The question isn't whether something is or is not a machine gun. The actual question is, where the hell does the government think they derive the authority to regulate or ban machine guns in the first place.
@@Arcahnslight You are right, power & force/violence is the only thing these scumbags actually respect. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -Mao
@@pgiando Wrong, "The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the axe". Politicians are all frontmen that represent their handlers, the oligarchy. This government does not represent the will of the people.
Why don't we attack the Hughes amendment on taxation grounds? The NFA's teeth come from the federal government's authority to tax. If the federal government has decided not to tax new machineguns, doesn't that mean they are unregulated by definition?
It’s not a good strategy because the constitution establishes the federal government’s ability to tax, and also courts at all levels for the past 100 years have been VERY against eliminating the powers exercised under the commerce clause. It’s not an impossible fight but it’s a path of great resistance.
It wouldn't be the Hughes amendment specifically, but the NFA generally, which would be affected by your taxation argument. As an economics major, and not in any way an attorney or law student adjacent individual, I think it's a reasonable argument.
Taxation would be a bad grounds. go back to history to the first tax levied in the US as an established country, the Whiskey Tax. There is a war started over it. As you can see, we are still being taxed unconstitutionally in the US. Tax at the Federal level is unconstitutional if you study history and what the Constitution and US articles state. Yet, here we are today... with Federal taxes, the US Tax, code, the IRS, etc.
I'm going to add, that the court saying there is difference between simply possessing as opposed to carrying a machinegun sounds wrong as well. The words are "keep and bear". That "and" in the middle means both. Bearing an Arm should not take a back seat to the act of keeping an Arm.
The only reason it matters is because there's no question of whether anything wrong was being done with it; i.e. it was presumptively kept "for law-abiding purposes"
I believe what they meant was “carrying in a manner to threaten others” historically shooting in the air and pointing at people. Not physically carrying. As Perhaps in a case or holster
@@wolfkin73 yeah that's what I meant, in this case there can be no question that it was not being carried in a threatening manner because it was not being carried at all, and the historical affray laws would bring in a possibility that the fact of it being a machine gun could count as being threatening when carried
my favorite thing about this channel. ive stopped watching armed scholar because he would cover things i already heard about but with a sensational title so it sounded like something new or bigger than it is. i like the guy himself but hearing things like that time after time turned me away from his channel
Love that Mr. Walker ! 9:51 Outstanding. Here In one of the first English Colonies, the great state of Geogia. My ancestors were probably runaway prison cons for speaking out against the King or some horrible offense. This commenter was handed a law degree in 1989 but I don't get the opportunity to harken back to English law much in traffic and DUI defense. Whether use it or rebuke it. Going to work that marvelous phrasing into a case soon. Heh. Just for the fun of it. Will credit you with it. : ) Sometimes a lawyer has to create and use humor in difficult situations. Old Abe knew about that too.
Lol yeah ir isn't a military policimg force. Thats why they are not called recruits, sgt, capt,lt, maj, and chief. Thats why they don't have the same benefits as the military aside from the VA. Smh. Everyone is blind to the obvious. Thw red coats were the military ans police. All they did was split the forces immoral duties.
Let’s hope this momentum continues and we see more dismantling of unconstitutional laws that restrict law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights.
Abolishing the NFA/ATF is far more important than "legalizing" post 1986 machine guns. We have states where NFA items are illegal to own and register. We have plenty of states where even if you were able to own a machine gun of any kind, it would be stupid since they only allow 10-15 round magazines. The assault weapons bans, magazine bans, and everything in between needs to be taken care of on a federal level which is never going to happen. These other unconstitutional laws far outweigh any and all "wins". People living in free states have no clue what goes on in other parts of the country with millions upon millions of gun owners and they don't give shit.
We're not going to get rid of the NFA right now. There are not 5 votes on SCOTUS, only 2. However Hughes as extraordinarily weak and the same 6 who voted down Bumpstocks will take down Hughes. Getting rid of Hughes is the best first step to getting rid of the NFA down the road. Then deregulating SBRs and Suppressors.
I always hate being the bearer of bad news. But there are no "free states". Free means you make your own choices. Free means you actually own property. It doesn't mean being free to do as you are told and what you are told isn't as bad as what is told over here. People need to wake up to that fact.
In my opinion, as a slave / citizen of the United States of America, we should be allowed the same weapons that the military possesses. That's what the constitution says and should be followed to the letter of the law.
