Alaska L-39 NTSB Preliminary Released...

[FN FAL]

I usually don't post on Alaska crashes, because the conditions up there are foreign to me and from what I hear, are pretty hostile. However, this L-39 prelim is pretty wild.

According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel, the airplane was issued a special ferry permit by an inspector with the Van Nuys Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), Van Nuys, California, on January 23, 2006, with the options to fly VFR/IFR day/night from Anchorage, Alaska, to Seattle, Washington. The ferry permit was signed by an FAA certificated mechanic, certifying that the airplane was safe for a ferry flight.

According to the operator, the accident airplane departed Palmer, Alaska, on January 23, about 1500, with another L-39MS airplane, with an intended destination of Ketchikan. Due to adverse weather conditions in Ketchikan, the two airplanes diverted to Sitka, and remained there until January 25. The accident airplane pilot obtained two weather briefings on January 25, and departed for Bellingham, Washington, without filing a flight plan. Due to adverse wind conditions along the planned route, the pilot diverted to Ketchikan, and obtained an IFR en route clearance about 1210.

The pilot was cleared for the instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 11 at Ketchikan, and about 1248, the pilot reported via radio to the Ketchikan Flight Service Station (FSS) that he had the airfield in-sight, and stated he would attempt to circle to land on runway 29 at Ketchikan.

A pilot-rated witness reported that he saw the airplane descend from the clouds, from about 200 feet above the waters of the Tongass Narrows, near Peninsula Point, which is about 2 miles from the crash site. The witness indicated that the visibility was about 3/4 mile in wet blowing snow, and the wind at the time was from the northwest, about 30 knots. The witness indicated he could see the outline of the Alaska Marine Highway vessel "Columbia" as it was southeast bound toward the Ketchikan ferry terminal.

The witness said the accident airplane, with the landing gear down, descended on about a 20 to 25 degree angle at a high rate of descent to the surface of the water, about 200 yards from the shore. The airplane struck the surface twice, each time gaining about 10 feet before skipping on the surface for a third time. The first two water impacts produced an extensive spray of water that obscured his view of the airplane. The airplane then gained altitude and climbed out of his line of sight.

Several witnesses aboard the vessel "Columbia" reported seeing a large splash in the water between 3/4 to 1 mile in front of the vessel. They thought the splash was a whale, but due the limited visibility of 1/2 to 3/4 mile, none reported seeing or hearing an airplane. After the water impact, other witnesses on shore reported seeing the airplane at tree-top level over the town of Ketchikan, and hearing engine sounds, but then the engine stopped making any sound. The pilot was observed to eject from the airplane, but the ejection sequence was incomplete, and he struck the ground while still in his ejection seat.

The unoccupied airplane collided with the ground in a large open lot on an easterly heading, struck the western bank of Carlanna Creek, continued over the creek and struck a trailer home that was occupied by two persons, crashed into several unoccupied automobiles, and came to rest in another open lot. Ketchikan Fire Department personnel responded to the scene and evacuated residents, and began fighting the trailer fire and the burning airplane fuselage. While fighting the airplane fire, the rear ejection seat was blown out of the fuselage by the seat's initial ejection charge, landing about 150 feet from the wreckage. The seat's second stage rocket motor did not discharge, and it was rendered safe by military personnel on the evening of January 28. Portions of airplane wreckage were located in Carlanna Creek, and within the interior of the trailer. Further examination of the airplane engine is pending.

 

[81Horse]

Wow. That's a story, all right.

... the airplane was issued a special ferry permit by an inspector with the Van Nuys Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), Van Nuys, California, on January 23, 2006, with the options to fly VFR/IFR day/night from Anchorage, Alaska, to Seattle, Washington. ...

Van Nuys???

 

[agpilot34]

That's where the owner was based, correct?

 

[Ill Mitch]

That's where the owner was based, correct?

The airplane was owned by Air USA of Illinois, but the registration shows in care of someone in Vegas. The pilot was a former military guy who worked for Air USA's alter ego, Red Air, Inc. (I think that's the name).

 

[agpilot34]

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

 

[epic!]

some guy at the airport i fly out of has one of those, very cool aircraft

 

[agpilot34]

They ARE a neat little toy. There are usually four of them that come to a yearly warbird fly in close to here and they sell rides to anyone that wants to cough up the 400 bucks to go. That gets you about 30 minutes of actual air time.

 

[aussiefly]

damn....poor bugger. It sucks that the 2nd stage seat rockets didnt deploy. In the military world are ejection seat failures fairly rare ??? or is it really a seat check/maintanence issue.

Anyway, certainly a wild NTSB report. Reading this sort of stuff really gives me the shivers.

