ATF Director weighs in on Heller decision

1601 Views 16 Replies 13 Participants Last post by Cassini, Jul 19, 2008

Zane Zackerly

Discussion Starter · Jul 18, 2008

http://www.gunreports.com:80/news/handg ... :&st=email

ATF Acting Director ATF Michael J. Sullivan released the following statement on the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller:

"ATF is pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. The court's ruling is in accordance with the text of the Second Amendment, historical practice, and the Attorney General's 2001 guidance on the scope of the Second Amendment, and is consistent with the bureau's understanding of the scope of the Second Amendment.

The Bureau also is pleased that the court appropriately made clear that nothing in [the] ruling casts doubt on the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the “carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws."

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

56type

· #2 · Jul 18, 2008

In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the “carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws."

The Class3 crowd better watch this closely......me thinks I hear the approaching of the infamous ATF "non-sporting" ban hammer. :evil:

mrmoshzilla

· #3 · Jul 18, 2008

'dangerous weapons'? :lol:

'unusual'? if you look at all weapons as a whole, semi-only are the ones that are unusual.

phreakmode

· #4 · Jul 18, 2008

When talking about "dangerous and unusual weapons" (FA,SBR) within public comunications, I have yet to see BATFE differentiate illegal and legal ownership, which is a smart tactic on their part.

EFR

· #5 · Jul 18, 2008

In addition, the court appropriately recognized that the “carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” such as machineguns, is not protected by the amendment. The bureau is studying the decision, but expects that it will not affect its continued enforcement of all existing federal firearms laws."

The Supreme Court ruling had NO mention of machineguns, only of "dangerous and unusual weapons". Interpretation of the law is the function of the courts, not by an executive agency of the federal government.

This is not a case of misinterpretation, but of blatant and ignorant misrepresentation.

EFR

· #6 · Jul 18, 2008

phreakmode said:
When talking about "dangerous and unusual weapons" (FA,SBR) within public comunications, I have yet to see BATFE differentiate illegal and legal ownership, which is a smart tactic on their part.

Nor will you.

A few years ago my state passed an assault weapon ban when it was believed the federal ban would grandfather. The State Police Ballistics Section, by law, receives all firearms used in crimes for testing (must be confirmed to be able to fire, or be readily made to fire in order to be a firearm) When the governor was looking for props for a photo shoot, the State Police Ballistics Section was contatcted. Problem was, there were NO assault weapons in inventory. Why, well they (assault weapons) were LESS THAN 2% of submissions and there were none in inventory. An ATF 'informational officer' (read public mouthpiece) came to the rescue and provided a bunch of evil looking black rifles for a photo shoot for the governor. NONE of which were used in crimes in the state. Why let the facts get in the way?

CGSteve

· #7 · Jul 18, 2008

Just because it can go full auto, a machine gun it does not make. That agency doesn't even know what a machine gun is, or rather, they willingly ignore the definition used for military (militia) purposes by firearms researchers and historians.

A M2 is a machine gun, an M16 is not.

I think their interpretation of the ruling translate to "Oh that's nice, but we thinks we'll just go ahead and do what we want like before. Have a nice day."

Shooter521

· #8 · Jul 18, 2008

CGSteve said:
That agency doesn't even know what a machine gun is

What was your first clue, the shoestring, the spring, or the drilled hole?

:lol:

skyugo

· #9 · Jul 18, 2008

Shooter521 said:
CGSteve said:

That agency doesn't even know what a machine gun is

Click to expand...

What was your first clue, the shoestring, the spring, or the drilled hole?

:lol:

how about the soft pistol primers and the sharpened firing pin? :roll:

Maljunulo

· #10 · Jul 18, 2008

[quote="CGSteve"A M2 is a machine gun, an M16 is not."[/quote]

Would you explain your reasoning?

CGSteve

· #11 · Jul 18, 2008

Would you explain your reasoning?

