[MicroBalrog]

Now that the ban on possession of machineguns (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49835) is dead, what do you think is the use for full-auto weapons for home defense/other self-defense? Is there any?

[Master Blaster]

My STATE does not allow people to possess machine guns PERIOD.

This ruling probably means nothing to most of us.

[Tropical Z]

What does the BATF think of that ruling?

[Kestrel]

What do you mean the possession of machine guns? What is changed? I assume you still pay $200, go through the ATF forms, etc... What is different?

Thanks,
Steve

[MicroBalrog]

I assume you still pay $200, go through the ATF forms, etc... What is different?

Apparently, not any more.:D

[mattd]

If you state bans full autos you might be able to get a c&r machine gun like a ar-15.

[Kaylee]

To be honest, I think we're going to have to wait and see what it means. It ain't a sure thing yet, and referring to the threads in question where folks with more legal knowledge than I are opining would be a good idea. But if 922(o) goes away, it still looks like the '33 NFA stays in place. So yes, just like '33-'86: you can have it if you pay The Man his $200 and tell him where you live.


NOW.. that said, ignoring the legal stuff which is best left in L&P... I don't think home defense arms would change that much, though you might see something along the lines of a scaled down select-fire Beretta storm in .380 or something for the more recoil sensitive. A few folks who want something cool that can also be used for HD may pick up MP5s or the like again.

The only places you'd REALLY see a difference I think are in the gun hobbyist community, on the ranges and in boards like this. Gunsmiths would do a huge business drilling that third hole in AR recievers, and the price of mutilated bolt carriers and blocked recievers would drop. :D

Downside is I'm sure even with the NFA in place, the burst of conversions/new production to meet twenty years of pent up demand would drive the media into a tizzy, and we'd see some awful legislation being proposed... and possibly passing.

-K

[mattd]

I think this only allows full auto if you build it yourself. www.keepandbeararns.com

[MicroBalrog]

I think this only allows full auto if you build it yourself.

Just order an AR-15 receiver and convert away.

Or build a PPS-43/STEN/AK/ :D

[Hkmp5sd]

Just order an AR-15 receiver and convert away.

I believe that may turn out part of the problem. The receiver travels through interstate commerce and thus falls under 922(o).

However, we can hope. Already looking at a Glock 18, Beretta 93R and H&K MP5K if they say we can make them ourselves. :)

[MicroBalrog]

The receiver travels through interstate commerce and thus falls under 922(o).

Unless the manufacturer is in your state.:evil:

[Badger Arms]

Hmmmm, I'm gonna wait for a ruling on this one. I'm not a felon and have a wife and kids to support. Hate to say it, but taking on the government is a game for the young with nothing to lose. I don't think this thread needs to be under rifles, necessarilly, but rather under legal and political, gunsmithing, or general.

[LIProgun]

If you read the decision you will see that it is actually somewhat narrow and certainly doesn't mean that federal restrictions on machinegun possession or transfers are really weakened. The trial court's conviction of Stewart for illegal possession of a MG was reversed because Stewart made his own machine gun, essentially from scratch. Even though Stewart used some Sten parts, the ATF's own expert testified that the assemblies were "unique" and unlike anything he'd seen before.

While this isn't a Second Amendment victory (the opinion specifically rejected that argument as a loser in light of the 9th Circuit decision last year in Silveira v. Lockyer), Judge Kozinski's decision is another blow against the over-expansive use of the Commerce Clause to regulate matters having little or nothing to do with interstate commerce.

And FWIW, a news story reported that "Stewart, meanwhile, faces about a 20-year sentence next week after being convicted this summer of soliciting a fellow prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix to kill U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, the judge who last year sentenced him to five years on the weapons violations." The decision also seems to idicate that Stewart didn't appeal the conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of firearms." Clearly, Stewart is not the poster boy we want for gun rights issues.

[mattd]

Why buy a 100% receiver when you can build a 80% AK-47 with hand tools.

Can't they just make another law thats "constitutional"?

