Kansas judge rules ban on machine guns unconstitutional
"The court finds that the Second Amendment applies to the weapons charged because they are 'bearable arms' within the original meaning of the amendment."

https://thepostmillennial.com/...l?utm_campaign=64516

This message has been edited. Last edited by: downtownv, August 29, 2024 10:25 AM

I saw this a couple days ago and wondered if it could really be true.

quote:

We need more like him

Sir, your subject line leaves a lot to be desired.

If so this could get interesting.

I didn't read the opinion, but "bearing arms" has nothing to do with being able to lift them -- It means using them to kill off the enemy.

The left calls it reckless. They are losing their little statist minds.

The world is full of discouraging things but our recent, and coming, legal victories keep me optimistic.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
If so this could get interesting.

Popping up a lot. The dems are weighing in to voice their horror.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

We need more like him

Sir, your subject line leaves a lot to be desired.

FIFY

I fired a Glock 18 once. It was fun. It was expensive fun.

I don't know if I would personally own a machine gun. That being said, I shall not infringe on anyone's God given right to own one.

quote:

Prosecutors had charged Morgan with violations of 18 United States Code § 922(o) – which says, “it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.”

Wait, what? I'm calling BS on this reporting.

Machine guns are legal in my state. Expensive and lots of paperwork but legal.

A good friend has one in fact. He's not an LEO or anything like that. Just a regular guy who went through the paperwork and got a machine gun that met the manufacturing/import date criteria etc.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Prosecutors had charged Morgan with violations of 18 United States Code § 922(o) – which says, “it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun.”

Wait, what? I'm calling BS on this reporting.

Machine guns are legal in my state. Expensive and lots of paperwork but legal.

A good friend has one in fact. He's not an LEO or anything like that. Just a regular guy who went through the paperwork and got a machine gun that met the manufacturing/import date criteria etc.

Legal in Maryland, too. The real question is whether the NFA is an unconstitutional infringement which, of course, it is.

-Rob

^^^^

and thats where I was going

the door has been opened a little bit

Mean while in ill annoys,
The A.R's are still all locked up in the gun stores.

Machine gun owner here. If you can be forced to pay a tax to exercise a Const. right (you can't), HTF is the NFA still in force?

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:

Legal in Maryland, too. The real question is whether the NFA is an unconstitutional infringement which, of course, it is.

-Rob

From your lips to God’s ears. Remove that bullshit and we can buy cans without a stamp, and more importantly, they’d be a lot fucking cheaper.

If it wasn't CRAZY expense to turn my HK SP5k into an MP5k, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I doubt this will go anywhere. They had to lie about the '94 ban being about machine guns, and now this one will be "No, we actually want to relax regs on machine guns so more people can have them." So much of the public is so ignorant on the topic, I just don't see this ever getting anywhere.

Well it's been 85 years since Miller, so it's about time there was progress getting rid of the NFA.