 

[FN FAL]

They ARE a neat little toy. There are usually four of them that come to a yearly warbird fly in close to here and they sell rides to anyone that wants to cough up the 400 bucks to go. That gets you about 30 minutes of actual air time.

Air show war bird rides, that's gotta be fun.

I knew a guy that had one of those Magister training jets and he was doing the air show circuit with his. His air show career was cut short when he was doing a low pass down the runway and a tip tank came loose and sent them out of control. The lady that was riding in the jet had won the ride in a contest and so did her husband. The husband rode the plane on Friday and the wife had to come back on Saturday to take her turn because of weather or something, they were just married.

 

[agpilot34]

That sucks. Yeah, I've talked to a couple of guys that went up with them last year, and they said it was a fun ride. I've been putting a few dollars back in a little secret fund and (secret because my wife would absolutely kill me if she knew I spent $400 on an airplane ride!) thinking about maybe going up with them this year, just to say I've done it.

 

[Ill Mitch]

That sucks. Yeah, I've talked to a couple of guys that went up with them last year, and they said it was a fun ride. I've been putting a few dollars back in a little secret fund and (secret because my wife would absolutely kill me if she knew I spent $400 on an airplane ride!) thinking about maybe going up with them this year, just to say I've done it.

Join the CJAA (www.classicjets.org) and go to the fly ins they have. You might have some luck and get to fly something cooler than an L-39.

 

[Ill Mitch]

dang....poor bugger. It sucks that the 2nd stage seat rockets didnt deploy. In the military world are ejection seat failures fairly rare ??? or is it really a seat check/maintanence issue.

Anyway, certainly a wild NTSB report. Reading this sort of stuff really gives me the shivers.

There was another ejection seat failure not too long ago in a civilian A-4 near Salt Lake City.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030515X00672&key=1

 

[mcjohn]

Skipped on the freakin water!? And then climbed out of sight?

 

[HangerRat]

If you think that is crazy, check out the background info here:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=72387&highlight=anchorage

 

[FN FAL]

If you think that is crazy, check out the background info here:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=72387&highlight=anchorage

What's so crazy about it? The man didn't pay his federal taxes on the rockets. He got caught, he's going to get tried, most likely convicted and will spend time in club fed with the three state troopers from illinois who got caught with unregistered machineguns. There's no difference in these stories.

As fars as the guy being queer about military uniforms and stuff, big deal...lots of people collect freaking plates or dolls and to me that's just as gay, but there ain't no law agin' it.

Posted on Thu, Mar. 09, 2006

Motions hearing begins in machine gun case

BY GEORGE PAWLACZYK
News-Democrat

EAST ST. LOUIS - During a hearing in federal court today, a prosecutor threatened a suspended state trooper with an increased sentence recommendation if he persisted in "the frivolous motion to suppress now before the court..." according to a letter entered into evidence today.

During an evidentiary hearing, attorney Tom Keefe cross-examined a Federal Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives agent for 3 1/2 hours. During the questioning, Agent Robert Nosbisch said he was aware of a March 3 letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney James Crowe that if accused Illinois State Trooper James Vest went ahead with trying to get his statements thrown out of court, he could face increased time in prison if found guilty.

The letter from Crowe, addressed to Vest's attorneys, was introduced as evidence by the defense. The letter stated that if Vest pleaded guilty and accepted blame for allegedly illegally owning an automatic rifle, the prosecutors would recommend a lower sentencing range of 18-24 months in prison, but if he persisted in trying to get his statements thrown out, prosecutors likely would recommend the 27-33 months set forth in federal sentencing guidelines.

Under questioning by Keefe, Nosbisch said that he did not inform Vest, of his constitutional rights or that he could face prison time if he made incriminating statements. The ATFE agent also testified that when Vest, 39, of O'Fallon, asked for an attorney, the questioning stopped.

Vest and two other state troopers are accused of purchasing automatic rifles in 1998 and illegally possessing them.

The hearing before U.S. District Court Judge David Herndon resumes this afternoon.

 

[HangerRat]

What's so crazy about it? The man didn't pay his federal taxes on the rockets. He got caught, he's going to get tried, most likely convicted and will spend time in club fed with the three state troopers from illinois who got caught with unregistered machineguns. There's no difference in these stories.

As fars as the guy being queer about military uniforms and stuff, big deal...lots of people collect freaking plates or dolls and to me that's just as gay, but there ain't no law agin' it.

I don't think paying taxes has anything at all to do with this.

 

[FN FAL]

I don't think paying taxes has anything at all to do with this.

That's what you get for thinking and of course, you're wrong.

