http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137:firearmsinc20101&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=25

GentlemanFromHanover: I absolutely will be reading the book mentioned 2 or so posts back…

Well, if you don’t have those books already, you are quite in luck.

Both of Young’s books, The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms are on sale ($15 each) until the end of the month.

See posts here for summaries and book information:
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/

Order from Amazon … the Origin:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0962366439/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

And the Founder’s View:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0962366471/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

David E. Young: GentelmanFromHanover said:One of the earliest was Josiah Quincy, Jr. in his pamphlet, Observations on the Boston Port Bill with thoughts on Civil Society and Standing Armies. Quincy discussed all three of the points later grouped with the original progenitor of the Second Amendment’s first clause as the leading concept by George Mason in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. This three part structure, or Mason Triad, with leading Second Amendment predecessor language was copied into every subsequent period state declaration of rights. Four of those use the well regulated militia reference, the other four use “the people have a right” to bear arms style language that originated in Pennsylvania as the leading Mason Triad declaration. This early development of Second Amendment related langauge in Mason Triads is traced and documented in The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms.If this was a reference to Patrick Henry’s statment in the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention — “The great object is that every man be armed” [OSA 407] — that statement by Henry was not related to a bill of rights proposal like the Second Amendment predecessor, but rather to alteration of the Article 1, Section 8 militia powers. Henry and Mason both wanted an amendment that would assure the states would have authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia if the general government failed to do so. Mason eventually formed and Henry introduced a proposed amendment that directly addressed that issue. It was not the Second Amendment predecessor in the proposed Bill of Rights but one of the twenty proposals in a list of “other” amendments from Virginia’s ratifying convention.There is a lot of confusion about and conflation of Virginia Ratifying Convention militia powers and Second Amendment related bill of rights arguments. The professional historians’ Heller amicus brief only added to that confusion.

Indeed.. Well said sir.

I was not familiar with the previous usage, my point was only THAT it was widely used, and for some years previous.

Just to clarify, it is the sentiment of such “every man be armed” statements that I’m getting at. There are many, many such examples that support my understanding, but very little to support the opposing view.

In addition, we can examine the omitted “religiously scrupulous” text that was suggested and the reason for omission – that the government would declare all religiously scrupulous of bearing arms and then disarm the people – as further support for the literal reading of “right of the people shall not be infringed”…

However, I absolutely appreciate the additional information and will certainly look into it if for nothing more than to expand my knowledge of the history. Thank you sir.

Mason’s 1776 statements are not the first usage of “well-regulated” in the manner the statement is used in the 2nd amendment.

One of the earliest was Josiah Quincy, Jr. in his pamphlet, Observations on the Boston Port Bill with thoughts on Civil Society and Standing Armies. Quincy discussed all three of the points later grouped with the original progenitor of the Second Amendment’s first clause as the leading concept by George Mason in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. This three part structure, or Mason Triad, with leading Second Amendment predecessor language was copied into every subsequent period state declaration of rights. Four of those use the well regulated militia reference, the other four use “the people have a right” to bear arms style language that originated in Pennsylvania as the leading Mason Triad declaration. This early development of Second Amendment related langauge in Mason Triads is traced and documented in The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms.

Henry’s statements such as “the [purpose we have in mind] is that every man be armed” — one cannot in honesty believe that there is any other intent than to protect the natural right of self-defense from all who seek to hinder it.

If this was a reference to Patrick Henry’s statment in the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention – “The great object is that every man be armed” [OSA 407] – that statement by Henry was not related to a bill of rights proposal like the Second Amendment predecessor, but rather to alteration of the Article 1, Section 8 militia powers. Henry and Mason both wanted an amendment that would assure the states would have authority to organize, arm, and discipline the militia if the general government failed to do so. Mason eventually formed and Henry introduced a proposed amendment that directly addressed that issue. It was not the Second Amendment predecessor in the proposed Bill of Rights but one of the twenty proposals in a list of “other” amendments from Virginia’s ratifying convention.

There is a lot of confusion about and conflation of Virginia Ratifying Convention militia powers and Second Amendment related bill of rights arguments. The professional historians’ Heller amicus brief only added to that confusion.

