Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [azsecularhumanists] good news for laro??? - 9th circuit rules some machine guns are legal

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
    Probably this is not particularly good news for Laro, since he didn t make any of his firearms and he admits they have all moved in interstate commerce and
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 15, 2003
      Probably this is not particularly good news for Laro, since he didn't make
      any of his firearms and he admits they have all moved in interstate
      commerce and therefore are under the jurisdiction of federal laws. The
      weapon in question, the AR-15, has not been modified by Laro. The feds
      are claiming that it can be readilly modified to fire multi-round bursts
      and therefore would theoretically make all of the thousands of citizens
      who purchased them at reputable gun shops criminals.

      It is generally good news for all Americans that the courts are taking
      the limitations of the notorious interstate commerce clause in the
      Constitution seriously. In 1995 the United States Supreme Court overturned
      the federal gun free school zone law (which banned the carrying or
      transporting of firearms within 1000 feet of any school, something virtually
      impossible to avoid in an urban area) on the grounds that Congress had
      no constitutional power to pass such a law. In 1997 Congress passed again
      virtually the exact same law, except that it only made carrying a firearm
      within 1000 feet of a school a crime if it "affected interstate commerce",
      and that would be very difficult for prosecutors to prove.

      It is noteworthy that by this restriction, many of the federal gun
      laws are effectively null and void if firearms are manufactured in
      the same state as the owner, and I do believe there is an armory in
      Prescott, where Arizonans wishing to avoid federal disqualifications
      might lawfully purchase firearms, provided they NEVER take them across
      state lines and observe all Arizona laws.

      >Ninth Circuit rules on certain of the counts against Arizona resident
      >Bob Stewart -- Kozinski says the feds have no jurisdiction if the
      >MG's he owns are homemade. Commerce clause takes another well-
      >deserved hit. (So does Stewart, because unfortunately he was still
      >an ex-felon in possession.)
      >
      >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
      >
      >"We reverse Stewart's conviction for machinegun possession under
      >section 922(o) as an unlawful extension of Congress's commerce
      >power..."
      >
      >--
      >Tavares@... | http://alum.mit.edu/www/tavares | RKBA!
      >
      >
      >We lost a number of voters [due to gun control] who on almost every
      >other issue realized they'd be better off with Al Gore... They were
      >anxious... about what would happen if Al was elected. This one
      >matters a lot to people who otherwise want to vote for us.
      >--SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT), 2000 VP CANDIDATE

      Well, well, for once I find myself agreeing with Jew-boy (er, Lieberman)!
      The Democrats have long proposed the Faustian bargain for American workers--
      more economic goodies in return for restricting or surrendering the right
      to keep and bear arms. The question is, what is Jew-boy willing to do
      about it?

      --Kevin
    • mike ross
      ... thats why i put the ???. it MIGHT be good news assuming that readilly modified could have something to do with readilly modifying the gun at home to
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 15, 2003
        >The feds are claiming that it can be readilly
        >modified to fire multi-round bursts and therefore
        >would theoretically make all of the thousands
        >of citizens who purchased them at reputable gun
        >shops criminals.

        thats why i put the ???. it MIGHT be good news
        assuming that "readilly modified" could have
        something to do with "readilly modifying the
        gun at home" to make it a machine gun.

        but i have to agree with you and in this
        case the 2nd amendment should override
        everything. the 2nd says the goverment
        cant pass laws infringing on the peoples
        right to bear arms. and in this case
        the goverment is clearly infringing
        on the peoples right to own machine guns
        and in the process flushing the 2nd amendment
        down the toilet.

        the 2nd amendment was ment to allow the
        people to have arms to overthrow the
        goverment if it gets out of hand, just
        like it did when the people overthrew
        the british.

        and you certainly cant over throw
        the goverment in this modern world
        if you can have machine guns and
        other modern weapons the goverment
        has.

        i didnt repost it on this list but
        several of the gunnies in azrkba@...
        said that under arizona law machine guns are
        illegal. so even if owning a home made machine
        gun is legal within federal law its illegal
        under arizona law.

