Previous Post
Next Post


Jay Hollis wanted to convert his perfectly legal semi-auto AR into a bullet-hosing, full-auto font of fun. But as you probably know, under the 1986 machine gun ban — AKA the Firearm Owners Protection Act — that’s illegal. So he sued, claiming FOPA’s machine gun ban is unconstitutional. This week, as HuffPo reports, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals told him no dice.

In a unanimous ruling issued Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Hollis’ arguments, categorically noting that “machine guns are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.”

The court explained that the leading Supreme Court precedent on the right to keep and bear arms, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, only protected individual handgun possession for “defense of hearth and home.”

A long gun with a giggle switch is unfit for home (and hearth) defense? We know a lot of people who’d beg to differ.

“Today … ordinary military weaponry is far more advanced than the weapons typically found at home and used for (self)-defense,” the court said, adding that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual,” and nothing like what militias might have used at the founding of the republic.

So the court went with the but the Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly have imagined modern weaponry argument so often relied upon by our civilian disarming friends.

Hold on though. Wouldn’t a weapon like a fully automatic rifle be an effective tool in defending the country and the Constitution against potential enemies both foreign and domestic?

“Heller rejected a functionalist interpretation of the Second Amendment premised on the effectiveness of militia service,” the court of appeals said.

Aided by a number of gun rights groups, Hollis had pressed a number of other arguments — that anything that is “ordinary military equipment” is protected, that the Second Amendment really exists to allow a rebellion against the government, and that machine guns aren’t really “dangerous and unusual.”

The 5th Circuit was largely unimpressed, calling the last argument “tantamount to asking us to overrule the Supreme Court.”

So there’s no lawful bullet hose in Jay Hollis’s future. Or yours. Or mine. And so it goes.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Were not sawed off shotguns and short-barreled rifles found to be dangerous and unusual because they were not arms that were commonly in use? So let us use their own arguments against them. automatic weapons are commonly in use. They are the default weapon of the US military services and are becoming more and more prevalent in law enforcement as well. Thus these weapons are in common use. So they are using the argument that these weapons are not in common use because we have made it illegal for them to be used commonly?

    • They twist their words to whatever suits them at the moment regardless of truth, logic or precedent. Welcome to the new Amerika.

      The SC does the same and we can expect no help there.

      The SC appointees are the only really important thing that a President does as that is the only thing that can not be undone.

      Hilderbeast will decimate the SC for the next 40 years. Kiss what rights you think we have goodbye.

      • Gatling guns are semiauto. every time u turn the crank it fires, you are not holding down a trigger.

        • @Stuki Moi

          According to the ATF website (take that for what it is worth), since a hand crank Gatling gun is not an automatic is falls under the same rules as any other semi-auto (sticking an electric motor on it changes that though so no miniguns; boo!). Additionally, since a person can legally make a gun for their own use (not for sale), I will one day be building a Gatling using AR parts. Why? Why not? Because I can and it will be fun. The hardest part I think will be having a reliable feed system (looking at a hopper and drum system that picks up loose rounds and drops them into the slot).

    • I’d…not, base any of my arguments in Miller; that whole case was an outrageous sham designed to cook up some handy justification for the NFA that could have never stood up in legitimate court under the precedents still respected in those days. So they found a patsy, forced his test case through the system even after he’d given up trying to appeal the conviction, even after he was freaking dead and an opposition voice no longer available to contradict the known lies the federal attorneys fed to the complicit SCOTUS judges. Even then, they couldn’t contort their logic enough to ban weapons suitable for military use from private possession, but by selectively ignoring the private possession or military suitability/parity parts depending on the weapon in question, courts have claimed to respect Miller while upholding “military-style weapon” bans and handgun bans (prior to Heller)

      Heller painstakingly dismantled pretty much all that Miller stands for except for the military suitability angle, but the random, odd for its lack of explanation or supporting justification, “uncommon or dangerous” clause in Heller which contradicts many of the arguments in the same opinion, gives hostile judges an easy ‘out’ to deny cases like this.

      • You might want to re-read Miller instead of listening to what the ruling has been twisted into by courts looking for justification to rein gun owners in.

        The real gist of Miller is the government argument that since a sawed-off was NOT a common ‘weapon of war’ it was NOT protected by the 2A, and therefore the NFA restriction were Constitutional.