David E. Young: Mark Field said:This is separating the text from its historical usage. The well regulated militia language of the Second Amendment came from George Mason, who, prior to combining it with the people’s right to keep and bear arms in the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention proposed Bill of Rights, used it in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, and prior to that applied it to a self-embodying defensive association in Fairfax County, Virginia. Such associations were formed in many Virginia counties well before hostilities of the Revoution and long before any new state governments were formed.The historical usage was to describe each man taking up his arms (those arms with which he could and did defend himself when necessary) and associating with others to defend himself in an organized fashion against an organized attacker. There is a history behind the words. Everyone at the period knew the history and understood the words. Practically no one seems to know that history today and many are guessing at what the words might mean.“The right to participate in the militia” does not fit the historical facts as well as the right of each man to take up his arms and associate with other individuals for organized defense. The latter is an individual right, and that right is dependent upon each man possessing and knowing how to use arms for defense. The right to participate is much too easily twisted into dependence upon government authorization for such participation, which is exactly what was argued in the Heller dissent from Justice Stephens.

The right to participate in an assembly is guaranteed by the first amendment. The second can then be read with that right, when applied to assembling for practicing (like a shooting match today) their shooting and marching skills, already secured. I would not suggest the 2nd protects the right to assemble the militia, I submit that the first protects this. Stevens’ dissent is uncomfortable to read, the strain of his incorrect and demonstrably false assertions alone draws me too close to thinking that the quality of supreme court judges today (and seemingly this is nothing new) is below par…

Mason’s 1776 statements are not the first usage of “well-regulated” in the manner the statement is used in the 2nd amendment. Read the Resolution presented by Patrick Henry March 23 1775, for which he argued with the “Liberty or Death” speech.. When I consider this, in conjunction with Henry’s statements such as “the [purpose we have in mind] is that every man be armed” – one cannot in honesty believe that there is any other intent than to protect the natural right of self-defense from all who seek to hinder it.

What I’m suggesting is that if we were to just consider the militia clause in isolation (that is, separate and apart from the RKBA clause), it would make a poor textual basis for the right of self defense even if we all agreed that it protected an individual right. The reason is that the “individual right” in question would most easily and naturally be seen as “the right to participate in the militia”.

This is separating the text from its historical usage. The well regulated militia language of the Second Amendment came from George Mason, who, prior to combining it with the people’s right to keep and bear arms in the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention proposed Bill of Rights, used it in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, and prior to that applied it to a self-embodying defensive association in Fairfax County, Virginia. Such associations were formed in many Virginia counties well before hostilities of the Revoution and long before any new state governments were formed.

The historical usage was to describe each man taking up his arms (those arms with which he could and did defend himself when necessary) and associating with others to defend himself in an organized fashion against an organized attacker. There is a history behind the words. Everyone at the period knew the history and understood the words. Practically no one seems to know that history today and many are guessing at what the words might mean.

“The right to participate in the militia” does not fit the historical facts as well as the right of each man to take up his arms and associate with other individuals for organized defense. The latter is an individual right, and that right is dependent upon each man possessing and knowing how to use arms for defense. The right to participate is much too easily twisted into dependence upon government authorization for such participation, which is exactly what was argued in the Heller dissent from Justice Stephens.

Isn’t the 2nd Amendment about BOTH the right to be capable of resisting government tyranny AND being capable of resisting private tyranny (aka Self-Defense)? I think that history shows that by prohibiting goverments from any direct or indirect (by use of “infringe”, meaning any encroachment even at the edges) restrictions on citizens’ abilities to arm themselves was in and of itself considered to be a serious concern and worthy of defiance.

Kharn: US v Miller said the NFA was constitutional because a SBS was not an issued arm in the military, they never asked if Miller was a member of the militia.

Iirc, Miller was never convicted. The ruling only upheld the indictment and, by my reading, set an evidentiary standard for determining whether or not the weapon was protected. It didn’t decline to protect SBS’s either (notwistanding incorrect summary in Heller), but simply said one must show sufficient evidence that it was connected to the militia interest. Given that the defence didn’t even show up the Supreme Court hearing, it is wrongheaded to read more into it than it said.

Oren: There are laws regarding the cannon and machine guns, both require $200 tax payments and dealing with the ATF but they will not deny your purchases as long as you follow the paperwork instructions.

