PDA

View Full Version : Hamblen Machine Gun Appeal Fails


hoffmang
12-30-2009, 1:19 PM
Everyone may or may not remember (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=218725) Richard Hamblen and his challenge to the NFA as a member of the TN Militia. Snowflakes in Hell just posted (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/12/30/hamblen-appeal-failed/) a repost from Say Uncle that Hamblen's appeal was denied. HT to Snowflakes for pointing to the Calguns thread.

Here is the actual 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0439p-06.pdf). Luckily it just reaffirms that machine guns aren't part of the 2A and nothing worse...

-Gene

wildhawker
12-30-2009, 1:25 PM
Luckily it just reaffirms that machine guns aren't part of the 2A and nothing worse...

-Gene

Thank God for small [and large] favors.

<insert remark on a Gorski/Hamblen joint venture here>

wildhawker
12-30-2009, 1:50 PM
Stop me if you've heard this one before.

A man walks into a bar and sits down at an empty stool next to a pretty girl. After a couple of shots he turns to her and asks, " Hey, cutie, how about taking it in the ***?"

hollabillz
12-30-2009, 1:56 PM
If machine guns don't constitutionally qualify as "arms", then no gun control statues apply to them, right? Sounds fair to me. ;)

hollabillz
12-30-2009, 1:57 PM
Stop me if you've heard this one before.

A man walks into a bar and sits down at an empty stool next to a pretty girl. After a couple of shots he turns to her and asks, " Hey, cutie, how about taking it in the ***?"

Depends... was the bar in California or Tennessee? :p

jasilva
12-30-2009, 1:59 PM
So will he appeal to the SC?

technique
12-30-2009, 2:00 PM
I love machine guns....a shame they are so expensive. I'm almost there though.

hollabillz
12-30-2009, 2:09 PM
I love machine guns....a shame they are so expensive. I'm almost there though.

I assume you're talking about pre-1986 MGs? If you're close to affording them, have you considered a Class 3 SOT? Might save you money or at least come out even while not restricting you to antiquated weapons. :chris:

aileron
12-30-2009, 3:08 PM
*sigh*

It sounded like he had a good case, he just has bad timing.

The secret to life is timing. I guess a lot of people (esp. Mr. Hamblen) just don't get that.

Mitch
12-30-2009, 3:14 PM
Luckily it just reaffirms that machine guns aren't part of the 2A and nothing worse...

Though if the arms commonly used by the military and police forces of the government aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, what the hell is?

Gray Peterson
12-30-2009, 3:16 PM
They left it open for a civil case challenging 922(o). This is a better ruling than I expected, but one that should not have been made in the first place.

I do not regret asking Mr. Hamblen what he was smoking when he filed this appeal. He still endangered the 2A rights to 20 million gun owners in his circuit court.

hollabillz
12-30-2009, 3:36 PM
Though if the arms commonly used by the military and police forces of the government aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, what the hell is?

Yep, logically it makes sense. But irrational fear is illogical by definition. :o

pat038536
01-25-2010, 2:50 PM
Here's the latest on Hamblen

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2807-rich-hamblen-challenges-the-supreme-court-to-uphold-the-second-amendment


Wow the search actually worked this time.. look.. see my impressed face :)

CCWFacts
01-25-2010, 3:10 PM
Thus, whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use.

At least they leave open the possibilities that the RKBA does allow possession of registered MGs. I don't think we'll get the NFA to go away, but I'm hopeful that we might force the gov't to start accepting $200 tax payments to register new ones.

dantodd
01-25-2010, 3:14 PM
At least they leave open the possibilities that the RKBA does allow possession of registered MGs. I don't think we'll get the NFA to go away, but I'm hopeful that we might force the gov't to start accepting $200 tax payments to register new ones.

Probably the other way around. It is more likely that a MG ban will pass constitutional muster than a tax on a constitutional freedom will.

For the tax to be upheld it would have to be determined that MGs are not a protected class of arms under 2A. If this is the case then they can be taxed and restricted from new manufacture. If MGs are protected then they cannot be specifically taxed and if they are protected it will likely be difficult for the prohibition on new MGs to continue.

Kharn
01-25-2010, 4:36 PM
*sigh*
It sounded like he had a good case, he just has bad timing.
The secret to life is timing. I guess a lot of people (esp. Mr. Hamblen) just don't get that.He had a horrible case.
He tried to claim that since he couldn't get M16s issued, that G3s, 1919s and FALs (?) were an acceptable substitute. He then went on forums to try to defend them as acceptable arms for a US military unit, despite them not being compatible with STANAG magazines or links, or not having been an issued arm of the US in 50 years.