It doesn’t, of course. But “dangerous and unusual” is part of “the tradition of firearms regulation” which is currently being held up as valid. If the constitution were interpreted properly, that is, according to its plain meaning, we would look at the second amendment and say there is no place for infringements, and thus no arms regulation (modern definition) is permitted. And even the standard of “bearable arms” is an impermissible infringement, as the 2A has no exception for arms which cannot be held in ones hands. As Americans were originally allowed to own battle ships and cannon, which cannot be born by hand, we today have the right to own armed aircraft, tanks, howitzers, and other massive weapons; basically anything the military can own, we can own, for how else are we to keep the military in check?
@@ethanlamoureux5306 which it cannot be held up as "historical tradition" because not a single law passes that test as "Dangerous and Unusual" only applies to an Affray Criminal Charge, not to mention that "history and tradition of regulation" only applies to laws between the years 1776-1791.
It depends on what edition of the Bill of Rights you are reading. The editions that are in many federal judges' heads are full of things that are not in the actual, written and adopted second amendment. But it is those editions that often dictate the rulings issued.
Matt hoover? What about Justin Erving that matt buried. Odd crump disnt report there was another youtuber sponsored by AKC that never heard from the atf. Odd matt claimed to be holding a machine gun time and time again. Then claimed it was just a drawing. Look I don't agree with thwir arrests. Especially Justins (Christopher Erving). Buy matt buried them both. Also odd crump and everyone else left out matt was warned by a "jail house lawyer" what he was setting himself up for. And that he needed to take thise videos down. And at least quit claiming they were "lightning links" when they were not. Its sad how many people bought the narrative that was pushed rather than seeking the truth. Typical
@@pgiando "Can criminals' gun rights be infringed or no?" Unfortunately they can, but they really shouldn't. I am of the belief that if the government believes someone is rehabilitated enough to be released from prison, then they are rehabilitated enough to have all of their rights restored upon release as well. That includes their gun rights.
I am a Combat Vet, a Weapons Design Engineer, a Gunsmith and a Military and Weapons Historian. Technical terms matter - having written that it is important to be 100% technically correct and state that a "bullet" is the piece of the assembled cartridge that exits the barrel, it is also termed the projectile. It is a misnomer and irrelevant that colloquially an assembled cartridge is called a "bullet".
@@michaelspivey4574 Don't argue from a losing position. It's very simple, is it a gun law? If so then it's an infringement. Any further discussion only contributes validity to the tyrannical governments overreach.
What makes a machine gun "dangerous and unusual"? Most would say its capable fast rate of fire. However the Cargill decision highlighted the fact that ROF has zero bearing on what a machine gun is. So if ROF can't been weighed on the "Dangerous and Unusual" scale of what is a machine gun, then how else are machine guns able to be regulated. This will be an interesting case to follow for sure!
Stop using common sense. There is none of that in gov or in 99% of the populations decisions. Even 99% of what you suport goes against all common sense. You jist got it right this time. You shoukd remwber this day forever.
A weapon cannot be “dangerous and unusual” if it is commonly possessed for lawful purposes. Machine guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. Hand grenades are dangerous and unusual because they are not commonly possessed, therefore they are unlawful. But because they are unlawful, that is also a reason why they are not commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 so who who decides? Using your logic there would be no new weapons. Imagine if a certain group that fought a certain war that took place just pre to this country existing. There would be a different flag flying in your yard right now. "Lawful" has no bearing on the conversation. I'm sure you dont think you are the problem.
I'm sure we all absolutely hate these "narrow" decisions benefitting one citizen but not the rest. How is that equal protection? Not that anyone believes that ever existed. Good job covering it and thanks for all that you do.
Yep, my first thought as well. In essence it says we have a multi tiered justice system. One where folks that have the means to hire competent legal representation get one judgment while those that don’t will get another. Not exactly “justice for all”
@eden_north while narrowed for one person this is at the lowest level of federal court. Presumably the justice dept will appeal. This case will work its way up through the courts. Once it gets high enough an injunction could be applied more broadly.
You guys provide good content! Unlike other content creators, I can actually watch your entire segment. A---- S------ gets about 10 seconds of my time (not lying)! Hate the false hype....done with it. Good work Armed Attorneys....keep it up.
"Dangerous and unusual" is so ridiculous. Every gun, by design, is dangerous. Every new model of gun is unusual simply because it has just been created. Neither of those should be used to outlaw a gun.
Em's righteous indignation is so entertaining! Yahoo gotta love these guys - always entertaining and equally as informative. One of the best, if not the very best 2A legal issue channel going on RUclips these day IMO!
H&K MP5!!! Same here, once we "have permission" to fully exercise the 2nd amendment. I will be buying the full auto trigger group and lower trigger housing/grip for mine. God Bless America 🇺🇸
Shocking, lawyers fall for it every time !!! “Carrying and possessing “….!!! The Constitution uses neither term, it specifies Bear !!!! Bear includes carrying and possessing !!! Similarly, the expansion of “probable cause to include reasonable suspicion “ to infringe on Citizen’s Constitutional Rights !!! .
