Alaska L-39 NTSB Preliminary Released...

[DrProc]

Hmm... dont know why they would have gotten a ferry permit from Van Nuys FSDO, then. Definitely a strange story.

Yeah, I dealt with this several years ago. I worked for a company that was getting a transport category jet turned into a test bed for an engine manufacturer. The modification shop had to search for a FSDO that would actually sign off the mods. Their explanation was that, this was the only FSDO that had experience in that type of work. Yeah right.

 

[HangerRat]

Had this dork applied and paid his taxes to the Treasury Dept and awaited until he received his approved form with affixed and cancelled ATF "TAX STAMP", he could have wen't off and played 'rocket man' as long as he did so on private property and followed any local or state laws.

Just like the three state troopers from illinois.


Furthermore, if he imported the rockets, he would have had additional compliance issues. However, compliance is nothing more than following the rules.

the Dorks on you homo. It was a rocket pod launcher, like one that mounts on an airplane. not a grenade launcher. I don't think they mentioned anything about what you are talking about in court. Get off the comparison to illinois, noone knows what you are talking about. The pod thingy is not legal tax or not. If you knew more background on this you would understand, but you are too obnoxious to pay attention.

 

[HangerRat]

and dont post 2 pages of irrevelant BS

 

[A Squared]

Actually, Hangar rat, FN FAL is right on. The issue is not the rocket launcher, it's the *paperwork* for the launcher. If they had done the paperwork, Kane would be strolling around free right now. And, the paperwork, to a large degree, is a Tax matter. That's one of the ways in which they are able to justify federal jurisdiction on weapons matters, make it a tax matter and the the federal government now has clear jurisdiction due to constitutional authority to collect taxes. I would suggest that arguing with FN FAL about the ins and outs of regulated weapons and destructive devices is prbably a fool's game.

and dont post 2 pages of irrevelant BS

Actually, the 2 pages was quite relevant, if you'd read it, you'd understand what he's saying.

 

[FN FAL]

and dont post 2 pages of irrevelant BS

All you have to do to prove me wrong is cite the CFR that proves that you are correct.

Where is the rocket pod rule? It should be in the CFR's if you are correct.

2nd amendment says that citizens have the right to bear arms. National Firearms Act of 1934 says, "we're going to regulate 'certain' firearms through an application, registration and taxation scheme."

The reason they 'think' they can do that is because they say these items supposedly, "greatly affect interstate commerce" under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the articles of the U.S. Constitution.

The reason I say 'think', is because in US v. Lopez, they 'thought' they could regulate possession of firearms within 1000 feet of a school according to the Brady Bill...no, "they" were wrong.

The reason I say 'think', is because in US v. Stewart, they 'thought' that home made machine guns not intended for use in interstate commerce are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934...and at this time the jury is still out on that one.

The reason I say 'think', is because Justice Alito dissented in US v. Rybar...in a similar "interstate" commerce case.

However, as much as some people 'think' that this is this and that is that, the fact remains, if you want to own rockets, machine guns, hand grenades, silencers, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles or "Any Other Weapon", you must apply, pay a tax and await the return of your approved tax form with affixed and canceled tax stamp before your possession of such item is not going to net you 250,000.00 in fines and 10 years of federal prison time.

It's a tax issue.

 

[FN FAL]

Get off the comparison to Illinois, none knows what you are talking about.

Sorry, but it's related. Cops illegally possessing machine guns and business owners illegally possessing rockets, all fall under National Firearms Act of 1934 when discussing the federal government's authority to regulate and prosecute violators.

Hey, you're a 'wild and crazy' guy. Why don't you run down to Gander Mountain or K-Mart and buy the cheapest shotgun on the rack and a hacksaw. Cut the barrel of the shotgun down to 17.99 inches and take it over to your local C.L.E.O. and show it to him, then you can join the "rocket pod" guy club. Maybe your federal court case will be the one that gets the National Firearms Act of 1934 repealed? After all, how would a "sawed-off shotgun" be regulated as "greatly affecting interstate commerce"?

What they be talkin bout Willis?




Disclaimer: Don't Violate the National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

[FN FAL]

Actually, Hangar rat, FN FAL is right on. The issue is not the rocket launcher, it's the *paperwork* for the launcher. If they had done the paperwork, Kane would be strolling around free right now. And, the paperwork, to a large degree, is a Tax matter. That's one of the ways in which they are able to justify federal jurisdiction on weapons matters, make it a tax matter and the the federal government now has clear jurisdiction due to constitutional authority to collect taxes. I would suggest that arguing with FN FAL about the ins and outs of regulated weapons and destructive devices is prbably a fool's game.



Actually, the 2 pages was quite relevant, if you'd read it, you'd understand what he's saying.

It's been years of studying the great masters and what they have to say about the subject that has enabled me to even go this far with this subject...so I appreciate the respectful reply.

I think you are right on. Second Amendment says we have the right to bear arms, the commerce clause says the feds have the right to regulate it through taxation.

This set up has worked well since the passage of the 1934 ACT, so I don't really have too much opposition to that. However, I do have a problem with the 1996 change brought on by the Firearms Owner Protection Act. Which is probably why the Illiniois State Troopers violated the law.

Thanks to the FOPA, M-16's are now 20,000.00 bucks. However, the troopers forged police documentation in order to possess "dealer samples" which only cost about 800.00 bucks. You can see where their motivation came from. They should have gotten Class II manufacturers licenses (a 500.00 a year tax-funny...the tax thing pops up again) and made their own "post 1986 dealer samples". Now, they are in same boat as rocket launcher pod missle man.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Repeated Supreme Court Interpretations

The Second Amendment in the Courts
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the High Court wrote that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. The Court added that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment in two cases. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1969), the Court dismissed the appeal of a state court ruling upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law, finding the appeal failed to present a "substantial federal question." And in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court upheld the federal law banning felons from possessing guns. The Court found no "constitutionally protected liberties" infringed by the federal law.
In addition, in Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965) and Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), cases not involving the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has affirmed that today's militia is the National Guard.
Since Miller was decided, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, the courts have decided that the Amendment guarantees a right to be armed only in connection with service in a "well regulated Militia." The courts unanimously have rejected the NRA's view that the Second Amendment is about the self-defense or sporting uses of guns. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote, the courts "have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights." United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (1988).

 

[HangerRat]

you need to learn to be concise. noone wants to rad all the crap you are spewing. you have no idea what is going on here.

 

[FN FAL]

you need to learn to be concise. noone wants to rad all the crap you are spewing. you have no idea what is going on here.

I hare whad you ard saying. Peeps get mad aboot the stubidazation of Amurica, but don't be no dudes doing something about it.

Here...I posted the pod launcher question on the ultimate resource for finding the answer. www.subguns.com

You can dis the homies, but they are the shiznet.

Here is the link to the posted question...concise, will be the answer.

http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=528021