        mike


        ---- Begin Original Message ----

        From: thekoba@...
        Sent: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:10:21 -0700 (MST)
        To: azsecularhumanists@yahoogroups.com
        CC: nebukhadhnasar@..., llnicol@...,
        alloush44@...,cbpeek@..., Dpski795@...
        Subject: Re: [azsecularhumanists] good news for laro??? - 9th circuit
        rules some machine guns are legal




        Probably this is not particularly good news for Laro, since he didn't
        make
        any of his firearms and he admits they have all moved in interstate
        commerce and therefore are under the jurisdiction of federal
        laws.  The
        weapon in question, the AR-15, has not been modified by Laro.  The
        feds
        are claiming that it can be readilly modified to fire multi-round
        bursts
        and therefore would theoretically make all of the thousands of
        citizens
        who purchased them at reputable gun shops criminals.

        It is generally good news for all Americans that the courts are taking
        the limitations of the notorious interstate commerce clause in the
        Constitution seriously.  In 1995 the United States Supreme Court
        overturned
        the federal gun free school zone law (which banned the carrying or
        transporting of firearms within 1000 feet of any school, something
        virtually
        impossible to avoid in an urban area) on the grounds that Congress had
        no constitutional power to pass such a law.  In 1997 Congress passed
        again
        virtually the exact same law, except that it only made carrying a
        firearm
        within 1000 feet of a school a crime if it "affected interstate
        commerce",
        and that would be very difficult for prosecutors to prove.

        It is noteworthy that by this restriction, many of the federal gun
        laws are effectively null and void if firearms are manufactured in
        the same state as the owner, and I do believe there is an armory in
        Prescott, where Arizonans wishing to avoid federal disqualifications
        might lawfully purchase firearms, provided they NEVER take them across
        state lines and observe all Arizona laws.

        >Ninth Circuit rules on certain of the counts against Arizona
        resident
        >Bob Stewart -- Kozinski says the feds have no jurisdiction if the
        >MG's he owns are homemade.  Commerce clause takes another well-
        >deserved hit.  (So does Stewart, because unfortunately he was still
        >an ex-felon in possession.)
        >
        >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
        >
        >"We reverse Stewart's conviction for machinegun possession under
        >section 922(o) as an unlawful extension of Congress's commerce
        >power..."
        >
        >--
        >Tavares@...  |  http://alum.mit.edu/www/tavares   |  RKBA!
        >
        >
        >We lost a number of voters [due to gun control] who on almost every
        >other issue realized they'd be better off with Al Gore... They were
        >anxious... about what would happen if Al was elected. This one
        >matters a lot to people who otherwise want to vote for us.
        >--SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT), 2000 VP CANDIDATE

        Well, well, for once I find myself agreeing with Jew-boy (er,
        Lieberman)!
        The Democrats have long proposed the Faustian bargain for American
        workers--
        more economic goodies in return for restricting or surrendering the
        right
        to keep and bear arms.  The question is, what is Jew-boy willing to do
        about it?

        --Kevin

        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-
        ->
        Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
        Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
        Canada.
        http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
        http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/VkWolB/TM
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        ~->

        Community email addresses:
         Post message: azsecularhumanists@onelist.com
         Subscribe:    azsecularhumanists-subscribe@onelist.com
         Unsubscribe:  azsecularhumanists-unsubscribe@onelist.com
         List owner:   azsecularhumanists-owner@onelist.com

        Shortcut URL to this page:
         http://www.onelist.com/community/azsecularhumanists

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




        ---- End Original Message ----




        When the government fears the people,
        that is LIBERTY. When people fear the
        government, that is TYRANNY.

        Thomas Jefferson
        Premium Accounts for Legal Professionals
        http://1stcounsel.com/
      • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
        ... The statute reads can be readilly modified , so whether or not it has, in fact, been modified is not relevant. I don t believe Laro has done anything to
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 15, 2003
          >
          >>The feds are claiming that it can be readilly
          >>modified to fire multi-round bursts and therefore
          >>would theoretically make all of the thousands
          >>of citizens who purchased them at reputable gun
          >>shops criminals.
          >
          >thats why i put the ???. it MIGHT be good news
          >assuming that "readilly modified" could have
          >something to do with "readilly modifying the
          >gun at home" to make it a machine gun.

          The statute reads "can be readilly modified",
          so whether or not it has, in fact, been modified
          is not relevant. I don't believe Laro has done
          anything to modify his AR-15.