        Had Miller lived, had he counsel worth pissing on, the case would have shown that sawed-off shotties were a common issue weapon during WWI. Ergo, NFA did not apply and the gov’s argument fails.

        I’m not going to write a page explaining Miller. If you really want to actually learn what it means, do what I did – look it up. I had to do it using books and physical libraries.

        • The problem with Miller though was that short barreled shotguns actually had been in use by our military, as a tool for clearing trenches during WW I. And that was the problem – the Supreme Court, thanks to the procedural position of the case, was able to presume the opposite of reality in that part of their decision. If Miller had lived and if he had been able and willing to pursue his case, they should have been able to establish that fact.

          That said, the case has to be views in the context of the recently enacted NFA, which had been enacted in order to combat the use of machine guns and the like by gangsters, such as in the St Valentine’s Day Massacre. I don’t think that the public was going to stand for the Court rejecting the NFA on 2nd Amdt grounds, and I think it would have found some other way to not overturn that law. So, maybe we can be thankful that they erroneously used the not used by military justification to not overturn the NFA. A broader justification may have been harder to sidestep as precedent in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

    • Actually US v Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) held short barreled shotgun to not be protected by the 2nd Amendment because there was “no evidence” they were suited for militia or military use. Backwards isn’t it.

      • Yet that conclusion is faulty because it ignores the short-barreled shotguns made and issued to troops in WW1.

        Using Miller as precedent isn’t a great idea anyway since the defense never showed up to the court proceedings.

        • Still, the value of Miller is that it specifically stated that only weapons that are commonly used by the military are protected by the 2nd A. Yet, the common argument from the lefties is that, supposedly, weapons of war are outside of the 2nd A. Even the NRA, until recently, only claimed to protect self-defense (against individual criminals, not criminal government), hunting and target practice, which, in fact, were not the purpose of the 2nd A. Protection from a criminal government (and soon to be “the” criminal government) has always been the purpose of the 2nd A.

        • Thankfully some folks get Miller. Had Miller himself not died under mysterious circumstances, had he funding for decent counsel, had it actually been ‘ruled’ on in an adversarial court, it would have struck down a good portion (almost all) of the NFA, and would have made the GCA almost impossible to pass. Reagan and the Hughes Amendment would have been told to pound sand.

        • As far as I know the 1897s and M12s issued in WWI still had 18-20″ barrels. It wasn’t until Vietnam when the M37s were shortened below 18″ and pistol grips were added that truly short-barreled shotguns became common military weapons. Also keep in mind that the US is pretty much the only military that uses shotguns in any combat or law enforcement patrol application.

      • J.E.B. Stuart’s Cavalry carried sawed off shotguns under their cloaks. The cloak protected the black powder form rain and the shortened length made them more maneuverable on horse back. Of course this may not count since Stuart’s cavalry fought for the loosing side in the “War of Northern Oppression”.

      • “No evidence” is a completely faulty standard to use. At the time of Miller, there was “no evidence” remote controlled, drone borne guns were meaningful weapons of war, either. Unless there is specific evidence that a weapon in question cannot possibly be used in a military/militia context, stating it is not protected due to not being a military weapon, is noting but thoughtless sleight of hand.

        • Only an excuse for a remand for more evidence. The Miller Case was a setup to get result FDR’s Progressives wanted.

  2. With that argument, I had a vision of the fifth circuit as a snake eating its own tail.

  3. I’m so happy that we have such wise and noble wise people who are willing to tell us how much and what kind of freedoms are good for us. My soul just threw up a little, I guess I have a limit to sarcasm, Sigh.

  4. Tyrants can be judges just as well as politicians. I pray that we are able to fix this and other cases where the courts and politicians over step the bounds of the rights of the common man. Those rights that were recognized in the Bill of Rights and in the Second Amendment, before those same politicians make it necessary for the people to have to go from the soap box and the ballot box, to the cartridge box. I fear that this will devolve into the same thing that happened when the British decided they could get away with confiscation.

  5. I do wish TTAG would do a more in depth article on the Hollis v Holder/Lynch & Watson v Lynch cases. I think this may be the first mention I’ve seen. There’s a lot more going on here than Huffpo can possibly comprehend, involving trust law, equal protection, commerce clause abuse, and seizure of property without due process. Also a desire to basically audit the ATFs husbandry of the registry, in light of evidence of an alarming level of official corruption (approving post-86 machine guns as transferables to politically connected persons/donors, granting them an enormous monetary reward in the process)

    The Stamboulieh Law firm is heading up the appeals, and has more details/info on their webpage

    • “I do wish TTAG would do a more in depth article on the Hollis v Holder/Lynch & Watson v Lynch cases.”