 

[FN FAL]

Excerpts from the National Firearms Act of 1934...

The National Firearms Act

Title 26, United States Code
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE​

CHAPTER 53 -- MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS


Subchapter
A. Taxes.
B. General provisions and exemptions.
C. Prohibited acts.
D. Penalties and forfeitures.

Subchapter A - Taxes​

Part
I. Special (occupational) taxes.
II. Tax on transferring firearms.
III. Tax on making firearms.

Part I -- Special (Occupational) Taxes​

Sec.
5801. Imposition of tax
5802. Registration of importers, manufacturers, and dealers



§ 5801 Imposition of tax

(a) General rule. -- On first engaging in business and thereafter on or before July 1 of each year, every importer, manufacturer, and dealer in firearms shall pay a special (occupational) tax for each place of business at the following rates:

(1) Importers and manufacturers: $1,000 a year or fraction thereof.

(2) Dealers: $500 a year or fraction thereof.

(b) Reduced rates of tax for small importers and manufacturers:

(1) In general. -- Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting "$500" for "$1,000" with respect to any taxpayer the gross receipts of which (for the most recent taxable year ending before the 1st day of the taxable period to which the tax imposed by subsection (a) relates) are less than $500,000.

(2) Controlled group rules. -- All persons treated as 1 taxpayer under section 5061(e)(3) shall be treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of paragraph (1).


Part II -- Tax on Transferring Firearms


Sec.
5811. Transfer tax.
5812. Transfers.


§ 5811. Transfer tax

(a) Rate. -- There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm transferred, except, the transfer tax on any firearm classified as any other weapon under section 5845(e) shall be at the rate of $5 for each such firearm transferred.


(b) By whom paid. -- The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be paid by the transferor.

(c) Payment. -- The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be payable by the appropriate stamps prescribed for payment by the Secretary.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1228, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)




§ 5812. Transfers


(a) Application. -- A firearm shall not be transferred unless (1) the transferor of the firearm has filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, for the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee on the application form prescribed by the Secretary; (2) any tax payable on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (3) the transferee is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; (4) the transferor of the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (5) the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; and (6) the application form shows that the Secretary has approved the transfer and the registration of the firearm to the transferee. Applications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law.


(b) Transfer of possession. -- The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the Secretary has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee as required by subsection (a) of this section.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1228, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

 

[FN FAL]

More from the National Firearms Act of 1934...

General Provisions.
II. Exemptions.

Part I--General Provisions​

Sec.
5841. Registration of firearms.
5842. Identification of firearms.
5843. Records and returns.
5844. Importation.
5845. Definitions.
5846. Other laws applicable.
5847. Effect on other laws.
5848. Restrictive use of information.
5849. Citation of chapter.


<B>§ 5841. Registration of firearms

(a) Central registry</B>. -- The Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The registry shall include --

(1) identification of the firearm;

(2) date of registration; and

(3) identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm.
​

(b) By whom registered. -- Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor.


(c) How registered. -- Each manufacturer shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture of a firearm in such manner as may by regulations be prescribed and such notification shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. Each importer, maker, and transferor of a firearm shall, prior to importing, making, or transferring a firearm, obtain authorization in such manner as required by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder to import, make, or transfer the firearm, and such authorization shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section.


(d) Firearms registered on effective date of this act. -- A person shown as possessing a firearm by the records maintained by the Secretary pursuant to the National Firearms Act in force on the day immediately prior to the effective date of the National Firearms Act of 1968 shall be considered to have registered under this section the firearms in his possession which are disclosed by that record as being in his possession.


(e) Proof of registration. -- A person possessing a firearm registered as required by this section shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the Secretary upon request.

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1229, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)
​

§ 5844. Importation


No firearm shall be imported or brought into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction unless the importer establishes, under regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary, that the firearm to be imported or brought in is --

(1) being imported or brought in for the use of the United States or any
department, independent establishment, or agency thereof or any State or
possession or any political subdivision thereof; or

(2) being imported or brought in for scientific or research purposes; or

(3) being imported or brought in solely for testing or use as a model by a registered manufacturer or solely for use as a sample by a registered importer or registered dealer;

except that, the Secretary may permit the conditional importation or bringing in of a firearm for examination and testing in connection with classifying the firearm.
​

(Added Pub.L. 90-618, Title II, § 201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1230, and amended Pub.L. 94-455, Title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)


§ 5845. Definitions


For the purpose of this chapter --


(a) Firearm. -- The term "firearm" means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term "firearm" shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.



<B>

(f) Destructive device</B>. -- The term "destructive device" means (1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device; (2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.​

​

 

[FN FAL]

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.

 

[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