          >but i have to agree with you and in this
          >case the 2nd amendment should override
          >everything. the 2nd says the goverment
          >cant pass laws infringing on the peoples
          >right to bear arms. and in this case
          >the goverment is clearly infringing
          >on the peoples right to own machine guns
          >and in the process flushing the 2nd amendment
          >down the toilet.
          >
          >the 2nd amendment was ment to allow the
          >people to have arms to overthrow the
          >goverment if it gets out of hand, just
          >like it did when the people overthrew
          >the british.
          >
          >and you certainly cant over throw
          >the goverment in this modern world
          >if you can have machine guns and
          >other modern weapons the goverment
          >has.
          >
          >i didnt repost it on this list but
          >several of the gunnies in azrkba@...
          >said that under arizona law machine guns are
          >illegal. so even if owning a home made machine
          >gun is legal within federal law its illegal
          >under arizona law.
          >
          >mike

          You are correct to point out that since the
          Bill of Rights was passed after the original
          Constitution (which contained the interstate
          commerce clause), the Second Amendment would
          override any right the federal government has to
          regulate interstate commerce if, in so doing,
          the right of the people to keep and bear arms
          was infringed. The United States Supreme
          Court, and many other courts, have for all
          practical purposes "interpreted" the Second
          Amendment out of existence, by misconstruing
          the "well regulated militia" clause to mean
          that only those who are in the militia may
          bear arms and then only in the course of their
          duties and claiming that this is a collective
          right rather than an individual right. The
          Arizona Constitution is more specific, Article
          II, Section 26, granting the individual right
          to bear arms in defense of self or state.

          It's true that state law also bans NFA weapons.
          I'm not sure, however, if state law copies
          federal law in who is or is not a prohibited
          possessor, particularly in such categories as
          those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence
          or those under orders of protection. I will have
          to look that up. If there is a difference, some
          people who are federal prohibited possessors may
          lawfully own firearms that have never moved in
          interstate commerce.

          Yours,

          Kevin
        • mike ross
          this is the arizona law that somebody on the azrkba@asu.edu list server cited saying that even if home made machine guns are legal per federal law that they
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 17, 2003
            this is the arizona law that somebody on
            the azrkba@... list server cited saying
            that even if home made machine guns are
            legal per federal law that they are illegal
            under arizona law.

            thats assuming that this law is constitional
            which i doubt if it is because it seems to
            override the 2nd amendment and infringes
            on the right of the people to bear arms.
            i suspect its also unconstitional under
            the arizona constitution.

            the very last paragraph of the law then
            says any of this krap is legal if its
            regisered with the feds per federal law

            B. The items set forth in subsection A,
            paragraph 7, subdivisions (a), (b), (c)
            and (d) of this section do not include
            any firearms or devices that are registered
            in the national firearms registry and
            transfer records of the United States
            treasury department or any firearm that
            has been classified as a curio or relic
            by the United States treasury department.

            the full law follows


            mike

            13-3101. Definitions

            A. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

            1. "Deadly weapon" means anything that is designed for lethal use.
            The term includes a firearm.

            2. "Deface" means to remove, alter or destroy the manufacturer's
            serial number.

            3. "Explosive" means any dynamite, nitroglycerine, black powder or
            other similar explosive material including plastic explosives.
            Explosive does not include ammunition or ammunition components such
            as primers, percussion caps, smokeless powder, black powder and black
            powder substitutes used for hand loading purposes.

            4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver,
            rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will or is designed to or that
            may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
            explosive. Firearm does not include a firearm in permanently
            inoperable condition.

            5. "Occupied structure" means any building, object, vehicle,
            watercraft, aircraft or place with sides and a floor that is
            separately securable from any other structure attached to it, that is
            used for lodging, business, transportation, recreation or storage and
            in which one or more human beings either is or is likely to be
            present or so near as to be in equivalent danger at the time the
            discharge of a firearm occurs. Occupied structure includes any
            dwelling house, whether occupied, unoccupied or vacant.

            6. "Prohibited possessor" means any person:

            (a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others
            pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose court ordered
            treatment has not been terminated by court order.

            (b) Who has been convicted within or without this state of a felony
            or who has been adjudicated delinquent and whose civil right to
            possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored.