As a point of interest, the first true machinegun was the Maxim gun. The patents for that gun were granted in 1883, and the first working prototype was demonstrated in 1884. It started entering into military service in 1886. Which means that the time between the invention of the machinegun and the creation of the Hughes Amendment is over 100 years. There were 50 years between the invention of the machinegun and the passage of the NFA and 52 years between the passage of the NFA and the Hughes Amendment.
The government is in a real pickle if they appeal this ruling. Morgan was charged with possession but the government’s burden argument dealt with affray, (or to the terror of the people) which does not deal with simple possession of a machine gun. Therefore, the government’s appeal (if filed) can only deal with what was previously argued at the district court level, i.e., affray. The fact that the charge is not supported by the burden argument is a huge fubar on the government’s part. This case is exciting and completely under-estimated by the DOJ.
The problem with the Bruen decision is that it STILL HAS TWO STEPS. It should just be "What does the amendment SAY?" If you want to change it, amend the constitution. Otherwise, WHAT DOES IT SAY? That's all we need. Any other steps are extraneous and unnecessary.
And Bruen added in the stupid sensitive places designation. So, people like teachers still can't exercise our 2A rights, and in some states, it's even worse, like in NJ, where you can barely carry anywhere.
I lived in good ole CA in the early 90's when CA outlawed fully automatic weapons, or machine guns. There were 240,000 registered owners at that time. There was a mandatory "buy back" written in to the law. When I stopped giving a damn, only 140 had been turned in.
@4BoxesDiner made a really good point. Although we don't have any judge willing to (read: with the spine to) overturn the Hughes Amendment or the NFA, bad facts and lazy legal postures often result in bad rulings. This is a rare time when it's the government who's on the back foot. This should be "Miller" but in reverse.
Like in Rahimi when the judges didn't allow a 2a defense to be raised because it wasn't raised in the beginning. Or in Miller SCOTUS case against the NFA where Miller was killed and his lawyer didn't bother to show up. In this case, we have a rare chance to make the courts rule base on the limited defense the gov put up.
Which also limits what can be appealed. If this were the other way around, team gov (attorneys AND JUDGES) would absolutely use this against us. Just like they did in Miller.
I agree that the federal government has no authority to "restrict" possession of machine guns. The problem is reality, no tax stamp and registration, you are going to be in a bad position.
All it would take is a rigged supreme court and a barrage of laws to reverse it all back. People need to get more involved in getting/keeping the right people in office, and the wrong people out of our country for that matter.
There is no such thing as "muh 2a rights". There are natural rights. The 2a is 100% a restriction on government. The rigut is nearly mentioned as a byproduct of the restriction.
Thank you for having more morals than love of money. Im sure many collectors will be angry and probably even fight to keep the Hughes amendment in place.
If and *WHEN* the Hughes amendment is thrown out, I hope people bring forth their historic arms for preservation. I hope people get over "whoo hoo" and treat machine guns seriously. I also think there would be more advancements in firearms.
@@Cacowninja Well, that depends on what you mean by 'cannot'. For example, "Any law repugant to the Constitution is void." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1803 In other words, any laws that contradict the Constitution are not valid laws. Therefore, you must distinguish between 'de facto cannot' versus 'de jure cannot'... without even getting into other exceptions to your statement. Show me a valid law, that bans ownership of machine guns.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 I mean law wise you can't own a new machine gun but moral wise you can. I'm all for the ownership of weapons period including new machine guns.
In reading the congressional testimony on NFA 1934, it seems to me that even the attorney general under FDR knew very well not to ban anything or risk running afoul of 2A challenges so instead utilized what powers the federal govt did have in order to control NFA type weapons = taxation (which includes registration). I always thought Hughes FOPA 1986, being an outright ban, would be challenged on Constitutional grounds. I cannot believe it has been decades and that has not happened.
why do you skip over the fact that FFLs with SOT can reactivate or build from scratch ,full auto machine guns. If you count the rewelded full auto parts kits with the pre 86 guns ,the number would be startling .
Agree with Edwin 100% on the MP5, or a B&T APC9, but even if they became legal I'd probably never buy one just based on how crazy expensive they are. But if made legal I could definitely come up with the money for lightning links in all my ARs
I'm 72, and when I was about 15 I asked my grandfather about machines guns. He told me they used to try to sell Thomphson at our local hardware store. And NO one wanted one!! Here in SE Ohio, we hunted and target shooting at tin cans. They were no good for hunting or target shooting! And at the time no one could afford the 45ACP ammo!!!! But the way things are now they would sell a truck load!!!!!
