Author Topic: What is a Militia? (Read 20517 times)

Toad · « **Reply #660 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:34:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
So .... we're good with this? Good.

I was always good with it. You seemed to be the one with questions.

Arlo · « **Reply #661 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:37:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I was always good with it. You seemed to be the one with questions.

Not seeing where they were intended to be "not good" with it. I got your why and it matched mine. See why comparing notes isn't always bad?*ShruG* Some just look way too hard for a fight that just .... ain't. Lighten up, Francis.

Bingolong · « **Reply #662 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:37:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Bingolong,

I'm truly sorry you don't really study this stuff before you post. It would save a lot of electronic ink.

The point is Stevens manufactured it as a shotgun. The NFA merely classifies it as AOW. It's not illegal; it just requires registration/taxation.

You apparently still haven't figured out that owning an exact Miller-replica shotgun isn't illegal. It's merely a matter of registering it under the NFA and paying the transfer tax. The length of the barrel once under 18" is pretty inconsequential. You can own one of any length under 18" as long as it is registered under the NFA and the tax paid.

Study hard and good luck to you!

Look I know all about it and visited a few threads on it. I know what it is and how it is classified. and yes to answer you it's a shotgun when I went looking for it how do you think I found it, feel better? I was trying to find shotguns in use by the military or before 1939.

But then again so is a 22 38 or a 44 or whatever can fire bird shot.

As far as the Stevens you can buy one of those for as little as 300 bucks provided it was registered in/or by 1968 otherwise you could get a fine as I posted before. BATF Class 3 license required to purchase or subject to seizure made 1923-1934, it was also made in .22 and some others.

Toad · « **Reply #663 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:38:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo

Intent of 2nd: Arlo says the national forefathers weren't intending to imply divine right of any specific form of weaponry personally desired and that the term "militia" (which was carefully woven into the rationalization behind the amendment) had no rational meaning if it was all just about an individual's right to own an assault weapon. Nor does Arlo think the term "well-regulated" was accidently penned in when what they really meant was "gun and knife show supplied or on sale at K-mart."

You DO remind me of Nash. Absolutely.

If I read that hodgepodge correctly, you and I disagree on the 2nd.

Arlo · « **Reply #664 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:41:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
You DO remind me of Nash. Absolutely.

If I read that hodgepodge correctly, you and I disagree on the 2nd.

Mkay. *ShruG* I'm sure one (if you're not feeling up to it) or both of us (if you are) will survive this.

Toad · « **Reply #665 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:42:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bingolong
I was trying to find shotguns in use by the military or before 1939.

IIRC, you were trying to find shotguns in use by the military on or about 1939.

That's pretty ludicrous in and of itself.

Shotguns, with barrels varying from pistol length to duck hunting length were used in every conflict from the American Revolution to the current affair in Iraq. The idea that short barreled shotguns (including pistol length; google Lemat revolver) are NOT historic US military weapons is laughable.

Toad · « **Reply #666 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:43:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sure one (if you're not feeling up to it) or both of us (if you are) will survive this.

Well, I'm certain I will. G'luck to ya.

Arlo · « **Reply #667 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:44:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well, I'm certain I will. G'luck to ya.

No luck involved. I was practically born with superior coping skills. (relax Francis, I'm not singling you out in that statement. Maybe you have them too.)

Bingolong · « **Reply #668 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:50:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
IIRC, you were trying to find shotguns in use by the military on or about 1939.

That's pretty ludicrous in and of itself.

Shotguns, with barrels varying from pistol length to duck hunting length were used in every conflict from the American Revolution to the current affair in Iraq. The idea that short barreled shotguns (including pistol length; google Lemat revolver) are NOT historic US military weapons is laughable.

Arlo · « **Reply #669 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:50:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
IIRC, you were trying to find shotguns in use by the military on or about 1939.

That's pretty ludicrous in and of itself.

Shotguns, with barrels varying from pistol length to duck hunting length were used in every conflict from the American Revolution to the current affair in Iraq. The idea that short barreled shotguns (including pistol length; google Lemat revolver) are NOT historic US military weapons is laughable.

Trench clearing in WWI sticks out in my mind.

Bingolong · « **Reply #670 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:52:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Trench clearing in WWI sticks out in my mind.

yes it does I posted that very same back a few

and a trench gun has a 20" barrel

Arlo · « **Reply #671 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:55:24 PM »

This is a thread about guns, gorramit! Why can't we just all get along!

Toad · « **Reply #672 on:** January 02, 2008, 08:58:53 PM »

Bingolong, before you

me, please understand that when I posted

"The idea that short barreled shotguns (including pistol length; google Lemat revolver) are NOT historic US military weapons is laughable. "

that means I find the US V Miller SCOTUS decision an incorrect ruling that is so wrong in so many ways I can only laugh at its absurdity.

Arlo, the 1897 Trench guns had "legal" barrels of over 18". Most were 20" but some were 18's. I have an 1897 riot gun with an 18"; used by the Federal Reserve until about 1970 and then sold off as surplus for $10. My dad should've bought ten of them. Anyway, the WW1 trench guns would not have been covered by the NFA. I'm sure Bingolong will be quick to point that out.

The entire militia aspect of the 2nd is misunderstood by those who don't think the 2nd is an individual right. A little study into the writings of the Founders and into the actual history of the amendment should be enough to set the SC on a course to settle this once and for all as an individual right.

Arlo · « **Reply #673 on:** January 02, 2008, 09:01:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Arlo, the 1897 Trench guns had "legal" barrels of over 18". Most were 20" but some were 18's. I have an 1897 riot gun with an 18"; used by the Federal Reserve until about 1970 and then sold off as surplus for $10. My dad should've bought ten of them. Anyway, the WW1 trench guns would not have been covered by the NFA. I'm sure Bingolong will be quick to point that out.

Again. We're not at odds here. I didn't whip anything out and measure it to prove anything.

p.s. Yes. Your dad shoulda.

Toad · « **Reply #674 on:** January 02, 2008, 09:09:19 PM »

Just pointing out that the 1897 trench (or the riot version) is not an NFA firearm. Bingolong beat me to the post though; not suprising. He seems entranced with the NFA although it has nothing to do with the 2nd and is actually correctly seen as a part of the tax code.

The 1897's do sometimes exhibit a rather disconcerting trait of going off now and then without anything touching the trigger if you slam the action closed.

Pays to be very careful where you are pointing it when you work the action.