If you try this, you will find that the ATF conveniently never manage to return your permit. In fact, since no funds have ever been allocated to process these applications, you not even have anyone against which to complain.

ATF’s restoration of rights process is defunded, the NFA branch is operating normally with about a 3 month turn-around time for your machine gun, cannon, silencer or short-barreled shotgun purchase. ;-)

Martinned: And how do you decide whether any of this violates anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights? If the point is to protect “a free state” against any potential tyranny in Washington, surely that $200 tax is unconstitutional? If, on the other hand, the 2nd amendment is about self defence, that tax is much less of a problem.

US v Miller said the NFA was constitutional because a SBS was not an issued arm in the military, they never asked if Miller was a member of the militia. I believe the NFA’s just as unconstitutional as poll taxes, the Army has decided that pistols are no longer sufficient for FOB-bound NCOs and officers to defend themselves, all are now issued M4 carbines. If a full-auto carbine’s mandatory for people likely to never see an insurgent, why isnt a full-auto carbine suitable for self/home defense in Baltimore?

J. Aldridge: I agree 100%. Instead of the lame and weak argument of twisting the 2A to read a “right” to keep a gun for personal self-defense or hunting, gun activist would be beter off attacking any future law that restricts their use of guns for personal defense. I admit that is tough since the court allows congress to do what ever they please under the commerce clause. As a matter of law and fact, congress has no authority to confiscate or restrict the use of personal property belonging to the people. Only the people themselves can under their own form of govt.

The 2nd Amendment need not be twisted, it says plainly “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It doesn’t specify any specific intended use, only that because without that natural right, a militia could not be formed, much less discipline themselves through practice, and militias are important.

I would like to know on what pretense does someone suggest that anyone has a “right” to stop someone from owning and discreetly carrying a weapon. That there are laws is insufficent, there were many laws in late 1930′s Germany, if “it’s the law” is all that is necessary, those laws meet that criteria. So what then? How do you justify telling someone else what they can or cannot do? I’d love to hear someone present that case and then defend it against scrutiny… so far, every gun hater has run away or turned to petty insults rather than defend their position.

Chris Travers: Take a close look at the battles of Cowpens and Camden for militia vs regular performance.In Camden, the militia were routed pretty much as soon as the shooting began. Cornwallis and Tarleton pretty much had it easy for a while until Gen. Greene began his campaign. Horatio Gates’ forces were largely routed there despite outnumbering and outgunning the Brits. The lack of discipline was a big factor. 2/3rds of the Southern Continental Army (the same army that won at Saratoga) was killed or captured in that battle.At Cowpens. Brig. Gen. Daniel Morgan was determined not to repeat Gates’ mistakes. Among other things he set up his battle plan so the militia forces would have to regroup between the regulars and the flooding river, thus preventing them from routing easily as they did in Camden. Oddly the inexperienced militia’s lack of discipline actually worked against the British at Cowpens because the militiamen who misunderstood an order to “attack” (and though instead it was an order to “retreat”) may have helped more or less doom the rest of Tarleton’s units there. 9/10ths of Tarleton’s forces were killed or captured in that battle despite the British having approx. the same numbers as Americans.In Cowpens, the militiamen were instrumental to victory, but only in conjunction with regulars. The victory, combined with brilliant strategy by Brig. Gen. Greene were very likely reasons that the Southern Colonies were not recaptured by Cornwallis and the United States relegated to the mere area of New England.

Just to clarify, are you agreeing and adding details, or disagreeing??

I think that we’re saying the same thing – militia forces are not equal to regular, hence they aught to be as close as possible (well-regulated) so that they can be of use… 1 on 1, obviously professionals are superior, hence a militia would require much larger numbers. That is why the New England militia forces had better results than the southern – the north had vastly denser population from which to draw the militia, where the south had lots of space to gather troops as well as a more sparse population, making militia turnout less numerous… that’s why the British preferred to approach the assault in this way.
If not for the ferocious guerilla forces of regular citizens, coupled with a difficult terrein, the British would have advanced in time to cut off the north, but instead were bogged down by relentless and gloriously stubborn southern heroes, as you describe.