      I’ll second that notion. How about it TTAG?

      Johannes, Ralph, Mark N, anyone, Beuller?

  6. The right to arm means anything that might be used against you.

    Meaning and specifically, full auto M-16 of all shape and flavors.

    And that’s that.

    • That’s a good argument. If it’s good enough for government personnel to use, ostensibly to keep me safe, then why shouldn’t I be able to use the same exact thing to keep *myself* safe?

      • This is the Very Argument that should be used when approaching this subject , since it directly correlates with the intent of the clause in the amendment . I further contend that this right to own these type of weapons should not Be Infringed in any way , i.e. special permits , fees and taxes , nor should the manufacture of or the ownership of , the parts required to transform a semi into full be illegal or infringed in any way . This argument should be represented by our side as offensive and continuous so as to have the gun grabbers constantly on the defensive as they currently have us .
        I will say that I don’t feel any specific need for full auto rifles in my collection , albeit I may own a few , I prefer the accuracy of the semi even in defensive and combat modes but as suppressive fire there are times when full auto would be useful and as long as I own my own metal fabrication facilities and have the knowledge and resources to alter what I have ( if I would so choose to ) , they can have their silly court rulings , I for one am a free man and will only comply until I choose not to . Which I am now of coarse .

        • With Herr Hillary soon to become our next Dear Leader, all these arguments are quite moot.

        • You’re probably right Alex but there are a lot of closet Trumpsters on the Democrat side who wouldn’t dare reveal who they really intend on pulling the trigger for in November and also a lot of conservative Christians who will go with Trump while swallowing their vomit . He actually has a high probability of being elected and a lot of his supporters are just as wily as the Dems are and may vote 2 , 3 , or 4 times .
          I personally don’t think it’s going to matter , our gun freedoms are going to be ( attempted to be ) extinguished .

          • We can hope, of course. But realistically, the machine is pre-wired. The Terrorist-in-Chief, in his eight years (not so sure that there won’t be more) has methodically destroyed the foundation that America rested on (not that the Bushes and the Clintons didn’t help). Short of a possibility of a civil war, we’re done for. Lenin won without firing a single bullet.

  7. There goes the damn government again, telling it’s masters what we can and can’t do. Some day they’ll be shocked at what we can do.

  8. Unusual weapons you say? Like maybe 75 million AK variants throughout the world? With that giggle switch? Oh well- I can’t afford a machine gun anyway…

    • There’s more machine guns in private hands than Tazers, which were recently found to be protected due to commonality. That leaves ‘especially dangerous,’ which any person with experience will say is simply not there. Full auto is perhaps slightly more effective, in a very small portion of cases. Stepping up to a 308 semi from an M16 is a markedly more ‘dangerous’ item by any objective measure.

  9. The internet and email could not have possibly been envisioned by the founders. Based on that argument police would not need search warrants for those. Along with smartphones and who knows what else. The courts argument about what was then and how technology has changed doesn’t change the meaning of the amendment.

  10. Sounds like we need to form some militias. I mean – that is what they are asking for right?

    • U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

      I would love someone to argue for militia.– however, they would probably still fall under the control of .gov in some way which means they would make the rules.

  11. IMHO, most judges and politicians are crooks and are in league together. The executive branch works with the judicial branch via backdoor means to often get the rulings they want. I do not for a minute believe we have an independent branch with the judiciary. The judiciary simply supports the political party of their choosing and that is all. They like to make law or interpret to their political persuasion than to simply read the words. Which means, the law gets twisted all the time.

    I am jaded in my view because the CT courts have been a long time known to be corrupt. The Probate Court in CT has been so bad at times that Bar Associations from across the US have come to CT to implore the Legislature to completely flush our current Probate System and the Judges down the toilet and start over again. Something that will never happen with majority Democrat legislature who likes the corruption as is.

    Too bad there is not a good way to remove bad judges. In CT a few years ago there was a judge making rulings in exchange for sexual favors or free hookers. In the end he STILL was not removed. He kept his job, he was moved to some other court.

    IMHO, bad judges should not have their jobs for life. IMHO, judges including SCOTUS should have term limits.

