We affirm the conviction and remand the issue of Fincher’s eligibility for court appointed counsel to the district court for further inquiry...So much for the federal courts. So much for "every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." We all see the "common use" citizen-instead-of-soldier bait and switch fraud here, right?
Accordingly, under Heller, Fincher’s possession of the guns is not protected by the Second Amendment. Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.
So much for "shall not be infringed."
Circular logic: We have usurped authority to prevent you from having arms that could threaten our grip on power, so they're not in common use.
Tell me the Founders intended for corrupt judicial decisions to be the supreme law of the land--yet that's what we have, when rulings affirm federal courtrooms are Constitution-free zones. Who are We the People to argue it in court, or to judge the law along with the facts?
There is no "legal" recourse--at least none that will be recognized by those rigging the game. Some will point out that contention is wrong, and argue something ultimately depending on majority rule--as if the hive has a collective claim to your rights.
No, the fraud has been nicely played. But then we knew those in power don't give it up if they don't have to.
More at The Volokh Conspiracy. Commentator Brett Bellmore has it exactly right:
No new innovation can start out "commonly owned", hence the government can ban every new firearm.It's what I feared when I wrote "Things to Come" back in 2002 for Guns and Ammo (not online and it's copyrighted, so I can't post the entire essay here):
It's been said that a battle isn't won until a man with a rifle occupies the ground. We must keep in mind that someone probably once said the same thing about spears.[Via Peter G]