The point being that if you have enough guys with hunting rifles and handguns, you could stand up to a regular force. You’d lose a lot of men, more than a regular force, but it’s not impossible. Examples include the insurgents in the middle east (we overwhelm them, but they still frustrate us) and the Vietnam war (again, even with tanks, airplanes and nukes, we still got bogged down.)
Of course, nobody would ever want things to get socont.

far down that road, but as I always say – I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I look at the Second Amendment from the perspective of militia law, since that is what J. Ginsburg, J. Stevens, et al. claim it to be. It is worth noting that they cite no militia cases that hinge on the 2nd Amendment, because there appear to be none excepting the one that follows. When I examine the militia law, I find no right to be in the militia, with one fascinating exception: in 1863 the Pennsylvania supreme court blocked federal conscription, because the latter “interfered” with the state militia. A concurring judge ambiguously cited the 2nd Amendment, but was unclear whether he meant citizens had a right to participate in the militia (without getting drafted into the army) or whether the state had a right to employ citizen militia without losing them to the feds. Either way, the Penn. court reversed itself after nine weeks and SCOTUS settled the issue in 1918 by ruling that Congress can abolish the militia by conscripting all the members into the army.

Mick: Cody says:
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with self defense. One has an inalienable right to defend one’s life. No government grants the right of self defense. Good grief. The Second Amendment was meant to constrain the government against seizure of arms. The British attempt at seizure of arms in Lexington and Concord was a reminder of what happens when the government is under no such constraint.
______________________________________________________

Best reply on this board. Don’t all these lawyers know that the constitution is about NATURAL LAW, and the limitation of Government to interfere with inalienable rights? The whole constitution is about the LIMITS of Government.

I agree 100%. Instead of the lame and weak argument of twisting the 2A to read a “right” to keep a gun for personal self-defense or hunting, gun activist would be beter off attacking any future law that restricts their use of guns for personal defense. I admit that is tough since the court allows congress to do what ever they please under the commerce clause. As a matter of law and fact, congress has no authority to confiscate or restrict the use of personal property belonging to the people. Only the people themselves can under their own form of govt.

DonP.:

Brian G.: Heller is a joke of a decision issued by the radical-right wing Bush court that should be overturned at the first opportunity.This country is full of right wing zealots that think they need an Uzi or a bevy of shotguns to protect themselves from some evil minority boogeyman.The days of the wild west are long over with and the government should be able to restrict guns to end needless gun violence.

Thank you Mayors Daley and Bloomberg for your contribution to the discussion.

Trouble is, Brian G. is a right winger trolling as a lefty. Search the archives for his comments (pre early to mid 2008?) if you don’t believe it.

GentlemanFromHanover: Yeah, the point of the militia (and the premise of the main debate of militia vs. regular) is exactly that it is guys with handguns and hunting/sporting rifles. It is not the individual, 1 on 1 matchup that matters, but the passion of those who defend their own property and families, plus the greater numbers, versus the regular forces better equipment, better training and professional/full-time status but smaller in numbers. That “farmers with muskets” status is why the British mocked the American forces, until they saw the steady and stubborn resolve of those that were jealous of their rights as free men.

Take a close look at the battles of Cowpens and Camden for militia vs regular performance.

In Camden, the militia were routed pretty much as soon as the shooting began. Cornwallis and Tarleton pretty much had it easy for a while until Gen. Greene began his campaign. Horatio Gates’ forces were largely routed there despite outnumbering and outgunning the Brits. The lack of discipline was a big factor. 2/3rds of the Southern Continental Army (the same army that won at Saratoga) was killed or captured in that battle.

At Cowpens. Brig. Gen. Daniel Morgan was determined not to repeat Gates’ mistakes. Among other things he set up his battle plan so the militia forces would have to regroup between the regulars and the flooding river, thus preventing them from routing easily as they did in Camden. Oddly the inexperienced militia’s lack of discipline actually worked against the British at Cowpens because the militiamen who misunderstood an order to “attack” (and though instead it was an order to “retreat”) may have helped more or less doom the rest of Tarleton’s units there. 9/10ths of Tarleton’s forces were killed or captured in that battle despite the British having approx. the same numbers as Americans.

In Cowpens, the militiamen were instrumental to victory, but only in conjunction with regulars. The victory, combined with brilliant strategy by Brig. Gen. Greene were very likely reasons that the Southern Colonies were not recaptured by Cornwallis and the United States relegated to the mere area of New England.