[MicroBalrog]

Clearly, Stewart is not the poster boy we want for gun rights issues.

"Soliciting" can mean lots of things, including "joking about".


Besides, according to the ruling, he did go out of his way to stay within the law.

[Kaylee]

Since this drifted so far from rifle choices, I'm moving it to L&P, where it'll like get merged into a preexisting thread.

[Dave Markowitz]

Another thing everybody needs to be aware of is that this decision is only binding within the 9th Circuit. The opinion may be cited and influential in the other circuits, but it isn't binding in any of them unless a particular Circuit Court of Appeals adopts it.

However, I expect that at some point the issue may be raised in another circuit. If this happens and if the other circuit comes to an opposing conclusion, then we'll have a split, which will make the issue ripe for going to the SCOTUS.

[ShaiVong]

What states does the 9th circuit effect?

[Swampy]

The 9th Circus affects the Peoples Republic of Kalifornistan for one... what others I'm not sure.

Best,
Swampy

[Mark Tyson]

The 9th circuit includes Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Idaho and Montana.

THR members in these states, please make us proud.

[MicroBalrog]

Alaska

I don't think they have a machinegun ban. Do they?

[Frohickey]

Does buying a hunk of aluminum, ordering a mill made in China, buying a set of drill bits from Sears, and downloading plans on making an AR-15 from the web, and using all of that to make a rock-and-roll, selective-fire AR-15 make you immune from the BATF zombies (at least in the 9th circuit area)?

[MicroBalrog]

According to the ruling, yes, but I'm not a lawyer, just an armourer.

[MAKOwner]

Go here and click on your state: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Default.aspx

Scroll down and it will have information on NFA items in your state. Most of them say they are illegal unless properly registered as NFA items with the Gov. So if it is upheld that homemades can be made and registered looks like most of the 9th Circuit States can do it. That's if they don't overturn it themselves in the En Banc hearing thing. From the other threads on this board and others I gather that still doesn't effect most of us. IF it holds there in the 9th and goes to the Supreme Court it'll take a while to get there. Probably like a year, during which time it's only valid for the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, if the Supreme Court refuses to hear it then it will always only effect the 9th, will take rulings on similar cases in the other areas for it to effect anyone else in that case. For this to benefit the rest of the US the Supremes need to take it up and agree with the ruling...

Also, there needs to be some clear rulings on what exactly constitutes homemade, and who all can do it under what circumstances without it being interstate commerce. This particular ruling hints at some things that may screw all of us for this. Particularly the part about how Stewart did not effect the supply and demand side of interstate commerce because he was a felon, he could not legally buy a MG no matter what. His building it didn't effect demand since he couldn't get a legal one. What does that mean about people that can legally buy a MG? Would building your own MG instead of buying a mega-expensive pre-86 transferrable by a regular citizen then constitute an effect on interstate commerce?

This really needs to be all laid out, the current ruling only found 922(o) unconstitutional as it applies to Stewart. The rest of us may be getting exciting about something that will not effect us...

[Mark Tyson]

Does buying a hunk of aluminum, ordering a mill made in China, buying a set of drill bits from Sears, and downloading plans on making an AR-15 from the web, and using all of that to make a rock-and-roll, selective-fire AR-15 make you immune from the BATF zombies (at least in the 9th circuit area)?

It appears so, because the ruling was striking down an unconstitutional use of the interstate commerce clause. Presumably Stewart used tools that had crossed state lines(as everything does these days), but the connection with commerce was so indirect that it was struck down.


I can hear the gunsmiths out there getting their drills and lathes ready ...

Not to be a party pooper, but I don't think this will stand up in the federal court, which has been ruling that EVERYTHING in interstate commerce.

[carpettbaggerr]

The law in question bans the maufacture of new class 3 firearms. The court ruled that Congress had no authority to do so under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. These guns would still be regulated by the NFA. Makes very little difference to most of us, although I'm sure the class 3 community is dancing for joy.


