Congress wants to exempt Hollywood from machine gun law

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LAR-15

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
3,385
Posted on another site:

(E) a transfer to or possession by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer for a professional theatrical purpose if the licensee--

`(i) is registered under section 5802 of the National Firearms Act;

`(ii) holds a valid permit or license under State law to engage in business as a theatrical firearms dealer or equivalent statutory designation;

`(iii) derives not less than 80 percent of income from the firearms business from the use of firearms by professional motion picture or television productions that are distributed to or produced for a national or international audience;

`(iv) before possessing a machinegun under this subparagraph, provides the Attorney General with documentation that--

`(I) the licensee meets the requirements of clauses (i) through (iii); and

`(II) the transfer or possession, as the case may be, is for such purpose; and

`(v) establishes that the number of machineguns sought by the licensee is reasonable for the film, production, or performance for which the machineguns are requested; or'; and

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:40:./temp/~c110q29DW5:e21944:
 
Several movies have been filmed overseas due to similar loopholes for film studios, the biggest example that comes to mind was the Matrix 2 & 3 being filmed in Australia.

Kharn
 
If they are having difficulties due to the crappy laws they helped pass, they should repeal the laws, not put themselves above the law. I would be happy to help them with their problems by repealing 922(o). It is long past time this happened anyway.

And that isn't a permanent link, it's a link to your cached search results so it has already expired.
 
H.R.4900
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

It is the old "guns for blackwater" provision we argued about several years ago. They have added movie producers to the list as well.

SEC. 202. POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF MACHINEGUNS FOR INDUSTRY TESTING AND SECURITY CONTRACTING.

(a ) Machineguns for Federal Contractors- Section 922(a )(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `except' and all that follows and inserting `except--

`(A ) as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; or

`(B) to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to such services;'.

(b) Sale or Delivery of Machineguns to Federal Contractors- Section 922(b) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `Paragraphs (2) and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to a sale or delivery to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services.'.

(c) Post-86 Machineguns for Testing, Research and Development, Training, and Security- Section 922(o) of such title is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)--

(A ) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (A ); and

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (F) and inserting after subparagraph (A ) the following:

`(B) a transfer to , or possession by , a person to comply with a contract between that person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services;

`(C) a transfer to , or possession by , a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer solely for testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm;

`(D) a possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of training persons to whom a machinegun, manufactured or imported by the licensee, may be transferred as described in subparagraph (A ) or (B);

`(E ) a transfer to or possession by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer for a professional theatrical purpose if the licensee--

`(i) is registered under section 5802 of the National Firearms Act;

`(ii) holds a valid permit or license under State law to engage in business as a theatrical firearms dealer or equivalent statutory designation;

`(iii) derives not less than 80 percent of income from the firearms business from the use of firearms by professional motion picture or television productions that are distributed to or produced for a national or international audience;

`(iv) before possessing a machinegun under this subparagraph, provides the Attorney General with documentation that--

`(I) the licensee meets the requirements of clauses (i) through (iii); and

`(II) the transfer or possession , as the case may be, is for such purpose; and

`(v) establishes that the number of machineguns sought by the licensee is reasonable for the film, production, or performance for which the machineguns are requested; or' ; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) A person who receives, possesses, transports, imports, or uses a weapon, ammunition, or a device under subsection (b) of this section, shall be subject to a background check every 3 years by the Attorney General, based on fingerprints and including a background check under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (Public Law 103-159; 18 U.S.C. 922 note) to determine whether the person is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law. Any person who receives, possesses, transports, imports, or uses a weapon, ammunition or a device under subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to subsections (g) and (n) of this section.'.

(d) Importation of Machineguns- Section 925(d) of such title is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking `or' at the end;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:

`(5) is imported or brought in for a purpose described in section 922(o)(2); or

`(6) a machinegun being imported or brought in for a purpose described in section 922(o)(2)(E ).'.

(e ) Importation Under the National Firearms Act- Section 5844 of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5844) is amended--

(1) by striking `or' at the end of paragraph (2); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) a machinegun being imported or brought in to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services;

`(5) a machinegun being imported or brought in by a registered importer or registered manufacturer for the purpose of training persons who acquire machineguns pursuant to paragraph (1) that were manufactured or imported by the registrant; or

`(6) a machinegun being imported or brought in for a purpose described in section 922(o)(2)(E ) of title 18, United States Code;'.

(f) National Security Services Defined- Section 921(a ) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `national security services' means any protective, defensive, or security services provided pursuant to a contract with a department or agency of the United States.

`(37) The term `professional theatrical purpose' means the use of firearms in a motion picture or television production which is expected to be produced, distributed, marketed, or shown by a member of a nationally recognized professional trade association related primarily to motion picture and television production, as determined by the Attorney General.'.

(g) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.
Click to expand...
 
There are clearly a plethora of good reasons to repeal 922(o) besides its lack of support in the commerce clause and its violation of the 2nd amendment. Instead of simply doing away with it, Congress is using it as an opportunity to turn this otherwise meaningful attempt at reform into what amounts to a helping of pork for Hollywood. Very annoying.