She said that sometimes a dissent can become the majority of a “future, wiser court.”

..and sometimes a dissent is a senile old cow bitching about the reassertion of our human rights, long denied by left-wingers who don’t trust the people with the power to defend themselves.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg can go to hell.

-jcr

I’ve just finished reading David E. Young’s excellent FOUNDERS’ VIEW OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, and it documents beyond serious doubt that the militia of that era encompassed nearly all able-bodied white men…

To which you replied:

First, we had “people of color” in northern militia units and when quotas of men for detachments of militia were debated in the 1790s and early 1800s southern states regularly protested that their quota was based in the entire male population including their slaves. So the militia wasn’t viewed as just white-males, unless your a southerner.

Please note that I said nothing about blacks one way or the other. My point was that most male citizens were in the militia. Indeed, in some places and times, blacks, both free and slave, were part of the militia, as were some Indians. I’m not sure any of them were considered citizens, though.

Then you wrote:

Second, the volunteer militia you are suggesting was the meaning of a well regulated militia didn’t come into official existence until 1812 and the volunteer act. All previous attempts to create an elite or volunteer militia had failed in Congress.

Whereas I had written:

. . . during the Revolution the term “well regulated militia” took on the connotation of voluntary, non-governmental, ad hoc forces brought together to throw off tyranny.

I was talking about the Revolutionary militias, not those of the newly establish U.S. Government. If you wish to quarrel over the facts, please read Mr. Young’s book.

J. Aldridge: The people were the “militia” with few exceptions. Many hated the fact (drills). :-)

In an extreme emergency, ALL are potentially militia – the exceptions would be those the town allowed exemptions (by paying a fee… typically Quakers) or infirm and physically incapable.

In the area where I live, during Lexington and Concord, a woman named Prudence Wright rallied an all-women’s militia and actually took a British messenger captive by dressing as men and hiding by the only bridge between Concord and NH (where a top British officer was known to be) and holding him up using backup rifles/muskets or any other arms they could muster.

So, ALL the people constitute the militia. There is no need to comport something that does not exist (the sub-group mentioned previously), with the only other option (all the people ARE the militia).

Okay, but my point (originally against Martinned’s similar position) was that the politics of gun regulation (and the politics of the factions on the court) today make a separation of those concepts virtually impossible, even if they were severable at the founding (the militia & and the common law self defense right).

Ok, I get this.

Owen Courrèges: And in any event, you still haven’t tackled the original objection raised by Andrew, which is the simple fact that “the people” is a much larger body than “the militia,” so restricting firearms ownership to “the militia” runs counter to the plain text of the amendment.

The people were the “militia” with few exceptions. Many hated the fact (drills). :-)

Kirk Parker: Chris,I’m not so sure about that–nobody thinks the best use of a militia is going head-to-head in urban combat anyway, and many of the sniper rifles carried by our troops are just accurized versions of common bolt-action rifle designs.

Let me chime in with (what I hope are) some helpful facts:
– Militias at the time of the founding did indeed have pistols. In fact, if you were an officer or cavalry, you were expected to have two (and possibly a cutlass as well).
– Obviously, our military today uses handguns. Typically these are the M9 (if I’m not mistaken) made by Beretta (as someone referred to earlier) and variants, but I’ve heard stories of soldiers carrying Glocks. I’ve read many online accounts, confirmed by a discussion with a NH LEO who owns a gun shop, of problems with the Beretta’s slide (it can snap due to thin metal), hence a brand with a reputation for reliability like Glock may be more desirable.

– A program I watched a bit of last night on the History channel confirms the statement about Sniper rifles being essentially the same as Hunting rifles, even to this day.

