So much wrong with this story
The KNS writes about a local man arrested for possessing an unregistered machine gun (kudos to Jamie Satterfield for specifying it was unregistered):
A federal magistrate judge on Monday ordered a Sevier County man held without bond pending trial on charges he possessed an unregistered machine gun.
David Zimmerman, 44, is accused in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court with having a cache of weapons, including a rifle that authorities allege had been converted from a semi-automatic to a fully automatic weapon.
Zimmerman is a convicted felon. He bought the gun from Sevierville Police Department Officer Ted Newman, according to testimony from U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives Special Agent Forest Webb.
Webb said Newman insisted the rifle still operated as a semi-automatic when he sold it to Zimmerman. The ATF agent did not say whether Newman was aware Zimmerman has two prior felony convictions in New Jersey or whether the officer checked Zimmerman’s record before selling him the gun.
It is a crime to knowingly sell a convicted felon a gun. Newman, as a casual seller of a gun, was not required to conduct a background check on Zimmerman.
He bought it from a policeman, is a felon, and converted the gun illegally. When will this crime be blamed on the assault weapons ban? Further in the article:
In November 2003, Webb said he executed a search warrant at Zimmerman’s Kandy Way home in Sevier County and found the fully automatic rifle as well as 15 other weapons.
So, they waited almost a year to hold him? A reader speculated to me that maybe the case was held off for a year in order to politicize the Assault Weapons Ban.
Update: The same reader above inquired as to whether the article mentioning the case was held for a year was a misprint. The reporter stated it was not and that they did wait for a year.
October 5th, 2004 at 10:20 am
I’m not baiting you here — this is an honest question. [Sorry for the off-topic comment, but you seem like someone who would have a reasonable answer].
Why do gun-rights enthusiasts get all wound up over restrictions on the sale of semi-automatic weapons, but are not at least as bothered by restrictions on the sale of fully automatic weapons? It doesn’t make any sense to me, at least not by my understanding of the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. And it especially doesn’t make sense if the point of the amendment is to act as a check upon the power of the government by ensuring that there is an armed citizenry that would be equiped to effectively defend itself against tyranny.
October 5th, 2004 at 10:29 am
Actually, I am wound up about restrictions on the sale of automatic weapons. The NRA caters to sportsmen and hunters, mostly. As such, many hunters see no problem with machine gun restrictions so the NRA doesn’t press the issue.
I’m all for machine gun ownership. IMO, i’d be happy if the Hughes amendment of 1986 (which prohibits citizens from owning machine guns made after May 1986) were repealed. Also, the $200 tax on NFA weapons from the 1934 National Firearms act should go. Taxing a right is illegal.
The AWB is gone so i got one of my three wishes.
But the fact that people misrepresent the AWB as affecting machine guns remains disingenious and I don’t like that.
October 5th, 2004 at 10:31 am
Oh, more at:
https://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/06/03/1934-nfa-stuff/
October 5th, 2004 at 10:43 am
Thanks for the reply, and for clarifying the hunter vs. the “wingnut” (so to speak) views on the 2nd amendment. I hadn’t really thought about that.
October 5th, 2004 at 11:16 am
Who says taxing a right is illegal?
I have used that argument (got it from you) but have nothing to back it up. I say it’s illegal but i’m not the law…
October 5th, 2004 at 11:29 am
I forgot the specific incident, but essentially the court said that poll taxes designed to prohibit people from voting were illegal.
As such, taxes designed to infringe the second amendment ($200 was a lot of money in 1934) would be illegal.
Of course, i’m no lawyer or constitutional scholar either.
October 5th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
1) We put our energy into the fights we might win. If protecting the right to carry a semi-auto rifle is difficult and getting many cities to respect the right to carry any kind of hand-gun is virtually a lost cause, we’d be wasting our time trying to legalize machine guns.
2) If you can hit them with the first shot, a semi-auto is as lethal against selected individual targets as a submachine gun or assault rifles with full-auto capability. Most gun-rights advocates have practiced until they can indeed shoot that well. Full-auto is most useful when it’s a crew-served belt-fed weapon – which are not individual military weapons that might be covered by 2A. A submachine gun is deadlier than semi-auto if you’re firing indiscriminately into a crowd, but gun rights advocates are too responsible to see themselves ever wanting to do that. And three-round bursts from assault rifles can a partial substitute for aiming well, and for using a bullet that will drop the guy with the first hit. Real gunners prefer one shot with a weapon heavy enough for the target. It makes your ammo last longer.
3) If the revolution does come, those participants that want full-auto will have it pretty soon. Most machine shops could manufacture a few AK-47-type assault rifles from bar stock if they had to – but it’s a lot of work and a lot of metal. Conversion kits to turn semi-autos into full-autos are much easier, just a few small parts. We don’t do it because a full-auto weapon isn’t worth the legal trouble you can get into, but if respect for the law goes out the window…
October 5th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
That doesn’t follow. The 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes for federal elections. That’s all it does.
October 5th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
I’ll have to look it up. I can’t recall where I read it and can’t find it now.
October 5th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
Xrlq,
It was a SCOTUS case in the 1890’s if I recall. I’ve bene racking my brain trying to recall the case name but so far no luck (matter of fact it was a key point in a discussion w/ Spoons a while back & I still haven’t tracked it down). The gist was that poll taxes were held unconstitutional & the reasoning was that taxing a right or placing any other burdensome conditioning on it was contrary to constitutional intent. As far as I know it’s still good law & could be used devastatingly against the NFA. There was another case (again whose name I can’t recall) that stated taxation must be for the purpose of raising revenue & not regulation. $200 on a $10 shotgun (in 1934)? & hell, there are transcripts of the congressional hearings about the NFA (it;s drafting actually) where regulation is mentioned as the primary goal of that particular piece of tripe.
But to get back to your question, the SCOTUS case concerning taxation of a Right occured a few decades before the 24th amendment.