Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

Dude seriously. I gave you a link to the laws themselves. hit CTRL F and type in destructive devices. You can own such. Hand grenades are a type of destructive device. I'm sorry you were wrong and can't take it dude.

 

I already did: US V MILLER which rules the 2a covers ordinary military equipment in common usage. Such as machine guns, and hand grenades in this era. Show me a case which overturns US v Miller.

 

Sorry, but you can't own hand grenades. You can own certain types of destructive devices, but not the common frag grenade carries by military personnel.

 

Nowhere in miller are machine gun, grenade or device bans ruled unconstitutional.

It's why you can't own them.

 

Well I don't know what to tell you, I've cited you the law and everything. Keep your blinders on if you must dear

 

Sigh... ordinary military equipment in common usage is a sliding scale that changes over time. The type in common usage today are automatic rifles and grenades. Show me a case overturning US v Miller. Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

Well, it's really quite simple.

Go down to your local gun store, and tell them you'd like to purchase a machine gun made in 1991 and a 6 pack of frag grenades, and tell us what you were able to purchase.

 

I don't need to. The bans are constitutional, until ruled unconstitutional. It's why you can't own an M4 made in 2006.

 

As stated those regulations and laws are unconstitutional as they violate US v Miller. You're not so good at keeping up

 

That's not how it works. They're always unconstitutional, they simply remain in effect until ruled upon. 5 out of 9 robes ruling on something doesn't magically change the text. It either is or it isn't constitutional when written. In this case we have a case to go by, Us v Miller, which clearly lays out the rule, ordinary military equipment, which machine guns and grenades clearly are, ergo any restriction is unconstitutional. Show me a case overruling US v Miller

 

Here... let me save you some time: You're going to say "nuh uhhhhhhhh" and I"m going to say "show me an overruling of us v miller". Just repeat that to yourself, ok Champ?

 

Awesome. Then let us know what you were able to buy. Just explain to the guys at the counter as they are laughing at you that you think miller ruled machine gun bans unconstitutional and that you'd like for them to sell you one made in 1989.

I think I'll stay down here in reality though.

 

Of course it is. A law is constitutional, until ruled otherwise.

Again, basic stuff here.

 

No, I'll just keep reminding you that you can't own machine guns made after 1986, and it's perfectly constitutional, because no court has ever ruled the bans unconstitutional.

 

So from here on in going to say see above. Show me a case that voids us v Miller. You can't, because one does not exist.

 

1. Machine guns aren't banned. They are just not available to the public if they were manufactured after June of 1986.

2. Grenades are technically legal as an DD(explosive). You just won't be able to find anyone selling them to the public.

 

So, when there's a law that states that the Constitution is hereby null and voice, you're going to accept it until the courts rule on it?

Free speech? Search and Seizure? Double Jeopardy? You're okay with laws violating those concepts until the courts get around to commenting on it?

Sorry, I'm capable of thinking for myself. If a law clearly violates the intent as stated by those who founded this country, I don't need a guy in a black robe to tell me whether it's constitutional or not.

 

rather than being a statist apologist, tell us why that law should be seen as proper and constitutional. Claiming "because it hasn't been struck down yet" is a cop out

 

Let me know how hard the guys at the gun store laugh at you when you ask to buy an M4 made in 1993.

 

It isn't a cop out, it's a legal reality. I don't agree with a lot of the arbitrary bans. But I'm not going to pretend reality doesn't exist, and claim those laws are actually unconstitutional, and I'm able to buy certain things. Like @Reality is doing.

 

this is a board to debate things. go ahead and tell us why the idiotic Hughes Amendment is properly constitutional

 

It's constitutional, because it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. I would have no issue if you guys would simply say "I think this should be unconstitutional".

 

you miss the point. I am an expert on federal gun control laws and supreme court case law. I don't need amateurs telling me what the law currently is. I want to hear someone actually try to defend that idiocy of the Hughes Amendment which was passed purely out of spite by Democrats upset that a pro gun bill was going to pass and through the shenanigans of Rangel, Hughes and Mitchell, an improper amendment was ruled to have passed even though video analysis of the voice vote shows it failed.

so tell me why is the law proper. don't hide behind the fact it hasn't been struck down

if you are unwilling to make an argument, then you are really wasting our time since we all know what the Hughes Amendment does

 

and I have no interest in that debate. I'm not trying to nor do I have any need to defend the amendment. I'm simply pointing out you guys are factually incorrect when you state it is unconstitutional.

 

Sorry, no. It is intellectual cowardice to say that something is presumably constitutional just because the courts haven't yet ruled it isn't.

Facts, logic, common sense; all are factors in people having the ability to judge for themselves the validity and constitutionality of laws. It is up to them to make the choice of whether to comply or not, based upon their understanding of the Constitution and political liberty. Sometimes, there are laws proposed and enacted that people recognize violate their rights. You can accept such laws in hopes that the courts will ultimately overturn it, or you can openly defy the law. Civil Disobedience is one of the cornerstones of effective resistance to such laws. If you wait for the courts to rule you will be waiting a very, very long time and the longer it goes the more entrenched the precedent is set. When the people reject a law at the outset, it forces the courts to examine the issue with greater expedience.