            (c) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of imprisonment
            in any correctional or detention facility.

            (d) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of probation
            pursuant to a conviction for a domestic violence offense as defined
            in section 13-3601 or a felony offense, parole, community
            supervision, work furlough, home arrest or release on any other basis
            or who is serving a term of probation or parole pursuant to the
            interstate compact under title 31, chapter 3, article 4.

            7. "Prohibited weapon" means, but does not include fireworks
            imported, distributed or used in compliance with state laws or local
            ordinances, any propellant, propellant actuated devices or propellant
            actuated industrial tools that are manufactured, imported or
            distributed for their intended purposes or a device that is
            commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of illumination,
            including any of the following:

            (a) Explosive, incendiary or poison gas:

            (i) Bomb.

            (ii) Grenade.

            (iii) Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces.

            (iv) Mine.

            (b) Device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of
            a firearm.

            (c) Firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot
            automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the
            trigger.

            (d) Rifle with a barrel length of less than sixteen inches, or
            shotgun with a barrel length of less than eighteen inches, or any
            firearm that is made from a rifle or shotgun and that, as modified,
            has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

            (e) Instrument, including a nunchaku, that consists of two or more
            sticks, clubs, bars or rods to be used as handles, connected by a
            rope, cord, wire or chain, in the design of a weapon used in
            connection with the practice of a system of self-defense.

            (f) Breakable container that contains a flammable liquid with a flash
            point of one hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit or less and that has a
            wick or similar device capable of being ignited.

            (g) Chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials,
            including dry ice, that are placed in a sealed or unsealed container
            for the purpose of generating a gas to cause a mechanical failure,
            rupture or bursting of the container.

            (h) Combination of parts or materials that is designed and intended
            for use in making or converting a device into an item set forth in
            subdivision (a) or (f) of this paragraph.

            B. The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 7, subdivisions
            (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section do not include any firearms or
            devices that are registered in the national firearms registry and
            transfer records of the United States treasury department or any
            firearm that has been classified as a curio or relic by the United
            States treasury department.



            When the government fears the people,
            that is LIBERTY. When people fear the
            government, that is TYRANNY.

            Thomas Jefferson
            Premium Accounts for Legal Professionals
            http://1stcounsel.com/
          • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
            ... Dear Mike, There are definitely some differences between the state and federal definitions of prohibited possessor. The federal law is stricter here,
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 17, 2003
              >
              >this is the arizona law that somebody on
              >the azrkba@... list server cited saying
              >that even if home made machine guns are
              >legal per federal law that they are illegal
              >under arizona law.
              >
              >thats assuming that this law is constitional
              >which i doubt if it is because it seems to
              >override the 2nd amendment and infringes
              >on the right of the people to bear arms.
              >i suspect its also unconstitional under
              >the arizona constitution.
              >
              >the very last paragraph of the law then
              >says any of this krap is legal if its
              >regisered with the feds per federal law
              >
              > B. The items set forth in subsection A,
              > paragraph 7, subdivisions (a), (b), (c)
              > and (d) of this section do not include
              > any firearms or devices that are registered
              > in the national firearms registry and
              > transfer records of the United States
              > treasury department or any firearm that
              > has been classified as a curio or relic
              > by the United States treasury department.
              >
              >the full law follows
              >
              >
              >mike
              >
              >13-3101. Definitions
              >
              >A. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
              >
              >1. "Deadly weapon" means anything that is designed for lethal use.
              >The term includes a firearm.
              >
              >2. "Deface" means to remove, alter or destroy the manufacturer's
              >serial number.
              >
              >3. "Explosive" means any dynamite, nitroglycerine, black powder or
              >other similar explosive material including plastic explosives.
              >Explosive does not include ammunition or ammunition components such
              >as primers, percussion caps, smokeless powder, black powder and black
              >powder substitutes used for hand loading purposes.
              >
              >4. "Firearm" means any loaded or unloaded handgun, pistol, revolver,
              >rifle, shotgun or other weapon that will or is designed to or that
              >may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
              >explosive. Firearm does not include a firearm in permanently
              >inoperable condition.
              >
              >5. "Occupied structure" means any building, object, vehicle,
              >watercraft, aircraft or place with sides and a floor that is
              >separately securable from any other structure attached to it, that is
              >used for lodging, business, transportation, recreation or storage and
              >in which one or more human beings either is or is likely to be
              >present or so near as to be in equivalent danger at the time the
              >discharge of a firearm occurs. Occupied structure includes any
              >dwelling house, whether occupied, unoccupied or vacant.
              >
              >6. "Prohibited possessor" means any person:
              >
              >(a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others
              >pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose court ordered
              >treatment has not been terminated by court order.

