What is a Militia?

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
bingie... actually, one of the judges asked the government toadie if a sawn off shotgun could have any martial use.. they lied and said no.  

But.. If you want to use miller... then I would say that machine guns and automatic weapons would pass the miller muster as being weapons that are quite useful.

lazs

 
Laz show me that he lied, prove it to me. I mean you must have something a letter, anything?
I assume its more explaznation!

useful for what military or militia? machine guns and such, yes.. it would and would likewise need fed registration! So your saying that m-16 should be a military or militia fire arm?

So what is a militia, cause I want my M-16 man! Matter fact I asked for back on page 2-3.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Bingolong
THAT is a Stevens .410

You are almost right. It is a Stevens No. 35 Off-Hand Shotgun. Google it up.

It is, beyond doubt, a shotgun. It is classified by the NFA as "any other weapon", a typically legalese term used as a catch-all for those guns that didn't immediately fit into the other descriptions in the National Firearms Act of 1934. But it is a shotgun nonetheless. Your first hint might have been that it shoots shotgun shells.

As for registration, yes, that's true. However, other hand-held shotguns like the Taurus Judge do not have to be registered.

A Stevens No. 35 Off-Hand Shotgun can be purchased today by anyone that can muster up the whopping $5 transfer tax the NFA requires.

BTW, you seem to be confused about legal and illegal weapons. For example your response to my question about the Miller weapon being a shotgun was:

"And how do you explain Miller's gun being considered a shotgun? Clearly it wasn't shoulder fired. The buttstock was cut down to basically a pistol grip."

It wasnt, it was illegal, it was "any other weapon". So is the stevens 410.

If the Miller shotgun was classified as "any other weapon" it wouldn't have been illegal at all. It would merely have required registration and a payment of the $5 tax.

But once again, you are simply wrong. The Miller gun would have been classified as a "Short Barreled Shotgun" under the NFA, not "any other weapon". As such, it could be legally owned if registered and the appropriate tax paid.

For example, you could buy this SBS right now:



From this site here  for$780 + transfer fee.

Once again, I am reminded of the amount of study and depth of knowledge you show with regards to this entire subject.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Toad
You are almost right. It is a Stevens No. 35 Off-Hand Shotgun. Google it up.

It is, beyond doubt, a shotgun. It is classified by the NFA as "any other weapon", a typically legalese term used as a catch-all for those guns that didn't immediately fit into the other descriptions in the National Firearms Act of 1934. But it is a shotgun nonetheless. Your first hint might have been that it shoots shotgun shells.

As for registration, yes, that's true. However, other hand-held shotguns like the Taurus Judge do not have to be registered.

A Stevens No. 35 Off-Hand Shotgun can be purchased today by anyone that can muster up the whopping $5 transfer tax the NFA requires.

BTW, you seem to be confused about legal and illegal weapons. For example your response to my question about the Miller weapon being a shotgun was:




If the Miller shotgun was classified as "any other weapon" it wouldn't have been illegal at all. It would merely have required registration and a payment of the $5 tax.

But once again, you are simply wrong. The Miller gun would have been classified as a "Short Barreled Shotgun" under the NFA, not "any other weapon". As such, it could be legally owned if registered and the appropriate tax paid.

For example, you could buy this SBS right now:



From this site here  for$780 + transfer fee.

Once again, I am reminded of the amount of study and depth of knowledge you show with regards to this entire subject.

in 1939 there was no "short barreled shot gun" definition

It shoots .410 brainiac I did google it before I posted it. It is classified as "any other weapon". and since your not going to post it after looking it up I will.
(e) Any other weapon.:The term "any other weapon" means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire.Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Do you know the size of the barrell in miller? it was under 18 inches. do you have more info than that? Like it was less than 12"? NO! and if it was it would be clasified a fire arm just like you little Judge.

You are really impressing me.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arlo
M79s are legal. Seems to be a trendy weapon of choice for survivalists as of late. But is ownership of 40mm grenades legal? There are plenty of optional types of rounds for that weapon:

Should they all be legal if the round's specific purpose cannot be defined as practical for defense? Guess that goes right back to the questions of militia and divine right to ownership of exotic weaponry.

The M79 and its explosive rounds are classified as "Destructive Devices" by the NFA. You can own them, $200 tax on each item, as in $200 for the M79 and $200 for each round classified as a DD. There are some rounds out there that may not be classed as DD though.

Should they be legal? They ARE legal. I see no reason why they should not be legal.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
[edited in] Secondly, IMO only a communist would debate that opinion.  

Just saw your edit. Heh. You wouldn't be the first one who resorted to calling me a commie when you got a little too excited about an exchange with me. Did you serve alongside me in the Cold War or were you "defending capitalism" by avoiding such?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
The M79 and its explosive rounds are classified as "Destructive Devices" by the NFA. You can own them, $200 tax on each item, as in $200 for the M79 and $200 for each round classified as a DD. There are some rounds out there that may not be classed as DD though.

Should they be legal? They ARE legal. I see no reason why they should not be legal.

That's why I phrased it to be a discussion, not a foregone conclusion, Toad. I didn't say they were illegal, I asked you your reasoned opinion so we could discuss the why.

What's the goal of terrorism? Should tools to help achieve that goal be readily available without regulation or a method to track? Should we worry? Should we not? Is it a divine right? WWONFD? (What would our national forefathers do?)

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Arlo
Just saw your edit. Heh.

was wondering when you would...  

You wouldn't be the first one who resorted to calling me a commie when you got a little too excited about an exchange with me.

then continue the exchange and give me an alternative...    what points in my statement do you deem "debatable opinion"?