If he had made M16s he might've had at least one leg to stand on. Oops, too bad he bought his parts kits from the back of CTD rather than spending a few bucks on AR15/M16 parts. It smelled like he got caught with his toys and needed a quick defense.

7x57
01-25-2010, 7:44 PM
Though if the arms commonly used by the military and police forces of the government aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, what the hell is?

Didn't your read your history books? The founders only intended to protect guns that don't scare justice Kennedy. :cool2:

7x57

truthseeker
01-25-2010, 7:49 PM
Stop me if you've heard this one before.

A man walks into a bar and sits down at an empty stool next to a pretty girl. After a couple of shots he turns to her and asks, " Hey, cutie, how about taking it in the ***?"

I believe the original quote was

"Attacking the NFA at this point in time is like asking a women you just met in a bar if she likes anal".

thegratenate
01-25-2010, 8:34 PM
It appears that she doesn't, but lets get a few drinks in her and ask again.

wildhawker
01-25-2010, 9:20 PM
I believe the original quote was

"Attacking the NFA at this point in time is like asking a women you just met in a bar if she likes anal".

Yours might be more accurate, but I try to keep the material fresh. ;)

hoffmang
01-25-2010, 10:21 PM
It appears that she doesn't, but lets get a few drinks in her and ask again.

She's only had her first Martini and Alan Gura has just ordered the second...

-Gene

Lone_Gunman
01-25-2010, 11:08 PM
She's only had her first Martini and Alan Gura has just ordered the second...

-Gene

In other words it's barely 10PM. Closing time's a long way away. :p

loather
01-26-2010, 11:31 AM
She's only had her first Martini and Alan Gura has just ordered the second...

Just don't go putting any roofies in her drink. We don't want her coming back with a vengeance later!

jdberger
01-26-2010, 11:38 AM
She's only had her first Martini and Alan Gura has just ordered the second...

-Gene

And as one female attorney recently remarked to me, "Wow, I didn't think he'd be so good looking. He looks like a young Richard Geere."

(try not to get your head stuck in the door, Counselor)

Didn't your read your history books? The founders only intended to protect guns that don't scare justice Kennedy. :cool2:

7x57

Justice Kennedy made it very clear during Heller's oral arguments that he's afraid of bears.

dantodd
01-26-2010, 11:49 AM
Justice Kennedy made it very clear during Heller's oral arguments that he's afraid of bears.

I'm pretty sure that a polar bear running from the melting ice caps can only be taken down with FA fire. So, unless we can stop global warming we clearly need readily available FA weapons.

CAL.BAR
01-26-2010, 12:34 PM
Though if the arms commonly used by the military and police forces of the government aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment, what the hell is?

What are you talking about? LOTS of things are commonly used by military and the police (grenades, rocket launchers tanks etc. for the military - and FA MG's, tear gas cannisters etc. for police) all of which are not suited for civilian purposes. (really) To make the argument that 2A allows "us" to have everything "commonly used by military and police" makes us look like a bunch of "right wing gun nuts" (to use the vernacular) We are better served by arguing for reasonable and responsible civilian gun ownership which should include semi-auto however configured rather than over reach for FA type weapons.

dantodd
01-26-2010, 1:06 PM
What are you talking about? LOTS of things are commonly used by military and the police (grenades, rocket launchers tanks etc. for the military - and FA MG's, tear gas cannisters etc. for police) all of which are not suited for civilian purposes. (really) To make the argument that 2A allows "us" to have everything "commonly used by military and police" makes us look like a bunch of "right wing gun nuts" (to use the vernacular) We are better served by arguing for reasonable and responsible civilian gun ownership which should include semi-auto however configured rather than over reach for FA type weapons.

Exactly which of the things you listed are problematic?

I don't know about tear gas cans but the rest of the items you listed I'm pretty sure are readily available outside CA. I'm also not certain about the ability to have functional main guns on privately owned tanks but I'm sure someone will chime in with that info. I'm also unsure of what you mean by "rocket launcher" but M203 grenade launchers are "relatively" common NFA items in free states.

