amused, 
contemplative, 
devious
Over at the site New Mexico Liberty, hosted by the Rio Grande Foundation, RGF President Paul Gessing notes that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is coming to Albuquerque for a visit. [Register here — I did.]
I’d like to ask him about the two-faced decision of U.S. v. Miller, in that the statute it upholds, the National Firearms Act of 1934, outlaws the very weapons that the decision says are protected under the Second Amendment [1]. Being one of the Supremes, he’ll probably decline to comment. But I can still rant about the Act itself, right?
Specifically —
The Act outlaws weapons that are —
- select-fire — firing more than one round per trigger pull
- shotguns with barrel length less than 18 inches, or overall length less than 26 inches
- rifles with barrel length less than 16 inches, or overall length less than 26 inches
- “destructive devices”
Here’s the thing — the decision says that the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those that have “military utility.”
Last time I checked, weapons outlawed by the Act are specifically those that have the characteristic required by the decision — “military utility” — in that they are the very sorts of weapons that are in military usage. Examples follow —
- The M-16 / M-4 series currently in use by the U.S. Armed forces and many jack-booted thugs[2].
- The MP-5 series of subguns, also used by the Armed Forces and JBTs.
NOTES
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Miller_case
- Any cops having a problem with my characterization of them as JBTs are cordially invited to refute it by sending me a signed, notarized affadavit that they will refuse to enforce malum prohibitum statutes, regulations, codes, executive orders, etc.
The Weekly Sedition 
Leave a Reply