I always found it stupid that you can own old ones but not new ones… and it requires a special tax indicating the right is like special dispensation. We don’t mind as long as you pay
Several years ago, I acquired an HK 94 and an auto sear and had a Class 3 dealer contact a Class 2 manufacturer who converted the gun into a full auto MP 5. I also acquired a suppressor as well. The entire rig functioned flawlessly and was both accurate and quiet. Over several years I thought that I was going to relocate to a non-Class 3 state so I sold the gun for six times what I had paid for it. Under current market conditions it is now worth maybe over 12 times what I paid for it...maybe more. If machine guns are once again legal the value of these items would drop significantly.
So what? The constitution applies equally to everyone (should anyway), and even if you exclude them (separate class, unconstitutional) machine guns are STILL in common use as there are easily 300000+ in citizens hands by ANY calculation or estimate.
The question isn't whether something is or is not a machine gun.
The actual question is, where the hell does the government think they derive the authority to regulate or ban machine guns in the first place.
From their perceived monopoly on legalized murder and the as-of-yet lack of direct repercussions upon them, obviously.
@@Arcahnslight You are right, power & force/violence is the only thing these scumbags actually respect.
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -Mao
Because the people are the government.
@@pgiando Wrong, "The forest was shrinking but the trees kept voting for the axe". Politicians are all frontmen that represent their handlers, the oligarchy. This government does not represent the will of the people.
The right of the government to infringe shall not be born.
Why don't we attack the Hughes amendment on taxation grounds? The NFA's teeth come from the federal government's authority to tax. If the federal government has decided not to tax new machineguns, doesn't that mean they are unregulated by definition?
So... you're gonna fight the 16th Amendment then say all of Title 26 of the U.S. Code is unconstitutional???? Yeah, good luck.
It’s not a good strategy because the constitution establishes the federal government’s ability to tax, and also courts at all levels for the past 100 years have been VERY against eliminating the powers exercised under the commerce clause. It’s not an impossible fight but it’s a path of great resistance.
It wouldn't be the Hughes amendment specifically, but the NFA generally, which would be affected by your taxation argument. As an economics major, and not in any way an attorney or law student adjacent individual, I think it's a reasonable argument.
Taxation would be a bad grounds. go back to history to the first tax levied in the US as an established country, the Whiskey Tax. There is a war started over it. As you can see, we are still being taxed unconstitutionally in the US. Tax at the Federal level is unconstitutional if you study history and what the Constitution and US articles state.
Yet, here we are today... with Federal taxes, the US Tax, code, the IRS, etc.
How about you can not tax a right, such as poll tax.
When will a requirement to have a permit be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL? In all fifty states!
I'm going to add, that the court saying there is difference between simply possessing as opposed to carrying a machinegun sounds wrong as well. The words are "keep and bear". That "and" in the middle means both. Bearing an Arm should not take a back seat to the act of keeping an Arm.
The only reason it matters is because there's no question of whether anything wrong was being done with it; i.e. it was presumptively kept "for law-abiding purposes"
@@Franimus Well, carrying it would still be fine, presumptively for law abiding purposes.
I believe what they meant was “carrying in a manner to threaten others” historically shooting in the air and pointing at people. Not physically carrying. As Perhaps in a case or holster
@@wolfkin73 yeah that's what I meant, in this case there can be no question that it was not being carried in a threatening manner because it was not being carried at all, and the historical affray laws would bring in a possibility that the fact of it being a machine gun could count as being threatening when carried
Thank you for your non clickbait coverage of this case
my favorite thing about this channel. ive stopped watching armed scholar because he would cover things i already heard about but with a sensational title so it sounded like something new or bigger than it is. i like the guy himself but hearing things like that time after time turned me away from his channel
Armed scholar def needs to change his titles @@SubieNinja
@@SubieNinja He is a clown.
@@SubieNinja Agreed, there is not going to be "breaking news" about a SCOTUS decision on a Sunday.🤦♂
I read this and immediately thought of Anthony. Sad but true.
“Shouldn’t there be a presumptive intolerance for English laws?”
Great phraseology!
Love that Mr. Walker ! 9:51 Outstanding.
Here In one of the first English Colonies, the great state of Geogia. My ancestors were probably runaway prison cons for speaking out against the King or some horrible offense. This commenter was handed a law degree in 1989 but I don't get the opportunity to harken back to English law much in traffic and DUI defense. Whether use it or rebuke it. Going to work that marvelous phrasing into a case soon. Heh. Just for the fun of it. Will credit you with it. : )
Sometimes a lawyer has to create and use humor in difficult situations. Old Abe knew about that too.
It should be a t-shirt
1776
Since our policing model is a civilian model, then every machine gun or any other NFA item possessed by police count towards any weapons total.