              Dear Mike,

              There are definitely some differences between the state and federal
              definitions of prohibited possessor. The federal law is stricter
              here, stating that anyone who has ever been "declared insane" is a
              prohibited possessor. Here, someone whose treatment has been
              terminated by court order, would be a federal prohibited possessor
              but not a state prohibited possessor. So, if you've been released
              from 2400 E Van Buren, you could lawfully own a firearm that was
              made in Arizona and has never crossed state lines but not one that
              has moved in interstate commerce.

              >(b) Who has been convicted within or without this state of a felony
              >or who has been adjudicated delinquent and whose civil right to
              >possess or carry a gun or firearm has not been restored.
              >
              >(c) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of imprisonment
              >in any correctional or detention facility.
              >
              >(d) Who is at the time of possession serving a term of probation
              >pursuant to a conviction for a domestic violence offense as defined
              >in section 13-3601 or a felony offense, parole, community
              >supervision, work furlough, home arrest or release on any other basis
              >or who is serving a term of probation or parole pursuant to the
              >interstate compact under title 31, chapter 3, article 4.

              This does NOT, include those convicted of misdemeanor domestic
              violence who have completed probation or parole, unlike the
              federal statute that makes such persons prohibited possessor.
              So, the lady convicted of misdemeanor assault for throwing a bottle
              of cheap perfume at her husband who has done her time, could
              lawfully purchase a firearm manufactured in Arizona and that has
              never crossed state lines.

              Also not included are those dishonourably discharged from the armed
              forces, and those who have renounced their United States citizenship.
              Such people could conceivably lawfully own non-interstate firearms.

              >7. "Prohibited weapon" means, but does not include fireworks
              >imported, distributed or used in compliance with state laws or local
              >ordinances, any propellant, propellant actuated devices or propellant
              >actuated industrial tools that are manufactured, imported or
              >distributed for their intended purposes or a device that is
              >commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of illumination,
              >including any of the following:
              >
              >(a) Explosive, incendiary or poison gas:
              >
              >(i) Bomb.
              >
              >(ii) Grenade.
              >
              >(iii) Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces.
              >
              >(iv) Mine.
              >
              >(b) Device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of
              >a firearm.
              >
              >(c) Firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot
              >automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the
              >trigger.
              >
              >(d) Rifle with a barrel length of less than sixteen inches, or
              >shotgun with a barrel length of less than eighteen inches, or any
              >firearm that is made from a rifle or shotgun and that, as modified,
              >has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
              >
              >(e) Instrument, including a nunchaku, that consists of two or more
              >sticks, clubs, bars or rods to be used as handles, connected by a
              >rope, cord, wire or chain, in the design of a weapon used in
              >connection with the practice of a system of self-defense.

              I've often wondered about that one. Nunchaku are a lot less dangerous
              than most handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are perfectly legal.
              They certainly are not weapons of mass destruction or very useful in
              warfare. That's in both the state and federal laws, and I've often
              wondered why.

              >(f) Breakable container that contains a flammable liquid with a flash
              >point of one hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit or less and that has a
              >wick or similar device capable of being ignited.
              >
              >(g) Chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials,
              >including dry ice, that are placed in a sealed or unsealed container
              >for the purpose of generating a gas to cause a mechanical failure,
              >rupture or bursting of the container.
              >
              >(h) Combination of parts or materials that is designed and intended
              >for use in making or converting a device into an item set forth in
              >subdivision (a) or (f) of this paragraph.
              >
              >B. The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 7, subdivisions
              >(a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section do not include any firearms or
              >devices that are registered in the national firearms registry and
              >transfer records of the United States treasury department or any
              >firearm that has been classified as a curio or relic by the United
              >States treasury department.

              Thanks for digging up the statutes.

              Yours,

              Kevin
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.