Mitch
01-26-2010, 3:08 PM
What are you talking about? LOTS of things are commonly used by military and the police (grenades, rocket launchers tanks etc. for the military - and FA MG's, tear gas cannisters etc. for police) all of which are not suited for civilian purposes.

Well, if all we in the Militia are allowed to possess are semi-automatic rifles of caliber less than or equal to half an inch, good luck defeating a tyrannical government that has at its disposal all of the above.

The Framers lived in a time where there were no limits to the weaponry that could be legally possessed by the citizenry, and that is the context of the 2nd Amendment.

But perhaps, like so many Americans, you think it's really all about duck hunting . . .

B Strong
01-26-2010, 4:17 PM
Well, if all we in the Militia are allowed to possess are semi-automatic rifles of caliber less than or equal to half an inch, good luck defeating a tyrannical government that has at its disposal all of the above.

The Framers lived in a time where there were no limits to the weaponry that could be legally possessed by the citizenry, and that is the context of the 2nd Amendment.

But perhaps, like so many Americans, you think it's really all about duck hunting . . .

Mitch, there are far more veterans in the civilian population than there are on active, reserve and NG duty, and gun owners outnumber the military.

A new civil war wouldn't be so much about weapons technology as it would about the willingness of the political and military leadership to conduct war against the citizenry, and the willingness of the military itself to prosecute war against civilians.

Mitch
01-26-2010, 4:19 PM
A new civil war wouldn't be so much about weapons technology as it would about the willingness of the political and military leadership to conduct war against the citizenry, and the willingness of the military itself to prosecute war against civilians.

No military anywhere (including the US) has ever shown an appropriate amount of repugnance against doing just that.

cmaynes
01-26-2010, 4:27 PM
Exactly which of the things you listed are problematic?

I don't know about tear gas cans but the rest of the items you listed I'm pretty sure are readily available outside CA. I'm also not certain about the ability to have functional main guns on privately owned tanks but I'm sure someone will chime in with that info. I'm also unsure of what you mean by "rocket launcher" but M203 grenade launchers are "relatively" common NFA items in free states.

203's might be more easily owned, but the restrictions on the rounds they shoot are federal, as well as state governed. No one is shooting HE without ATF paperwork.

dantodd
01-26-2010, 5:36 PM
203's might be more easily owned, but the restrictions on the rounds they shoot are federal, as well as state governed. No one is shooting HE without ATF paperwork.

For the M203 I'm pretty sure it is just a simple tax stamp. As for the ammo I will leave it to those more knowledgeable than I to discuss. I would have thought it was just another tax stamp like a hand grenades but could surely be wrong.

CCWFacts
01-26-2010, 5:38 PM
The Framers lived in a time where there were no limits to the weaponry that could be legally possessed by the citizenry, and that is the context of the 2nd Amendment.

Indeed.

They lived in a time when battle ships were privately owned. Ships loaded up with cannons, capable of wrecking coastal cities, capable of destroying coastal military fortifications. I believe that cannons by that time were already launching explosive shells that packed quite a punch, and had a range of over a mile. Crew-served weapons designed to wreck cities and ships, and fully capable of getting into a fight with any government-owned ship. Privately owned.

Kharn
01-26-2010, 5:42 PM
For the M203 I'm pretty sure it is just a simple tax stamp. As for the ammo I will leave it to those more knowledgeable than I to discuss. I would have thought it was just another tax stamp like a hand grenades but could surely be wrong.$200 DD stamp required per round that contains more than 1/4oz of explosive, but other than that they're available for civilian ownership. Smoke, parachute flares, buckshot, etc are unregulated by the feds.

B Strong
01-26-2010, 5:47 PM
For the M203 I'm pretty sure it is just a simple tax stamp. As for the ammo I will leave it to those more knowledgeable than I to discuss. I would have thought it was just another tax stamp like a hand grenades but could surely be wrong.

Here's the problem with 40mm ammo in the HE, HEDP, and other fun flavors.

All of it, every bit, is military contract production and is not available for commercial sale - unless a type 10 SOT makes a run (hasn't happened yet) specifically for commercial sales, an individual will never aquire 40mm HE rounds legally.

Even if a type 10 SOT ever did make a run of HE rounds, each single round would be subject to the NFA and would require a tax stamp - $200.00 per round on top of whatever the price would be.

The only rounds available to licensed owners at this time are the various Target Practice rounds, a very cool multiple 22 mag. round made by Randy Shivak, and some various smoke (not WP) rounds.