Lol yeah ir isn't a military policimg force. Thats why they are not called recruits, sgt, capt,lt, maj, and chief. Thats why they don't have the same benefits as the military aside from the VA. Smh. Everyone is blind to the obvious. Thw red coats were the military ans police. All they did was split the forces immoral duties.
Let’s hope this momentum continues and we see more dismantling of unconstitutional laws that restrict law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights.
Abolishing the NFA/ATF is far more important than "legalizing" post 1986 machine guns. We have states where NFA items are illegal to own and register. We have plenty of states where even if you were able to own a machine gun of any kind, it would be stupid since they only allow 10-15 round magazines. The assault weapons bans, magazine bans, and everything in between needs to be taken care of on a federal level which is never going to happen. These other unconstitutional laws far outweigh any and all "wins". People living in free states have no clue what goes on in other parts of the country with millions upon millions of gun owners and they don't give shit.
I agree, short barrel rifles and suppressors coming off the NFA, or abolishing the NFA entirely is more important in my opinion.
We're not going to get rid of the NFA right now. There are not 5 votes on SCOTUS, only 2. However Hughes as extraordinarily weak and the same 6 who voted down Bumpstocks will take down Hughes. Getting rid of Hughes is the best first step to getting rid of the NFA down the road. Then deregulating SBRs and Suppressors.
I always hate being the bearer of bad news. But there are no "free states". Free means you make your own choices. Free means you actually own property. It doesn't mean being free to do as you are told and what you are told isn't as bad as what is told over here. People need to wake up to that fact.
@@FreedomIncproperty taxes are the most awful
@JP-td4fr short barreled rifles are a illeagal tax ploy! They are pistols not rifles! What is a woman?
In my opinion, as a slave / citizen of the United States of America, we should be allowed the same weapons that the military possesses. That's what the constitution says and should be followed to the letter of the law.
Yes especially since Biden said that the government has airplanes we can not protect ourselves from we need to change that than .
Where does "dangerous and unusual" appear in the second amendment?
nowhere, but the feds don't want the same amount of lead going their way that they'd send your way
It doesn’t, of course. But “dangerous and unusual” is part of “the tradition of firearms regulation” which is currently being held up as valid. If the constitution were interpreted properly, that is, according to its plain meaning, we would look at the second amendment and say there is no place for infringements, and thus no arms regulation (modern definition) is permitted. And even the standard of “bearable arms” is an impermissible infringement, as the 2A has no exception for arms which cannot be held in ones hands. As Americans were originally allowed to own battle ships and cannon, which cannot be born by hand, we today have the right to own armed aircraft, tanks, howitzers, and other massive weapons; basically anything the military can own, we can own, for how else are we to keep the military in check?
@@ethanlamoureux5306 which it cannot be held up as "historical tradition" because not a single law passes that test as "Dangerous and Unusual" only applies to an Affray Criminal Charge, not to mention that "history and tradition of regulation" only applies to laws between the years 1776-1791.
It depends on what edition of the Bill of Rights you are reading. The editions that are in many federal judges' heads are full of things that are not in the actual, written and adopted second amendment. But it is those editions that often dictate the rulings issued.
Absolutely love Edwin Walker. I would like to see him on the show much more often, even full time.
It would be hilarious if my local palmetto state armory started selling select-fire lowers because of this lol.
FREE Matt Hoover.... oh, and Edwin, this is why you're my favorite attorney. lol "HK MP5 baby"
Matt hoover? What about Justin Erving that matt buried. Odd crump disnt report there was another youtuber sponsored by AKC that never heard from the atf. Odd matt claimed to be holding a machine gun time and time again. Then claimed it was just a drawing.
Look I don't agree with thwir arrests. Especially Justins (Christopher Erving). Buy matt buried them both. Also odd crump and everyone else left out matt was warned by a "jail house lawyer" what he was setting himself up for. And that he needed to take thise videos down. And at least quit claiming they were "lightning links" when they were not. Its sad how many people bought the narrative that was pushed rather than seeking the truth. Typical
Great explanation of a complicated situation. Thank you.
Shall not be infringed
That ended in 1934
Can criminals' gun rights be infringed or no? Children?
@@pgiando do children have the right to defend their lives? is there an age limit in the constitution? did children fight in the civil war?
@@gifthorse3675 no it didnt. thats the dumbest shit I ever heard
@@pgiando "Can criminals' gun rights be infringed or no?"
Unfortunately they can, but they really shouldn't. I am of the belief that if the government believes someone is rehabilitated enough to be released from prison, then they are rehabilitated enough to have all of their rights restored upon release as well. That includes their gun rights.
I don’t remember reading a “dangerous and unusual” provision in 2A….