    • That’s a theory. So, Barack Obama could have decided in 2009 which Justices had to be forced to retire, so that he could have appointed their successors? Is that your plan?

      • I believe the suggestion of term limits applies here, not forced retirement. As previously proposed a 12 year limit on elected and appointed office (except for president which should be kept at 8 years) would change the political landscape. Think about it. For the Supreme Court (capitalization because of English/grammar rules not respect) every two years a new judge is submitted to congress for approval, and yes there would be one time every twelve years a President could submit two at one time. But congress is fully replaced every twelve years. If an official resigns or passes away then the replacement only fills that term. The Founding Fathers never imagined a time when judges would be partisan so we need to get rid of the “for life” clause (does this logic sound familiar?).

  12. Does the 2nd limit the type of arm to only long muskets with certain barrel lengths? How about pistol muskets or rifled barrel muskets? Does it state limits on cannons or mortars? No it doesn’t. There were all different types of arms and calibers back then. But none are limited. Based on that I don’t believe they intended any limit on any type of firearm. If you relegate the Bill of Rights to only technology from that period you lose the point. You lose protection in electronic formats. No free speech, no freedom of the press, no unreasonable search and seizure. They only had printed paper and verbal words. How could they have known about the dangerous internet and the ability for anyone to pass information to vast numbers of people all over.

  13. Judges are supposed to rule following the letter of the law, not make up an interpretation as they see fit then super legislate it into existence via their ruling. This is patently unconstitutional. A civilian has more of a need AND a right to a machine gun than some USDA crook trying to prevent the Amish from selling across state lines…

  14. We need Trump to weigh in on this; I suspect he’d make up a headline grabbing position by siding with machine gun advocates. It’s poor sport, but would get them precious coverage (albeit negative, which even the limited coverage is)

  15. At this point… it really doesn’t matter.

    As Scalia pointed out in both Obamcare decisions, the words of the law (or Amendment, in this case) don’t mater and that the Roberts SCOTUS isn’t interested in upholding the Constitution, but rather, in supporting popular legislation or belief.

    It doesn’t mater that source after source from the time in which the 2nd Amendment was debated, written, agreed to, and ratified says that the Constitution isn’t a “granting document” that bestows rights on the people, but rather, enumerates rights inherent to the people that the government cannot removed, restrict, or otherwise infringe without due process.

    The SCOTUS has set a tone that “popularity” has legal weight; even if by the court’s own admission, the issues/laws in question are not Constitutional (as Roberts did in the Obamacare rulings). Thus conservatives (generally) and 2nd Amendment supporters (specifically) CANNOT nor SHOULD NOT depend on the courts to bail them out; we have reached the age where the court is an unelected judicial body, and thus unfriendly to freedom and liberty.

    The only safe solution is the Chicago solution: vote early and vote often (even if you don’t care for, say, the guy running for President… you should still show up and vote for your Senators, Congressmen, local government, etc.)

    • Roberts just thinks the court’s job is to act as a spell checker for an incompetent congress…after all, some one has to if the law is to be enforced.

  16. I think it’s time we started challenging the legality of most police possessing automatic weapons. The military has strict rules regarding their weapons, time for the police to do the same. Regular rank and file officers don’t need automatic weapons.

    • And that’s an area where ‘need’ darn sure can be argued as a reason for restriction.

  17. As someone else on here pointed out this is a complicated case which I will have to research more carefully but on the face of it I’m uneasy about the ruling in general. If the BATFE can revoke an approved Form 1 for no apparent reason can they do the same thing with an approved Form 4? A well written article on this would be appreciated so that I don’t have to go leaving through all the documents myself.

    This case raises a lot of questions that I’m not going to bother to get into here, but it does raise them. The direction the country goes on the topic of firearms ownership and freedom in general will be decided later this year. If HRC wins, quite frankly, it’s over. Put of fork in the country, she’s done. I don’t know if Trump would make major improvement but at least he doesn’t seem to hate everything that makes this nation what it is the way that HRC openly admits to hating it.

    Personally, I’m not real into MGs. Even if the GOPA was rescinded, or at least the post 1986 ban part of it, it’s unlikely that I would buy an MG because I don’t care to do that much reloading. I prefer to sit out at a distance watching via optics and shoot with a suppressed weapon. That said, I would argue that they should be 100% legal and attainable the same way a semi-auto AR is.

