PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Confused about laws

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
-catch22-

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No matter how many times I read the constitution, I still cant figure out how the government can put regulations on what types of "arms" we can own. Under its wording it should be legal to have anything, tanks, rpgs, assult rifles, ect.
Under what premise do our law makers change this right. Is it not unconstitutional to make/enforce these gun control laws? Im by no means a lawyer thats why I need help understanding.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:51 PM on April 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't worry.  The laws that restrict military weapons are classifed as destructive.  You can shoot bullets at things.  The law just says you can not blow those things up!

Your right though, it is not in the Constitution.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:11 PM on April 14, 2003 | IP
defender

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What power does Congress have to prohibit me from owning a Tank?

It has no power to regulate personal tank ownership.  If someone disagrees, please cite the enumerated power.

Now, it might have the power to regulate interstate tank sales, but not private tank ownership.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 7:02 PM on September 25, 2005 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from defender at 7:02 PM on September 25, 2005 :
What power does Congress have to prohibit me from owning a Tank?

It has no power to regulate personal tank ownership.  If someone disagrees, please cite the enumerated power.

Now, it might have the power to regulate interstate tank sales, but not private tank ownership.

Howdy this is and old thread I'll answer your question. The Gov .dosn't regulate tanks but they do the gun on it. Most tanks in private hands have deactivated guns on them the breach is removed and there is a ring in the cannon that has been cut to BATF specs. which prevents the gun from working. If you fill out the proper forms you could reactivate it. But most folks don't want the ATF and FBI looking that deeply in to their lives. You would also have to get approval from your chief law enforcment officer in your area to sign off on the document approving your application to reactivate the gun.



-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 5:25 PM on July 8, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, the interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section 8) has been expanded so greatly that Congress can regulate a wheat farmer in Iowa who only graws wheat to be eaten by his family, on his farm. Not only is not not leaving Iowa (interstate) its never being sold (commerce). (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942))

But the restriction on tanks actually has nothing to do with the commerce clause. It has to do with the Second Ammendment itself, and the power to tax.

First, the Second Ammendment protects to the right to keep and bear arms, not ordinance. There is a distinct legal and military difference between the two, as there was in the 18th century when the ammendment was adopted. In a nut shell, arms are man-portable and (normally) operated by a single user. Ordinance is basicalyl anything bigger... cannon, trebuchet, mortars, et cetra.

You are correct that there is no constituional bar on the people owning ordinance. However, there is no protection of it either. Which brings us to my second point....

The BATFE, a tax collection agency created by Congress, enforces the de facto ban on civilian ownership of ordinance through the act passed by Congress popularly known as the "NFA."

The National Firearms Act, (cited as the Act of June 26, 1934, Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, as amended, currently codified as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 through 26 U.S.C. § 5872), is a  federal law passed in 1934 that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of and mandates the registration of all "Title II" weapons - that is, all sound suppressors or 'silencers', all machine guns, all rifles with a barrel length less than 16 inches (short barrel rifles = SBR) and shotguns with a barrel length less than 18 inches (short barrel shotgun = SBS), shoulder fired weapons with an overall length less than 26 inches, weapons classified as "Any Other Weapon" (AOW) and weapons classified as "destructive devices" (DD). (These are your hand grenades, grenade launchers, landmines, an the like.)

These weapons are all legal to own, if you pay the appropriate tax and fill out the proper forms. You also agree to waive certain civil rights, specifically you authorize warrantless searches of your person and property anytime the BATFE (or the local police) decide they want to see your legally owned private property.

In the 1930s, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled the statute unconstitutional in United States v. Miller. The defendant Miller had been arrested for possession of an unregistered short barreled shotgun. The government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment. The District Court agreed with Miller's argument that the shotgun was legal under the Second Amendment.

The District Court ruling was overturned on a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court (now called United States v. Miller). No brief was filed on behalf of the defendants, and the defendants themselves did not appear before the Supreme Court. No evidence that such a firearm was "ordinary military equipment" had been presented at the trial court (apparently because the case had been thrown out -- at the defendants' request -- before evidence could be presented), and the Supreme Court indicated it could not take judicial notice of such a contention.

The Supreme Court ruled that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The validity of the factual basis for the Miller decision has been questioned, as short barreled shotguns were used by American troops during the trench warfare of World War I, and after the Miller decision in World War II and the Vietnam War. They are also currently being used in Iraq, Afganistan, and probably by your local police force.

The decision is further criticized because the law further regulates all automatic weapons, resulting in most ordinary military weapons also being regulated.

The scope of the application of the Act to privately constructed firearms or devices is uncertain. Such items would normally be regulated under the Act's provisions, but are intended for private ownership only and not for sale. As the Act's application is derived from the federal legislature's Constitutionally enumerated power of regulation over interstate commerce, it is unclear how privately constructed firearms or devices built solely for personal possession (not intended for sale or transfer, and thus arguably not intended to be delivered into the stream of interstate commerce) are affected by the Act. In all probability, the private gunsmith would be prosecuted to the fullest due to the anti-gun bias of the "left" and the anti-private industry of the "right."

The Anti-Gun groups, like Handgun Control Inc., always seem to "forget" about the NFA, and like to pretend that any rifle or handgun made of black plastic is a deadly 1,000 round per second engine of destruction. The (thankfully defunct) "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994 is a clear example to this political deceit. It did baned only semiautomatic (that is one-shot per trigger pull) weapons based on the presence of any of nineteen differnt design features... all of which were actually saftey features designed to protect the gun's operator or bystanders.

But, the stupidity of the AWB is another lecture altogether.

In short, you can legally own a fully functional tank. You probably just can't afford it.


(Edited by Michigan 10/2/2006 at 4:34 PM).

(Edited by Michigan 10/2/2006 at 4:34 PM).
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 4:33 PM on October 2, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from defender at 7:02 PM on September 25, 2005 :
What power does Congress have to prohibit me from owning a Tank?

It has no power to regulate personal tank ownership.  If someone disagrees, please cite the enumerated power.

Now, it might have the power to regulate interstate tank sales, but not private tank ownership.



In my opinion if congress has the power to regulate tanks ownership than I have the right to regulate F/A-18 hornet ownership by the U.S. Navy.

And if the military has the right to have something that can blow up my house shouldn't I have the right to have things that can blow up their bases?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:25 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's just give everybody a nuclear warhead and see what happens...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 06:53 AM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Only if they pass background checks first. The idea behind having a nuclear war head is that if some attacks you they will be committing suicide.

At tleast you're starting to get on the right track. How do you know you can trust a government that has nukes, but will not let you have them. I do believe that giving every one a nuke is going a bit far though.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:17 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.