I am a Combat Vet, a Weapons Design Engineer, a Gunsmith and a Military and Weapons Historian. Technical terms matter - having written that it is important to be 100% technically correct and state that a "bullet" is the piece of the assembled cartridge that exits the barrel, it is also termed the projectile. It is a misnomer and irrelevant that colloquially an assembled cartridge is called a "bullet".
A glock switch isn't large enough to contain either a cartridge or a bullet, so the precision of the language is moot.
People loading 700 bullets in their 100 shot per second ghost clips
The barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up, right?
Herr Biden says a fifty clip magazine will blow the lungs right out of you.
@@vFANGvsooooo what is the correct nomenclature for a “machine gun” then? Automatic weapon? It requires someone to fire it, so it’s not automatic….🤔
@@michaelspivey4574 Don't argue from a losing position. It's very simple, is it a gun law? If so then it's an infringement. Any further discussion only contributes validity to the tyrannical governments overreach.
I love these videos! The analysis is great and very informative. Please keep them coming.
So they can have em but we can't. I don't think so.
Dangerous and unusual? No!
In Common Use? Absolutely! We need these ridiculous infringements thrown out permanently!!
What makes a machine gun "dangerous and unusual"? Most would say its capable fast rate of fire. However the Cargill decision highlighted the fact that ROF has zero bearing on what a machine gun is. So if ROF can't been weighed on the "Dangerous and Unusual" scale of what is a machine gun, then how else are machine guns able to be regulated. This will be an interesting case to follow for sure!
Stop using common sense. There is none of that in gov or in 99% of the populations decisions. Even 99% of what you suport goes against all common sense. You jist got it right this time. You shoukd remwber this day forever.
A weapon cannot be “dangerous and unusual” if it is commonly possessed for lawful purposes. Machine guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, and are therefore not dangerous and unusual.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. Hand grenades are dangerous and unusual because they are not commonly possessed, therefore they are unlawful. But because they are unlawful, that is also a reason why they are not commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
@@ethanlamoureux5306 so who who decides? Using your logic there would be no new weapons. Imagine if a certain group that fought a certain war that took place just pre to this country existing. There would be a different flag flying in your yard right now. "Lawful" has no bearing on the conversation. I'm sure you dont think you are the problem.
All firearms by their very nature are dangerous.
The only issue is whether they're unusual.
I'm sure we all absolutely hate these "narrow" decisions benefitting one citizen but not the rest. How is that equal protection? Not that anyone believes that ever existed. Good job covering it and thanks for all that you do.
Yep, my first thought as well. In essence it says we have a multi tiered justice system. One where folks that have the means to hire competent legal representation get one judgment while those that don’t will get another. Not exactly “justice for all”
14A Equal Protection doesn't apply to the Fed Govt, only the states.
@eden_north while narrowed for one person this is at the lowest level of federal court. Presumably the justice dept will appeal. This case will work its way up through the courts. Once it gets high enough an injunction could be applied more broadly.
They are precedent. This makes the next case easier, and so on.
You guys provide good content! Unlike other content creators, I can actually watch your entire segment. A---- S------ gets about 10 seconds of my time (not lying)! Hate the false hype....done with it. Good work Armed Attorneys....keep it up.
Agreed. I got so tired of his click bait I quit watching entirely.
@@TxHornyToad Same
Great to see T. Edwin Walker on your program.
"Dangerous and unusual" is so ridiculous. Every gun, by design, is dangerous. Every new model of gun is unusual simply because it has just been created. Neither of those should be used to outlaw a gun.
Em's righteous indignation is so entertaining! Yahoo gotta love these guys - always entertaining and equally as informative. One of the best, if not the very best 2A legal issue channel going on RUclips these day IMO!
H&K MP5!!! Same here, once we "have permission" to fully exercise the 2nd amendment. I will be buying the full auto trigger group and lower trigger housing/grip for mine. God Bless America 🇺🇸
Great to see Edwin back!!!!!
Thanks, Edwin & Emily 👍
Shocking, lawyers fall for it every time !!! “Carrying and possessing “….!!! The Constitution uses neither term, it specifies Bear !!!! Bear includes carrying and possessing !!! Similarly, the expansion of “probable cause to include reasonable suspicion “ to infringe on Citizen’s Constitutional Rights !!!
.
It's a whole lot of machine guns in Chicago for sure. It's crazy how many there are
Love your content, nice seeing you on Bumble too.
As a point of interest, the first true machinegun was the Maxim gun. The patents for that gun were granted in 1883, and the first working prototype was demonstrated in 1884. It started entering into military service in 1886.
