra slugs flying around. I would vote no.
If it's not legal already in your state, then no. But I don't advocate loosing rights. First these go then our civil ones go. Its a bad chain.
Moreover, although the RKBA is neither created by nor dependent on the 2nd Amendment, it is unequivocal that the framers intent included that the people be sufficiently well-armed to defend the state and to throw off tyranny when the need arose. For that to be a practical reality, the protection of the 2A cannot logically be read to mean anything else than that individual citizens' RKBA--including military-grade arms--is protected.
I'll add another thought:
Beyond spray and pray defensive use and beyond what it MIGHT do to the crime rate...
Machine guns are just fun. That is IT => Fun and who doesn't have a "Fun gun" that they take out and have fun with? I have many and I would love for the 1986 laws to be repealed so that new and imported machine guns could once again be had for the citizen.
I am tired of the enormous prices for machine guns today because they are so few and the demand keeps going up. Flemming sears cost more than gold. A good MP5 goes for around $9000 whereas new MP5s for the local sherrif cost $1500. I'd love to see newer guns enter the legal machine gun market.
I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.
How I would love to own an H&K G36C or MP5 submachine gun!
If it were up to me, full auto firearms would be handled like handguns (21 years of age and able to pass the quick background check through NICS).
For now the only way I'll be able to experience full auto is airsoft guns, which is cool, because today's ammo prices would still have me shooting on semi-auto.
USMC rule # 23 of gunfighting: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
I am the God fearing, gun toting, flag waving conservative you were warned about!
My simple answer to the question is: "Yes". Any citizen should be able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. I don't think the 2nd Ammendment differentiates between modes of fire any more than it does caliber.
That being said, I don't think most people would gain any advantage from utilizing a full auto weapon for self-defense.
Just my opinion,
"Skin that smokewagon!".