    Either way, MGs at your local gun store for a reasonable price will not likely be returning in my lifetime (and I’m not real old at 31) such a thing would take a massive paradigm shift which won’t happen without a major, major change of some type that rocks the current society to it’s core. That’s just the way of the world at this point.

    • Heck they disapproved a Form 1 of mine after making an incorrect change to it themselves, forcing me to refile. No, S&W doesn’t make an MP5 clone…

      • Brethren Armament on the other hand makes very fine HK clones (rifles, SBRs and sub guns only). Check ’em out if you’re into HK.

    • “Even if the GOPA was rescinded, or at least the post 1986 ban part of it, it’s unlikely that I would buy an MG because I don’t care to do that much reloading.”

      Dude! If we didn’t have this silly crap going on, we would have never had anything resembling a semi-auto M16, it would always have been select fire, diminishing development costs and making the firearm CHEAPER than either current iteration. Feel free to leave yours in the “semi” position. Of course, that addresses repeal of the NFA of 1934, but that should actually be our goal. Because it is unconstitutional.

      • And then, two lines later I said “That said, I would argue that they should be 100% legal and attainable the same way a semi-auto AR is.”

        Don’t stop reading just because you hit a line you don’t care for.

        I pretty much roll my own exclusively because I get significantly better consistency and accuracy from it than I do with factory loads. It’s just the way I do things so, for me when it comes to MGs, I’m like Austin Powers “That’s not my bag baby!”. I’m not into them, just not my thing, but as I said in my post, I think they should be legal for the folks that want to have them and they should be affordable.

  18. If there is 1 gun protected under the 2nd amendment it would be the select fire sbr carried by many soldiers. And people think gunvermin courts will save us!

  19. If the Supreme Court ever were to take this one up, I would hope that at the very least they’d change the legal theory behind upholding the NFA — not that NFA weapons fall outside the 2nd Amendment, but instead that they fall under the 2nd Amendment but applying (intermediate/strict, whatever the go for) scrutiny, the restriction is still constitutional.

  20. “Arms in the hands of the citizen may be used at individual discretion, for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.” – John Adams
    (2nd President, principle author of the Declaration of Independence, Founding Father, one of the 2nd Amendment’s authors)

    The 5th Circuit is ignorant.

    • You’re too kind. They are not ignorant, they know full well that full auto firearms are protected by the second amendment. They are knowingly manipulating the language of the Constitution to keep new full auto weapons illegal for the general public.

  21. So how hard is it to build a drop in auto sear? Yes yes i know it is malum prohibidum but I’m not seeing any solutions in the comments here that will get new “machine guns” into the hands of citizens, regardless of the bill of rights. The courts have been and will continue to side with the lawmakers. This has ramifications for the rest of firearms ownership as well.

  22. But, machine guns were always used for defense historically.

    Imagine if you needed to wait 10 months for a permit to sit at the front of the bus.

  23. “Jay Hollis wanted to convert his perfectly legal semi-auto AR into a bullet-hosing, full-auto……..”

    But, but, but, correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t it only take a few swipes of a file to the firing pin to turn a semi-auto into a fully “automatic” bullet spraying “Weapon of War”?

  24. Well, I know 2 things….

    1. In a SHTF, lawlessness scenario, converting a Glock or AR to full auto is simple. You can’t ban knowledge.

    2. With this ruling, it will only take 1 politician to pass a law confiscating all legally owned MGs with no compensation and no due process now that the California magazine ban is precedent.

    • They’re waiting until a terrorist passes a background check for a semi auto, easily and illegally converts it into full auto, and uses it in a crowded area to pass laws for machine gun confiscation.

  25. There once was a time when a Supreme Court justice would say something sensible regarding the 2nd Amendment (the “article” referrred to below). Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: „The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.‟

    1100 Green Berets signed an open letter to the current President in 2013 in protest of his desired gun control policies wherein the quote above was included. That letter ends with the following text: “This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.”

    May we all have the wisdom to do what is right, never fearing the consequences, living up to the standard set by our forbears who founded this Republic.

  26. Really? “Arms” is an umbrella term that includes full auto guns. Simple if you ask me.

  27. Anti’s just can’t get their stories straight. Miller was lost because a “sawed-off shotgun had no role in the militia” (patently false, even at that time), but when firearms that DO have a role in a militia (actual assault rifles), they go “oh no they can’t be allowed because they’re not in common use”, rejecting the notion that they’re not in common use because of a previous flawed ruling, and cheating in the 1980s adjustment to said law.