– A guy I know who served 2 tours recently in Iraq and earned a purple heart, who happened to be his unit’s armorer (he manages the guns), told me that he always used the single-shot setting in the field and that standard issue rifles were never used with more than 3 round burst (I forget if he said full auto was not available anymore, or if this was just a best practice, I can ask him if anyone cares…)
HENCE, An AR-15 would not be as much of a disadvantage in the unlikely and undesirable event of an armed rebellion. The helmet, body-armor and tanks of Waco, would be more fear inspiring to me.

and Finally…

– Yeah, the point of the militia (and the premise of the main debate of militia vs. regular) is exactly that it is guys with handguns and hunting/sporting rifles. It is not the individual, 1 on 1 matchup that matters, but the passion of those who defend their own property and families, plus the greater numbers, versus the regular forces better equipment, better training and professional/full-time status but smaller in numbers. That “farmers with muskets” status is why the British mocked the American forces, until they saw the steady and stubborn resolve of those that were jealous of their rights as free men.

I hope this is helpful.

Matthew Carberry: Matthew Carberry says:

RE: purchasing tanks and rocket launchers

Oren: If you try this, you will find that the ATF conveniently never manage to return your permit. In fact, since no funds have ever been allocated to process these applications, you not even have anyone against which to complain.

Umm, wrong.

I can do a DD transfer right now. The registry is closed for new weapons but transfers of existing registered MG’s and cannon are ongoing. Grenade launchers and such are advertised right now and sales/transfers are closing. Cannon and MG shoots are yearly events.

ATFE may be unable to actually say in court under oath whether a given device is on the registry (good job agency whose whole reason for being is to collect taxes via a registry) but they are still transferring ones for which the owner has paperwork.

Actually, the registry is not closed for all new weapons. You might say it is closed for new machine guns (due to 18 USC 922(o)), but even there it’s really only closed for new machine guns for civilian ownership (with transfers of current, lawful, civilian owned machine guns still permitted). However, new machine guns made for use by law enforcement, and for use by Class 2 manufacturers (or Class 3 dealers) as sales samples or for research and development, get added to the registry every day. All other categories of NFA weapons (short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors (a.k.a silencers), large bore destructive devices, explosive destructive devices, “Any Other Weapon” (AOW – pen guns, cane guns, smooth bore handguns, gadget guns, disguised guns, etc.) can be and are routinely made and registered for civilian ownership. Heck, you can even file a Form 1 (Application to Make and Register) and pay $200 and make your own once the form comes back approved. Anything but machine guns are OK for new manufacture for civilian ownership (subject to compliance with State law).

a militia exclusively armed with handguns and hunting rifles would not be worth much

I’m not so sure about that–nobody thinks the best use of a militia is going head-to-head in urban combat anyway, and many of the sniper rifles carried by our troops are just accurized versions of common bolt-action rifle designs.

Buddy Hinton: Well-regulated militias (or their modern-day equivalent) carry long guns, not handguns. If the right to bear arms is not absolute (and it is not), then its limitations should definitely have some kind of decent nexus with the preamble of the amendment itself.

I don’t care if every adult non-felon is considered to have sufficient militia-ousness for 2A purposes. The

So, just to make sure I understand your position, we should all be able to own M16′s without restriction and all branches of the U.S. military should destroy their Beretta sidearms and cease to purchase or issue handguns. Is that correct?

Kirk Parker: Mark N. and Chris Travers, am I just misreading you, or are you too in Buddy’s camp among the not-realizing-the-US-military-issues-handguns folks?

Ummmm…. I think you are misreading me.

Sure the military issues hand guns, but a militia exclusively armed with handguns and hunting rifles would not be worth much, and that if machine guns could be owned at all, it would be extremely hard to argue that any rational state for insisting that hand guns be stored unloaded actually exists.

Sorry for not being clear.

Oren: If you try this, you will find that the ATF conveniently never manage to return your permit. In fact, since no funds have ever been allocated to process these applications, you not even have anyone against which to complain.

Umm, wrong.

I can do a DD transfer right now. The registry is closed for new weapons but transfers of existing registered MG’s and cannon are ongoing. Grenade launchers and such are advertised right now and sales/transfers are closing. Cannon and MG shoots are yearly events.

ATFE may be unable to actually say in court under oath whether a given device is on the registry (good job agency whose whole reason for being is to collect taxes via a registry) but they are still transferring ones for which the owner has paperwork.

OK, if you say so. I am puzzled what you meant by “ignored the part about a militia being necessary to the security of a free state” then.

My take on these is the same as Eugene’s (cited above by jw) except that Eugene almost makes it sound like such introductory clauses are a thing of the past, whereas my recollection is having seen such things quite recently.