Judge Throws Out Prohibition of Machine Guns
Summary
➡ A person can legally own a machine gun if it was obtained before a certain date in 1986 and if they follow national firearm laws. The David Knight show offers unique views on current events and needs your support to continue. Donations are appreciated as they help maintain independent news free from corporate influence, which is crucial for our freedoms.
Transcript
Because now we have a double standard here. We don’t have equal protection of the law, do we? And so I think that’s a very, very interesting case. It’s always been an issue of the 21-year-old age, because you can join the military at 18. You could get drafted into the military when I was growing up at 18. But, you know, you can’t, at 18 years old, they wouldn’t let you smoke a cigarette, or they wouldn’t let you have, you know, purchase a gun or carry a gun concealed or whatever. All these things, you couldn’t drink alcohol or what, it had to be 21.
But you could go fight in a war and kill people at the government’s behest or whatever they wanted you to do. You could go to Vietnam, but you can’t buy alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, right? Good old ATF. So I always thought that was amazing that they would do that. And they actually encoded that into the Florida law, when they loosened the restrictions on concealed carry and other things like that. Because he was 18 years old, at the time of the alleged crime of carrying a weapon, he was ineligible for a concealed carry license, solely because he was not 21 years old.
The Florida judiciary is entitled to declare state statutes unconstitutional under their right to judicial review, and they say, so you should, as a court, you should let this guy go and declare it unconstitutional. You should nullify this law. As Florida’s gun laws currently exist, had Mr. Rodriguez been a service member or a veteran of the U.S. armed forces who was discharged under honorable conditions, then there would have been no crime, as these groups of people are allowed to conceal carry at 18 to 20 years old. The state legislature of Florida has unconstitutionally infringed on the gun rights of millions of adults, American citizens between the ages of 18 and 21, solely because they’re not service members or because they’re not veterans of the U.S.
armed forces. There is no reason to restrict an 18 to 20 year old American citizen’s right to conceal carry in public simply because they’ve not served in the military. Fundamental rights and rights adjacent to those rights are cheapened when they become, in effect, a recruitment incentive for the state and federal military. Veteran versus non-veteran status, as well as civilian versus soldier status, should both be considered suspect classifications when equal protection and the Second Amendment are implicated. They’re absolutely right. And it really kind of underscores again when we talk about when people are allowed to do particular things, okay, you’ve got to be a certain age to drive and get alcohol, tobacco, or firearms or whatever.
Why are we allowing kids to mutilate their bodies when they’re not old enough to make that determination? Or as I’ve shown that horrific press conference done by Tim Walts as governor, he has these parents bring in their kids and they don’t know what’s going on. They’re told by their parents, well, you’re actually a boy, but you’re really a girl and all the rest of the stuff. That is so pathetic. They should take those kids away from the parents. I support that in that particular case. In the same way that if the parents were sexually abusing their children somehow or the other or turning them over to other people to be sexually abused, the child should be taken away.
It’s the same thing. They don’t have the ability to make those kinds of determinations. That is, at essence, what these ages of 21 came about. People understood that your judgment is not there. We’ve thrown that out the window, but it’s also the double standard to say, well, okay, at 18 though, you can sign up to the military, but we’re still not going to buy alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. It’s absolutely crazy. And we get another interesting second amendment case here. This is a judge dismissing machine gun charges against a Kansas woman, against a machine gun mall, which is really fascinating if you stop and think about it.
That has been the key behind all this bump stock nonsense and all this irrational fear from the left that not understanding what firearms are, it’s like, oh, semi-automatic. They don’t understand the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. They don’t understand any of this stuff, but it strikes fear and terror into the heart of the left if somebody’s got a machine gun. Well, you know, I’ve never used a machine gun. It’s just, I’ve heard many people who have, and they try to discourage the use of it by soldiers, because you can very quickly use up all your ammunition, just spraying, you know, spray and pray type of thing.
Those are the conditions where if you’re being overrun, you might want to do that. But in general, you know, put it on individual trigger poles to take your time and if you can, and try to pick your target. But when you look at machine guns, just remember that the Branch Davidians at Waco and that whole thing was over the fact that they had machine guns and had not paid the tax on it. And so this US judge has dismissed the charges against a woman who possessed a machine gun, and he cited the Supreme Court case that has shifted the framework for how courts analyze cases dealing with constitutional rights.
The US District Judge John Brooms found that machine guns fall under the US Constitution’s Second Amendment. Yep, they do. That means that prosecutors must show that the law barring possession of machine guns is rooted in historical firearm restrictions. And, you know, that would also apply to sawed-off shotguns, which is the theoretical reason why they came after Randy Weaver. You know, it was just last Wednesday, Travis’s birthday was when they kicked off the move against Randy Weaver. They set him up to get him to saw off a shotgun that was just slightly shorter than it was supposed to be.
Then that was the basis on which they did all that stuff. Killed his son, killed his wife and everything. But the Branch Davidians, again, they were dealing in guns and they had many cases where people had, there’d been lawsuits, fights within the group and everything. They’d accused him of various things and he’d gone to court and they’d found him not guilty. And the local sheriff would go up there and talk to him and, yeah, hey, I got this warrant here. I need to serve you with this and never had any problems with that.
And so they show up guns-ablazing, code word show time. They’ve got the press there filming it and all the rest of this stuff, just disgusting what they did. And in that particular case, burning men, women and children alive because a federal tax had not been paid on these firearms. And so getting back to this case, the judge room says in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruin and under another case called Rahami to demonstrate through historical analogues that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation.
Um, he wrote this ruling interestingly on August the 21st. And I was, I was saying about the sawed off shotguns and beginning of Randy Weaver, the argument about banning sawed off shotguns was from the very beginning. Uh, well, this is not a military weapon. Oh, we’d never used sawed off shotguns as military weapons. Well, that was a lie. They had used them in trench warfare and the first world war, some cavalry people in the civil war had used sawed off shotgun. So that wasn’t true. But the logic was that the second amendment was about people having military weapons.
And yet what do you hear from the gun controllers? You can’t have that. That’s a military weapon. Well, that was what the militia is supposed to have. Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority in Bruin said that when the second amendment is found to apply, government officials must show that the regulation in question, quote, is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. So judge Brooms sided with a defendant, noting that hundreds of thousands of machine guns are legally possessed because the 1986 law included a grandfather clause. You see, machine guns were legal to have until 1986.
And again, think about that. You know, we’re only looking at seven years after machine guns were, uh, got special status and everything. But again, you know, it was about the tax that the Davidians had, but it was only seven years since they had changed the laws for machine guns. So that was all still pretty new stuff. He said, even today, it’s perfectly legal for a person who’s not been divested of his firearm rights under some other provision of the law to acquire and to possess a machine gun. So long as it was lawfully possessed by someone before the relevant date in 1986, they grandfathered in.
And so long as he complies with the national firearms act requirements to obtain and possess the weapon. In that sense, machine guns are not unusual. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Break free from the usual script with a David Knight show, a fresh perspective, bringing you genuine insights on current events. But if the show is going to stay on the air, we’ll need your continued support sharing the show, subscribing, and even just hitting the like button all help. And if you found our show helpful, please consider donating and becoming a part of a community that values the truth because independent listener funded news untouched by corporate globalist agendas is extremely important to our liberties.
[tr:trw].
See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.
Author