I'm more disturbed by the preceding passages I've seen posted, where the court states that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right and there is nothing to stop Congress from regulating them. :cuss:

[pytron]

The ruling does not appear to affect Washington as NFA items are illegal under state law unless you are a manufacturer or a LEO with written permission.

:fire:

[MAKOwner]

Yes your state law is in full effect, but if your state is "class III" friendly as most are (and this goes nationwide via a Supreme Court ruling) it would mean you could build your own homade MG from a kit of some sort (need a ruling on specifics of requirements to be "homemade") and register it for $200 and be legal. That is pretty huge seeing as how you can build a Sten or AK crude MG from a kit for under $500 easy, compared to $2000-$5000+ to buy a transferrable one. The $200 tax and registration is not a big deal in the scheme of things, I know I'd be fairly happy if we were allowed that. The thing that puts these out of reach of the common man due to the price is the freeze on new registrations...

Of course this is all assuming it is upheld in the 9th, and upheld in the Supreme to cover everyone. And then there is the issue of does it really effect every citizen as I was talking about earlier....

[natedog]

Ok...let me get this straight....the NFA registry has been re-opened? So we can get a new semi-auto convereted to full-auto by a gunsmith (with the paper work and $200)...just like from 1934-1986?

[Mark Tyson]

Careful - wait until we find out what this means.

The gun in question was home made.

If you take, say, a semi-auto AR15 and get it converted it's possible they could use the interstate commerce clause because the gun was manufactured in another state and shipped across state lines.

They could do that - we have to wait and see if they will. But you might be able to get one from a parts kit, shipped as a non firearm, that you assemble, or an 80% reciever... you get the idea.

Someone should contact the justice department or ATF and try to find out the total implications of this.

[natedog]

Sweet :cool:

[mattd]

If its homemade, maybe it won't need to be registered.

[Al Norris]

carpettbagger wrote:
The law in question bans the maufacture of new class 3 firearms. The court ruled that Congress had no authority to do so under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. These guns would still be regulated by the NFA. Makes very little difference to most of us, although I'm sure the class 3 community is dancing for joy.
I think what Judge Kozinski did was to invalidate 18.922(o) as it applies to homemade machineguns. Which is an end run around the '86 ban. If it were now legal to manufacture a machinegun, from scratch, in your own home, without the intention of transferring the weapon, it would open the NFA registry (as then the NFA would still apply), which would in turn allow the weapon to be made transferrable.

Kozinski is one sly fox!
I'm more disturbed by the preceding passages I've seen posted, where the court states that the 2nd amendment is not an individual right and there is nothing to stop Congress from regulating them.
The Judge, had to assert that the 2A was not an individual right. That is, afterall, what the 9th has previously ruled. What makes this more interesting is that he cited Silveira as the binding precedent and not the prior cases from the 9th.

I think, by reference, Kozinski feels the SCOTUS will in fact grant cert. Further, Kozinski believes the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the individual RKBA (he has read the petitions, I'm sure - and remember, he used very strong language in his dissent from the grant of the En Banc hearing of that case). If this happens, then a complete reversal of this particular case is in order!

Of course, I'm not an attorney and this is mere speculation. And it is contingent upon an En Banc hearing sustaining the 3 Judge panel that has just ruled.

It is possible that the SCOTUS will grant cert and rule before this goes to En Banc, which would strengthen a favorable ruling by the entire 9th.

(yes, there are other possibilities... but I'm being intentionally optimistic!)

[mattd]

If homemade means you have to make the receiver you can't register it. So you can't pay the tax. Would age limit apply?

[MAKOwner]

Why can't you register a homemade MG? I don't see anything about that. There may be some serial number designation requirements but I don't see why you can't register a homemade? Building a homemade boltgun or semiauto is perfectly legal for personal use currently (not for sale). So you couldn't sell this registered homemade MG, but I don't see why you couldn't register it in the first place?

[MAKOwner]

{Nevermind...}

[Daedalus]

So what can a 19 year old college student in florida do to throw off the 922(o) yoke here in the sunshine state?