Did you serve alongside me in the Cold War or were you "defending capitalism" by avoiding such?

Nope, I didn't enlist 'till '94, missed the cold war.  Got a ribbon for Iraq 1 though, even though I was never "over there"...

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
was wondering when you would...  
then continue the debate and give me an alternative...    

That cuts both ways. I've responded directly and straightforwardly so far. Where did I leave you hangin'?

Originally posted by bsdaddict

what points in my statement do you deem "debatable opinion"?

Anything not a written law or a definitively ruled on matter is opinion and up for debate. Hence practically every political thread on this forum. What points in your statement reflect anything that doesn't involve your opinion and not a court ruling or standing law without contest? Not that that's a bad thing (and you shouldn't jump to concluding you're under attack). I've my own and you shouldn't even presume mine always conflict with yours.

Originally posted by bsdaddict
Nope, I didn't enlist 'till '94, missed the cold war.  Got a ribbon for Iraq 1 though...  

Well good on yas. Desert Shield started six months after my time. Now go find a senior lifer who may have served during my time (whether you're still in uniform or not) and call him (or her) a commie and hope their sense of humor is as good as mine.

[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!

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
... 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.

What I get a kick out of is how many here don't realize I don't have a problem with this. I just don't share their perceptions about what they see as inevitable threats. Nor do they mine, in some instances.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Arlo
Where did I leave you hangin'?

"debatable opinion".

Anything not a written law or a definitively ruled on matter is opinion and up for debate. Hence practically every political thread on this forum. What points in your statement reflect anything that doesn't involve your opinion and not a court ruling or standing law without contest? Not that that's a bad thing (and you shouldn't jump to concluding you're under attack). I've my own and you shouldn't even presume mine always conflict with yours.

well, my statement is based on my understanding of two documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights.    I'm still hanging on what part of my statement (which is based on my opinion...) you consider up for debate.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arlo
What's the goal of terrorism? Should tools to help achieve that goal be readily available without regulation or a method to track? Should we worry? Should we not? Is it a divine right? WWONFD? (What would our national forefathers do?)

Note that an M-79 (or any other destructive device) is not readily available, not unregulated or not tracked. Thus the questions you pose are moot.

As a DD, anyone legally purchasing one would have to have his chief of local law enforcement sign off on a Federal Form 4 that the purchaser is not wanted locally and that the official knows of no law which will be broken if the purchaser is approved by the government. Then The BATFE will examine the paperwork for completeness, it will be assigned to an agent, who will have a nationwide FBI background check performed on the purchaser.

Highly unlikely then that a terrorist would procure an M79 legally. It would probably be far to easier to smuggle some in should terrorists need them.

So no, I don't worry about M79's.. The last big terrorists seemed to have little trouble getting some really huge, fast destructive devices to fly into buildings. That terrorist loophole still exists and is probably easier to exploit than gaining an M79 through legal channels.

Is there a divine right (hmm... who's the one getting all excited here?)? I think the rights enumerated in the BOR exist prior to and independent of the creation of the government, as did Jefferson.

WWONFD? I would think they would probably allow the M79 as it is typical of "arms" as perceived in Colonial times.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
"debatable opinion".
well, my statement is based on my understanding of two documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights.    I'm still hanging on what part of my statement (which is based on my opinion...) you consider up for debate.

Well hell. So are mine.

All opinions are up for debate. Yours. Mine. If they weren't I doubt there'd be need for a SCOTUS ruling.

So, if you wanna start over from scratch (I thought our opinions on the matter already stated, whether we comfortably stood on the same ground or not), I'll offer mine again, you offer yours again and we can agree, agree to disagree or you can look for a reason to accuse me of deceit and call me a commie while I take even less effort not taking you seriously.

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."

Purpose of SCOTUS rulings: Arlo believes, from his recollection, to determine the legitimacy of legislation as it relates to the constitution of the United States.

Purpose of amendments: Arlo believes, from his recollection, to update the constitution to continue to provide a legal framework for which the federal government can operate to serve the people of the United States

disclaimer: Arlo (tm) is rarely in the habit of using third person phraseology to refer to himself.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
Note that an M-79 (or any other destructive device) is not readily available, not unregulated or not tracked. Thus the questions you pose are moot.

As a DD, anyone legally purchasing one would have to have his chief of local law enforcement sign off on a Federal Form 4 that the purchaser is not wanted locally and that the official knows of no law which will be broken if the purchaser is approved by the government. Then The BATFE will examine the paperwork for completeness, it will be assigned to an agent, who will have a nationwide FBI background check performed on the purchaser.

Highly unlikely then that a terrorist would procure an M79 legally. It would probably be far to easier to smuggle some in should terrorists need them.

So no, I don't worry about M79's.. The last big terrorists seemed to have little trouble getting some really huge, fast destructive devices to fly into buildings. That terrorist loophole still exists and is probably easier to exploit than gaining an M79 through legal channels.

Is there a divine right (hmm... who's the one getting all excited here?)? I think the rights enumerated in the BOR exist prior to and independent of the creation of the government, as did Jefferson.

WWONFD? I would think they would probably allow the M79 as it is typical of "arms" as perceived in Colonial times.

So .... we're good with this? Good.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Bingolong
in 1939 there was no "short barreled shot gun" definition
 

Which doesn't matter in the least.

Read the SC opinion.

a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.

They were guilty of not registering the gun, not paying the tax and not having the stamp.

That's it. That's all.

If you care to do the research you will find that Sections 1132D and 1132C don't mention the type of gun per se at all. They deal with paying the tax and registering the gun.

AOW classification doesn't matter in Miller.