The Marxist on the 2A

From Arms and the Law:

I don't consider the "liberal wing" as a lost cause, as Tushnet apparently does. The leading lights on the individual rights side are all quite liberal. Akhil Amar, Sanford Levinson, William van Alstyne. Don Kates and Joe Olson got their start as civil rights workers who took up arms to defend against attack. This issue resonates across political lines. Heck, I know a devout Marxist who is a lifer in the NRA, and his explanations make more sense than the conservative ones. I.e., how will the workers defend themselves without arms? Why do most gun control schemes have exceptions for corporations' hired guards?

(Not that anyone expects a Rockefeller family guard to gun them down...)

It so happens, however, that it is remark about the NFA is true.

Your Marxist friend is right. As you know, the NFA contains a provision that allows corporations and trusts to purchase NFA firearms without local law enforcement sign-off; individuals have to be approved by the local CLEO.

As you also know, only the military and law enforcement can presently purchase machine guns that were made after May 1986. Someone is floating a proposal to allow security companies, who conveniently have contracts with state or federal governments, to purchase newly made machine guns.

So as "Arms" posits, the Parker case may well be THE 'case of the term' for SCOTUS--the decision may well have an effect on various provisions of the NFA, such as the 'newer' machine-gun ban.

After all, machine guns are common military weapons--sorta like what a 'militia' should be familiar with. Given the usual restrictions on purchases (and the zillion-dollar budget required to feed and maintain machine guns) I don't think that availability will have a big impact.