[jimpeel]

Okay, this exempts "homemade" units. If I design, and make blueprints for, a machinegun; but I lack the necessary skills and equipment to actually make that machinegun; and I send the drawings out to a machine shop; and I gather the finished parts and assemble them myself; is that unit still considered "homemade"?

[Publicola]

Here's the deal - Kozinski was bound by a previous court decision that said the 2nd wasn't an individual Right. So he pretty much had no choice (actually he did but that would have been his job) but to follow that logic.

However y'all seem to miss the point.

First of all the next person that argues that this will open up registration like it's a good thing will need to show me some ID without the name Brady on it. Registration is bad & there's no point in arguing for it when ya should be arguing against it. Reminds me of Ohio - they had two courts rule that the ban on concealed weapons was unconstitutional & what'd they do? They started a drive to get a licensing system! They should have viewed that as the opening of the door to Vermont &/or Alaska style carry (i.e. no begging for permission or being extorted to exercise a Right), but like some of y'all they started saying that registration would be cool.

Anyway, the really big thing y'all are missing is this: the courts have (slowly but surely) been striking down Congress' very broad interpretaion of interstate commerce. even the 9th circuit, which is just left of Mao generally (bad puns always intended) has struck down commerce claused based laws twice in the last year.

Now federal gun control started off as a taxing measure. That was good up until 68 when they switched the justification for their trampling of the 2nd amendment to the commerce clause. Every gun control law since 68 has been based not on Congress' taxing powers like the NFA of 34 & the one in 38 (never can recall its proper title) but on its power to regulate interstate commerce.

See where I'm going with this? If enough judicial weight gets thrown behind a narrowing of the commerce clauses overly broad interpretation, then within ten years or so I can stop complaining about the NRA cause they'll just be a shooting sports org again. I'm talking about a way to close the federal gun control loophole. In other words if the commerce clause isn't as broad as Congress claims it is, we can if several quick strokes, eliminate all the federal gun control laws since 1968. No more waiting to see if you're instacheck will grant you leave to walk away with that rifle; no more worrying about a bored cop seeing your ak with 20 round mag & bayonet lug steal, er, seizing it while he checks to make sure it's olf enough; no more buying ten round mags for a 15 round gun; no more sweating a shouting match in 1968 with your wife being considered domestic violence & disqualifying you from purchasing a firearm; etc., etc., etc.

Will it happen? Truthfully it's doubtful. But the potential is there & if we see it through we might get a lot farther than we think. A helluva lot farther than if we do nothing cause we don't think the court's stacked right.

What we have to do is start backing this case. That means no more of this BS about Stewart not being our ideal poster boy. Our ideal poster boy &/or girl are probably dead cause they lived in DC or NYC, couldn't get a permit & someone claiming they were cops on a no knock busted in their house & killed them before stealing all their stuff. The case is solid. Hell it won in the 9th didn't it? There have been a lot more conservative courts that have upheld various parts of the NFA even under commerce clause & taxing powers based challenges.

Oh, to clear it up further, Kozinski merely said that possession couldn't be regulated as far as home made stuff goes. Congress & the prosecution in this case have argued that since raw materials move in interstate commerce they can regulate the finished product. Kozinski pointed out this was BS. He did not address the registry, nor did he address any other aspects other than congress being able to regulate the private possession of a machine gun.

So until the 9th sits en banc or SCOTUS hears the case, then they cannot charge you with a federal violation anywhere in the 9th circuit for possession a machine gun that you made yourself, or at least finished making yourself. How they distinguish between what's essentially assembling parts & what's fabricating your own raw materials is a little up in the air, although I think he made it clear that merely assembling a parts kit wasn't cool & that it wasn;'t necessary to forge your own receivers.

However state law still can be used against you. So in states that forbid machine gun possession &/or state that it's aceptable as long as they're registered in compliance with the NFA, then you're screwed.

But if the 9th hears it en banc they'll reverse it. & either way there's a chance SCOTUS will pick this up, since the issue of the commerce clause seem ripe to them & they haven't been shying away from solid challenges to it.