It pisses me off that Hollywood, the party most guilty of regularly pissing on our freedoms is going to enjoy freedom from the restrictions they have imposed upon the general public.
 
All it takes is an amendment to repeal 922(o) if this bill is brought up.

How often does Hollywood glorify gun violence? A lot
 
Now you know why Hollywood contributes so much money and time to various candidates, like the very recent Jack Nicholson campaign ad for Hillary Clinton. They get the exceptions that let them keep glorifying violent crime. The almighty dollar strikes again.
 
Yeah they don't like the extra cost of arming people- you either have to make them expensive government employees or they can't have machine guns.

The national security contractor justifications for carving out these exceptions goes right to the heart of why 922(o) is unconstitutional. These security contractors are filling EXACTLY the same niche that the militia historically occupied- civilians that could serve as soldiers in a time of need. This really highlights how difficult it is to render militia service without the proper military tools for the job.
 
I thought about that, but I don't trust the supreme court enough to do the right thing.

But you're entirely correct, it really opens up many angles of attack if you have a supposedly iron-clad prohibition for public safety reasons and there is a giant exception in the middle for the making of action movies. It kind of eats away at the compelling government interest angle.

I'm really not sure about the equal protection angle. Could you explain your reasoning? That typically only gets wielded on behalf of racial minorities and women, not "members of the militia" or citizens as a whole. If you aren't a member of one of those groups, you get the rational basis test which basically means "you lose."
 
If they are having difficulties due to the crappy laws they helped pass, they should repeal the laws, not put themselves above the law. I would be happy to help them with their problems by repealing 922(o). It is long past time this happened anyway.
Click to expand...
I definitely concur. We should find the guy who wanted this little exemption, and explain this to him.

If Hollywood gets put above the law, it's over--Politicians will use hollywood as reasons to ban things, and Hollywood will get involved with itself and insulate a good many against the reality of gun laws--making them run to politicians for their ideas, etc etc etc.
 
NRA is supporting all the other good stuff the bill does, especially parts that fix the problems with how the ATF treats FFLs.

This sort of compromise is how we got the 86 ban in the first place. We are in a much stronger position than we were 22 years ago. We should help congress recognize that 922(o) doesn't just harm the legitimate interests of hollywood and blackwater, it harms the interests of all law abiding americans. The correct solution is not to carve out an exception for the interest groups but to address their concerns by repealing the bad law.
 
I'm really not sure about the equal protection angle. Could you explain your reasoning?
Click to expand...
With enough paperwork and money, a group can own new machineguns for entertainment or defensive purposes.
This unfairly and without cause discriminates against another group which has an equally legitimate interest in owning new machineguns for entertainment or defensive purposes, a group explicitly identified by Congress and protected by the Constitution: the unorganized militia of the USA, which has a legislative history of being expected (unto obligated) to acquire exactly such kind of arms on an individual level.

Much better, however, if Congress just repeals the ban instead of issuing exemptions.
 
Set up two corporations: one for renting firearms to filmmakers, and one to make films. You then rent the guns to the film company, take the machine guns and cameras to Knob Creek, and let people pay a fee to have you film them shooting the machine guns.

Rent the guns to anyone else making films. Lots of people do it; most movies don't ever "make money" on paper, so profitability cannot be a criterion for "professional". I'm not sure exactly what the criteria CAN be, in the new media age...

Just make sure that no money that ever comes to your gun rental company comes from anywhere but filmmaking.

Small-time real estate shysters often set up many separate corporations for liability and tax purposes. It should be relatively easy to meet the 80% requirement by doing this.

...and it appears that fee-based machine gun shooting at Knob Creek can be a profitable little enterprise.
 
I say no. All or nothing. If we give exemptions back to special classes for special classes we will never get our rights back. It is not as though when they get them they are going to suddenly say "oh guns are not that bad after all".

This is all because of the ban to begin with. The Hollywood crowd is feeling the pinch for two reasons:
1. Full auto guns are artificially expensive,
2. The latest and greatest full auto guns are unavailable to the Hollywood crowd. How can you make cool movies if you don't have the proper death dealing device last seen on CNN?

Another good reason not to allow it is that they will continue to spread the lie that assault weapons are available to the general public or easy to get.
 
With enough paperwork and money, a group can own new machineguns for entertainment or defensive purposes.
This unfairly and without cause discriminates against another group which has an equally legitimate interest in owning new machineguns for entertainment or defensive purposes, a group explicitly identified by Congress and protected by the Constitution: the unorganized militia of the USA, which has a legislative history of being expected (unto obligated) to acquire exactly such kind of arms on an individual level.
Click to expand...

That sounds very common-sense, but that is not how equal protection works.

Economic status isn't a protected class. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. Equal protection doesn't protect against disparities due to one group having less money than another. I know this from my law school learnings.
 
Armed Bear

Excellent scam - though legal. I think the trick would be to get licensed in your state as "a theatrical firearms dealer or equivalent statutory designation"

Do that, and this would work.

Of course, none of this should be necessary, as 922(o) is an offense to the Constitution. Further, even if you're going to have it, this exception is BS.

I think that we ought to put lots of pressure on our Congresscritters to amend this bill with a blanket repeal of 922(o).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top