According to our laws, the NFA, and that agency, it would be a machinegun. However, if you look at any firearms history book you will see the classes or types of firearms (handguns [pistols/revolvers], rifles, shotguns, submachineguns/machine pistols, machine guns [light, medium, heavy]. This is also the way it is laid out in the ballistics handbook that was given to me when I interned for the local PD's firearm forensic unit.

So the real definitions, not that agency's, would follow in the same manner, and that is how it is in the militaries of the world with only minor classification differences (now they have PDWs or whatever). An M2 is a machine gun, an M16 or an AKM is an assault rifle, not to be confused with "assault rifle" that that agency, the media, and the uninformed classify our semi automatic rifles as such as AR 15s, our AK clones, etc.

There are separate, and new definitions set forth for us because of the way the laws are written. For example, a semi auto Uzi with a longer barrel to conform with silly laws is all of a sudden a "rifle".

If you enlisted in the service and were ready to go play in the woods, your armorer wouldn't hand you your M16A4 and say, "here's your machinegun", and then have you sign out a MK19 and say, "here's your other machinegun". He also wouldn't hand you a rifle without a stock and say, "here's your pistol" and then also hand you an M9 and say "here's your other pistol".

See less See more

AKLover_91

· #12 · Jul 18, 2008

Considering a weapon, by definition, is dangerous, and that unusual is one of the most subjective terms in the english language, it seems a very porrly thought out phrase to include in a legal opinion.

WTF?

m0ondoggy

· #13 · Jul 18, 2008

AKLover_91 said:
Considering a weapon, by definition, is dangerous, and that unusual is one of the most subjective terms in the english language, it seems a very porrly thought out phrase to include in a legal opinion.

WTF?

It's actually referencing Blackstone.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FwU9AA ... &ct=result

CGSteve

· #14 · Jul 18, 2008

AKLover_91 said:
Considering a weapon, by definition, is dangerous, and that unusual is one of the most subjective terms in the english language, it seems a very porrly thought out phrase to include in a legal opinion.

WTF?

The general concensus says that Scalia had no choice but to make some areas open to interpretation (that could be bad for us) in order to get Justice Kennedy on board. If he was gonna go all out with a strict originalist view, we would have lost.

You can bet your last dirty sock that the anti gunners and that agency will use that phrase "unusual" to mean "assault weapons" (the semi auto kind that we have), as well as real assault weapons and machine guns.

To me, a more logical interpretation of "unusual" would be improvised weapons such as zip guns, pen guns, guns made out of piping, etc.

Q-gunner2

· #15 · Jul 18, 2008

I was taught the same as cms. A machine gun is a weapon designed to handle sustained fire... an assault rifle has the capability for sustained fire, but is not designed for it and suffers damage faster during it.

Hell, most semi-auto AKs get so hot you have to handle it with care after only two magazines slow fire. Imagine constant FA as seen with a PKM or other such weapon. Yikes.

AKLover_91

· #16 · Jul 18, 2008

m0ondoggy said:
AKLover_91 said:

Considering a weapon, by definition, is dangerous, and that unusual is one of the most subjective terms in the english language, it seems a very porrly thought out phrase to include in a legal opinion.

WTF?

Click to expand...

It's actually referencing Blackstone.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FwU9AA ... &ct=result

And it seems a poorly worded choice there too.

Too much room for interpretation, IMHO.

And then I'll be the first to jump up and scream about how the constitution doesn't say we have the right to keep and bear usual and safe weapons...

Cassini

· #17 · Jul 19, 2008

To me, dangerous and unusal means chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. These are dangerous even if left be. They can leak, contaminate water sources, and can result in an extremely high number of casualties, even if handled safely and properly. An MG is not dangerous. It will never 'go off' when left idle. An SBR is not dangerous, if it was, our military and others would not issue them out in large numbers. A pistol with VFG is not dangerous, it is easier to handle and control than a regular handgun.

Are NFA items unusal? How many are in the registry?? Thousands, probably millions?? Its hard to say that something can be classified as unusal when they are so plentiful, and legally owned in such large numbers.

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.