There are 3 ways to eliminate firearms laws at the federal level: 1 argue that the commerce clause doesn't give the feds as much power as they think & the post '68 gun control laws are unconstitutional; argue that teh taxing clause cannot be used to regulate, but solely to gain revenue, therefore the pre '68 gun control laws are unconstitutional; & finally argue that all prior restraint based laws (every one passed since '34) are in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment & therefore foid. Course ya can combine all 3 but that's how ya get the federal gun control laws wiped. & this case bring us a little closer to accomplishing that.

So support Silveira (as it deals with incorporation), support the defense of Stewart, & support any other halfway decent challenege to any & all gun control laws. It doesn't matter if you won't go have a bear with the defendant. It doesn't matter of you won't let him date your daughter. What matters is that he brings direct 2nd amendment, commerce clause & taxing powers questions before the court & argues them competently.

But if Stewart doesn't go "NRA" on us we can start down the difficult road to putting a lot of BATF agents out of work.

[jimpeel]

This book http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=820 should be very popular these days.

A Brit kid decided to show the government that their laws were idiotic and the manufacture of firearms could not be stopped. So he designed and built a working subgun from ordinary, readily available parts and showed it to them. He also wrote this book.

Even if you have never before heard this story, you already know the rest so I won't go into it.

[Destructo6]

So like, Lightening Links, DIAS, shaved G3 trigger packs, etc would be covered or no? Would it only cover a complete weapon or also "conversion parts" that would normally have to be registered?

Yeah, I know it's a little early to be breaking out the tools, especially considering where I live, but it's fun to think about.

Now if Bush can get more of his nominees through...

[Mark Tyson]

I think Publicola made a pretty good case. All federal gun control is based on the commerce clause, except for the NFA which is absed on the tax power. Just don't try to sell your new home made sten gun to anyone or it becomes commerce.

[shooterx10]

Don't you have to be a Class 2 or 3 dealer in order to purchase full auto parts like bolt carriers, sears, etc.? Is this correct?

If you do, then where are you going to get the parts to do so? If you can't get it anywhere, you'll have to machine the parts yourself, which means you got to be a machinist and/or have access to the materials and tools. Of course, there are lots of websites that show you how to make a full auto weapon

[Destructo6]

Don't you have to be a Class 2 or 3 dealer in order to purchase full auto parts like bolt carriers, sears, etc.? Is this correct?
Nope, at least not at present. Currently, you can own such items as unmodified full auto G3 trigger packs and the like, no licese required. ARs are a special case, but this ruling may eventually rectify that.

IIRC, a C2 SOT can make new machineguns for sale to authorized entities (LEO/military). A C3 can engage in automatic weapons sales, interstate or otherwise.

Could the "making" clause the ATF has used for years come back to bite them on this? Such as "making" an automatic AR is as simple as drilling the sear pivot hole?

[bogie]

Since the ATF treats an M-16 sear as the registered "firearm," wouldn't it be legal to sit down with the mill and make one?

[Mark Tyson]

Since the ATF treats an M-16 sear as the registered "firearm," wouldn't it be legal to sit down with the mill and make one?

I'm worried that they will still be able to prevent you from putting it in the AR15 itself, since the gun was presumably shipped over state lines.

However ...

The opinion states that the purpose of the law is to keep machine guns out of the hands of criminals. It says "this is a worthy goal, but not a commercial one," or words to that effect. Therefore, this would seem to invalidate all laws that hide behind the interstate commerce clause. That would indeed invalidate the 86 FOPA amendment utterly, at least in the 9th district, since it is founded on the ICC. In other words, gun control disguised as commercial regulation is out the window.

If that is the correct interpretation of this case, then it could be huge.

[Destructo6]

IIRC, the sear of a standard M16 is not the registered part, since you'd need to drill the pivot hole to install it.

A DIAS is a registered conversion part. No modification to the rifle is required (you do need all the auto parts, though).