Which means that the time between the invention of the machinegun and the creation of the Hughes Amendment is over 100 years. There were 50 years between the invention of the machinegun and the passage of the NFA and 52 years between the passage of the NFA and the Hughes Amendment.
Why the heck would the 1986 law be constitutional?
I'm still stunned that all this ignores the INFRINGED part.
Identifiers are: is it a fireare? Does it restrict or prohibit acquisition or possession?
The government is in a real pickle if they appeal this ruling. Morgan was charged with possession but the government’s burden argument dealt with affray, (or to the terror of the people) which does not deal with simple possession of a machine gun. Therefore, the government’s appeal (if filed) can only deal with what was previously argued at the district court level, i.e., affray. The fact that the charge is not supported by the burden argument is a huge fubar on the government’s part. This case is exciting and completely under-estimated by the DOJ.
⁉️⁉️So how is it that the law restricting machine gun possession is unconstitutional for only ONE person?
Thanks 👍
Excellent analysis
The problem with the Bruen decision is that it STILL HAS TWO STEPS. It should just be "What does the amendment SAY?" If you want to change it, amend the constitution. Otherwise, WHAT DOES IT SAY? That's all we need. Any other steps are extraneous and unnecessary.
And Bruen added in the stupid sensitive places designation. So, people like teachers still can't exercise our 2A rights, and in some states, it's even worse, like in NJ, where you can barely carry anywhere.
I lived in good ole CA in the early 90's when CA outlawed fully automatic weapons, or machine guns. There were 240,000 registered owners at that time. There was a mandatory "buy back" written in to the law. When I stopped giving a damn, only 140 had been turned in.
There's a lot out there in "hiding" no doubt.
Those old guys got them stashed! 😂
@@kimmichaels899 you know it
Thanks!
@4BoxesDiner made a really good point. Although we don't have any judge willing to (read: with the spine to) overturn the Hughes Amendment or the NFA, bad facts and lazy legal postures often result in bad rulings. This is a rare time when it's the government who's on the back foot. This should be "Miller" but in reverse.
Like in Rahimi when the judges didn't allow a 2a defense to be raised because it wasn't raised in the beginning. Or in Miller SCOTUS case against the NFA where Miller was killed and his lawyer didn't bother to show up.
In this case, we have a rare chance to make the courts rule base on the limited defense the gov put up.
Which also limits what can be appealed. If this were the other way around, team gov (attorneys AND JUDGES) would absolutely use this against us. Just like they did in Miller.
First time I've seen Edwin, what a delight!
A glock switch isn't a machine gun just like a 10" barrel isn't an SBR! They are parts until assembled in a specific actual firearm...
Thanks Edwin Thanks Emily
Great discussion, you guys were very clear.
Thank you for another great video!
If the Hughes Amendment gets overturned, my gun budget will be blown ASAP.
Would be a nice toy to get but I wouldn't go buying a lot of them.
@@AshGreen359 Other than the cost and potential availability of ammo, what is your reasoning? Not criticizing, just curious.
Wouldn't they immediately be inexpensive?
@@peterrudolf4848 No it would be a while before prices dropped. Or people would just buy conversion kits
@@peterrudolf4848 I was referring to the cost of ammo. The price of new guns would be set by the demand, which I expect would be high initially.
Great content love the channel kudos
Thanks
Love what you're doing.
More guest interviews, pleaee
Good to see Edwin
I will go machine gun shopping at Dragon Mans in Colorado Springs. Ya Hoo!
You can only get a 15 round magazine here. Only 8 rounds for a shotgun.
I agree that the federal government has no authority to "restrict" possession of machine guns. The problem is reality, no tax stamp and registration, you are going to be in a bad position.
If this decision applies only to this one guy, then we are denied our right to equal protection.
it is another brick out of the wall
At this rate our grandchildren might get their full.2A rights back
All it would take is a rigged supreme court and a barrage of laws to reverse it all back. People need to get more involved in getting/keeping the right people in office, and the wrong people out of our country for that matter.
You don't get rights back that would be a privilege. Don't be dumb
There is no such thing as "muh 2a rights". There are natural rights. The 2a is 100% a restriction on government. The rigut is nearly mentioned as a byproduct of the restriction.
Needing a whole legal process to determine if banning an "arm" is unconstitutional is ludicrous. Do we need a court to determine if water is wet?
I see we chose the Oregon Trail font for the captions on this one👍
Man, if Glock switches are so everywhere, why can't I get one?
Always appreciate your content and charm. If free of govt. Overreach I would purchase one.
Trying to figure out, since it's unlawful for the government to have a firearms registry, why machine guns have to be registered.
Excellent video
Thank you for having more morals than love of money. Im sure many collectors will be angry and probably even fight to keep the Hughes amendment in place.
Truly, where *is* the harm in just possessing?