  28. WoW …. such words …. many legal … SO expert opinion ……

    WE Don’t Care about ‘ your ‘ pretend laws … anymore ! – John Lee Pettimore.

  29. Funny. The military has no problems training 18 year olds with fully automatic weapons.

    So where is the logic in denying civilians access? Aside from the govt fear of civilians.

    • Well somewhat. About lesson #2 on the M16 is that it is not to be used “full auto”. Followed by “will bust your ass if you do”. You don’t carry enough ammo and you’re not going to hit anyone. A moronic “feature”.

      It’s a RIFLE not a gardenhose/machinegun. A SAW is the lowerlimit for valid/useful full auto.

  30. Whether or not we have a right to automatic weapons misses the point. The real point is that 2A SPECIFICALLY prohibits government at all levels from infringing on the right of Americans to keep and bear any damn arms they wish. Such a ruling, IOW, means that my LGS can refuse to sell me a select fire weapon and I can’t sue him, because I have no right to automatic weapons. But government still has no authority to make any decisions whatsoever on the subject.

  31. They are “…unusual” because a law outlawed them. If not would they still be unsual? I may also point out it may be dangerous for the 5th circuit to point out that “machine guns” we’re not around during founders time as neither was the 5th circuit. The Supreme Court ruled that police cannot stop people from recording them. I don’t remember the apple iPhone 6XL with video streaming capabilities being around when John Hancock signed his name but sometimes I drifted off during history class.

  32. IIRC, in the Miller decision (in which nobody showed up behind the defense table) didn’t the SCOTUS uphold the NFA ban on sawed off shotguns because there was no evidence presented that sawed off shotguns had any military value and were therefore not covered by the Second?

  33. It doesn’t matter who wins this election. Whether Trump or Hillary, neither will nominate a justice that will vote in favor of machine guns. Even Scalia was against them. We’re not getting them back legally.

  34. I like this quote:
    “Today … ordinary military weaponry is far more advanced than the weapons typically found at home and used for (self)-defense,”

    Use it every time some nit-wit says civilians shouldn’t have “military style” weapons. I can’t personally say that my military style rifle is used for self defense but it is typically found at my home. Therefore it’s ok, because it’s far less advanced than the ones the military uses!

  35. “Fifth Circuit Ruling: Americans Have No Right to Machine Guns Under the Second Amendment”

    They damn straight have that right per the People’s right and duty to alter or abolish any government that does not observe and respect their inalienable rights according to the Declaration of Independence is part of Federal Law.

  36. Why was this case even brought? I mean, IMO, the plaintiffs have to have been morons to think they had a snowball’s chance in an oven of getting anywhere with such a case.

  37. Shows you what a farce the Supreme Court really is. Absolute power absolutely corrupts and the Supreme Court wants absolute power over everyone and to do that they need to disarm everyone but of course themselves. Kim Jung Un would agree.

  38. I read this decision in it’s entirety. Basically said we are not going to touch this one, let SCOTUS sort it out. The judges took the easy way out and passed the buck, if the guy is smart and Trump wins ( Hillary is indicted)I have a feeling this one is going all the way up like Peruta

    • My favorite part is where they feel they have no place overruling the SC, yet ignore Heller, McDonald, and Miller (for what that POS case is worth) in one fell swoop. They definitely just passed the buck though because this case is about a lot more than just ATF authority over Form 1 retraction, and this group of nitwits was only smart enough to know not to get any more involved.

  39. So what, Heller got it wrong too.
    The Founding Fathers got it right. They new wet-sh_t POS MFs would attempt to preempt your ability to preempt them.

    Working on determining who all the supporters of the 5ths decision are.

  40. At some point the chain of command, all the way from the president to the local PD, will be broken. When this chain is broken, Natural Law takes over and it doesn’t matter what the SCOTUS says about individuals possessing machine guns. At that point you are either armed or not. Those who prepared and armed themselves with machine guns and other equivalent military grade weaponry have a distinct advantage over those with standard civilian weapons. Even forming a militia is advantageous for survival. That’s what the 2A was all about since it is aligned with natural law.

    Statute laws created from the legislature are laws created and proposed by institutions for their own survival, not yours and aim to make you the subject of thier rule..

    As a free and natural person, you are under no obligation to follow SCOTUS who often times rule in favor of these institutions and not the people.

Comments are closed.