[MicroBalrog]

Read it here (http://www.awbansunset.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=927)

[Telperion]

Cool, but it looks like the MG ban is not really on anybody's radar at this time. I maintain that getting a legislative repeal of the 1986 amendment would be roughly equivalent in difficulty to getting a repeal of the NFA. Might as well go for the big fish in that case.

[MicroBalrog]

I maintain that getting a legislative repeal of the 1986 amendment would be roughly equivalent in difficulty to getting a repeal of the NFA.

Why so?:confused:

[Brett Bellmore]

Pro-gunners are still a fairly small minority in Congress. We might have enough clout, when you take into account the fence sitters who are afraid of crossing us, to stop new gun control laws from being enacted, but we're nowhere near powerful enough yet to repeal old ones.

The only reason the '94 ban is going down, if it does, is that it has a sunset provision, so we can end it just by blocking the passage of a new ban.

Making things even more difficult is the fact that the NRA has already given up on ever restoring our right to own machineguns, and actually supported the '86 amendment. It's doubly hard to get a pro-gun position enacted into law, when the nation's largest pro-gun lobby is telling Congressmen it's ok to vote against it.

The only real hope concerning the NFA or the '86 amendment, is in the courts. (Slim as that hope is.) The NFA was only upheld originally by the Supreme court, on the theory that it was really a tax measure. Even if everyone knew it was meant to be a ban, it was at least theoretically possible that someone would be willing to pay a $200 tax, to buy a $20 machine gun. The '86 amendment, by closing that possibility off, violates the very Supreme court ruling that upheld the NFA. In fact, I think one district court actually did strike down the NFA on that basis after the '86 amendment. Here's (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm) the case.

[Mark Tyson]

I thought the 86 FOPA amendment came in last 5 minutes of debate. How could the NRA have supported it as such, given that there was so little time to debate it? Maybe a letter to Ron Paul would be more helpful. He proposes bills to remove us from the UN and similarly outlandish stuff. Not that I like the UN but I get the feeling we're in it to stay.

Maybe we should concentrate on the 1989 import regulations before the '86 cutoff. If the 94 ban sunsets, there will be no logical reason to keep the 89 regs in place. I mean, the same gun manufactured at home is illegal if imported? That makes utterly no sense.

[MicroBalrog]

In fact, I think one district court actually did strike down the NFA on that basis after the '86 amendment. Here's the case.

Heard of this one. Why is the NFA still around after that?:D

[MicroBalrog]

Maybe a letter to Ron Paul would be more helpful

I sent that to him too, got no response.:what:

[Brett Bellmore]

"Heard of this one. Why is the NFA still around after that?"

A good question, which we might ask of somebody who actually knows something about the law. I think it's because the feds didn't appeal the dismissal of the charges, so the precident is limited to the jurisdiction of that particular court.

[MicroBalrog]

so the precident is limited to the jurisdiction of that particular court.

So in that particular area of the US, the NFA has no constitutional authority?:confused: :confused:

[Brett Bellmore]

Now, I personally like Ron Paul, and helped with his Presidential campaign back when he was a Libertarian, but the fact is that getting a bill introduced by Rep. Paul is the kiss of death. He's not very popular with the Congressional leadership on either side of the aisle.

[Brett Bellmore]

That little bit of it. It's being narrowly applied only to manufacturers, so you'd have to build the machinegun yourself. And then you might very well be prosecuted under state law, anyway.

A good question to ask somebody like Kopel.