It really doesn’t mean much unless the Supreme Court rules!!
How about silencers!!! WTF!!!
If and *WHEN* the Hughes amendment is thrown out, I hope people bring forth their historic arms for preservation. I hope people get over "whoo hoo" and treat machine guns seriously.
I also think there would be more advancements in firearms.
Just think how many irreplaceable examples of engineering and art have been shredded because of this law alone… It’s nauseating.
I can't see this being upheld.
This is a big deal over nothing. It will just go on and on. Never never land.
There is no such term as "dangerous and unusual" in Amendment II of our Bill of Rights.
Yeah, you can own a legal machine gun as a civilian. If you’re rich. The cheapest pre 1986 transferable machine guns start at around eight grand. 🙄
Mac 10/11’s are $16000+ now because of Lage parts to modernize them.
Haven’t found one yet, but I would pay the going price of $9500 for a Norrell trigger pack, preferably new.
Can't own a new one though as a normal civilian.
@@Cacowninja Well, that depends on what you mean by 'cannot'.
For example, "Any law repugant to the Constitution is void." -- Marbury v. Madison, 1803
In other words, any laws that contradict the Constitution are not valid laws.
Therefore, you must distinguish between 'de facto cannot' versus 'de jure cannot'... without even getting into other exceptions to your statement.
Show me a valid law, that bans ownership of machine guns.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 I mean law wise you can't own a new machine gun but moral wise you can.
I'm all for the ownership of weapons period including new machine guns.
How will this effect the Matt Hoover case?
Let’s get the NFA ruled unconstitutional.
At least he gets to keep his machine gun for now.
good to know you are actualy goin to court not just armchairn it
In reading the congressional testimony on NFA 1934, it seems to me that even the attorney general under FDR knew very well not to ban anything or risk running afoul of 2A challenges so instead utilized what powers the federal govt did have in order to control NFA type weapons = taxation (which includes registration). I always thought Hughes FOPA 1986, being an outright ban, would be challenged on Constitutional grounds. I cannot believe it has been decades and that has not happened.
why do you skip over the fact that FFLs with SOT can reactivate or build from scratch ,full auto machine guns. If you count the rewelded full auto parts kits with the pre 86 guns ,the number would be startling .
"Only post 86 machine guns, burried in my backyard."
Insert - ATF "Look at this" meme 😂
Agree with Edwin 100% on the MP5, or a B&T APC9, but even if they became legal I'd probably never buy one just based on how crazy expensive they are.
But if made legal I could definitely come up with the money for lightning links in all my ARs
I'm 72, and when I was about 15 I asked my grandfather about machines guns. He told me they used to try to sell Thomphson at our local hardware store. And NO one wanted one!! Here in SE Ohio, we hunted and target shooting at tin cans. They were no good for hunting or target shooting! And at the time no one could afford the 45ACP ammo!!!! But the way things are now they would sell a truck load!!!!!
I can't believe you put your clients in front of RUclips! (Tongue firmly implanted in cheek)
Love your choice of first gun you'd get if the 1986 rule came down. My question is, which variant, or all of them?
if in fact the Hughes amendment is struck down, I will beseech S&W reintroduce the Model 76...
Excellent taste.
Unconstitutional
I always found it stupid that you can own old ones but not new ones… and it requires a special tax indicating the right is like special dispensation. We don’t mind as long as you pay
Repeal NFA
Emily Taylor on a personal level I love your voice and your hair.
ALL cases should be as applied. All the legal maneuvering should be done away with.
I need one of those.
I wish they'd take the dang tax stamp off "suppressors".
"get me an H&K MP5" - Amen brother! 😄
I've been saying that their reluctance to enforce glock switches is going to lead to them being in common use
I was completely unaware of the Hughes Amendment.
Several years ago, I acquired an HK 94 and an auto sear and had a Class 3 dealer contact a Class 2 manufacturer who converted the gun into a full auto MP 5. I also acquired a suppressor as well. The entire rig functioned flawlessly and was both accurate and quiet. Over several years I thought that I was going to relocate to a non-Class 3 state so I sold the gun for six times what I had paid for it. Under current market conditions it is now worth maybe over 12 times what I paid for it...maybe more. If machine guns are once again legal the value of these items would drop significantly.
Too dang bad. Cars go down in value.
Great choice Edwin!
The number of machine guns and possession noted in that case seems to include those possessed by non-military law enforcement agencies
So what? The constitution applies equally to everyone (should anyway), and even if you exclude them (separate class, unconstitutional) machine guns are STILL in common use as there are easily 300000+ in citizens hands by ANY calculation or estimate.
Good video ! I'm glad you don't use clickbait like armed scholar
Can't regulate without infringing