Heller and M16s/ Heller vs. 922(o) (threads merged)

Is the MG registry permanently closed?

Click to expand...

No. Manufacturers/SOT's can still register new guns on a Form 2. These can be transferred to LE and military, or to other manufacturers/SOT's as demos.

Supposedly some major political officers have been gifting new manufactured MG's to people who have contributed large amounts of money to their campaigns.

Now I don't know the specifics on this particular instances, as to who has or hasn't been involved or how many times it has happened.

Click to expand...

In 1989 the ATF stated that there were around 100,000 transferrable machine-guns in the registry. Last year that number was 200,000. You do the math. Not saying it's true, not saying it isn't

A friend of mine was telling me about it recently and just thought I'd ask if any of you have heard of it. According to my friend the BATF simply refused to register ay new MG's, that they had the authority to decide if one was added or not.

Click to expand...

The information initially came from a post over at DU. Take that for what it's worth.

If in fact this is tru I would think it should be relatively easy to get changed.

Click to expand...

Actually, it would be very difficult. The reason that the potential for corruption exists wrt the NFRTR and our politicians is that the value of a transferable machine gun is 15-20 times that of a new one. As an example:

Suppose I am Senator Joe Legislator. I am up for re-election and need to raise funds. I go to a donor who gave me a nice check last time I ran for election. He tells me "Hey, sorry, I'd like to help you out but things are tight right now". Not a problem. I pull strings and arrange to have a "transferable" full-auto firearm delivered to him for a pittance. Donor sells transferrable for beaucoup $$$ and cuts me a check from the proceeds.

So, what is the source of these "transferables"? Well... the military has asked the BATFE multiple times to cross-reference its list of stolen guns with those in the NFRTR, and has been refused each time. Another source... manufacturers are strong-armed... you want to win this lucrative contract? Ok, you'll need to deliver a few extras to this address...

Of course, this is all speculation on my part.

Thats what I thought the 1986 law meant. Seems to me if someone wanted fight the 1986 law the dates would be the way to fight it.

I can legally own a Colt M16 built in April of 86 but can't own the same gun built in June of 86. That makes alot of sense.

MG's as a whole are not banned, they are just cost prohibitive for most gun owners.

A member of the US militia (ideally a National Guard member) files a BATFE Form 4 for a new M4, gets rejected, and follows exactly the same line of reasoning as Mr. Heller.
It's the same case as Heller, just with a different tool.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd go with a member of one of the state militias (SC and TX have them that I know of; I'd wager other states, especially former Confederate ones, do as well) that aren't affliliated in any way with the federal government, the way the NG is.

The NG is regarded as a 'select militia,' and is already equipped with weapons by the state/federal government. To the best of my knowledge, these separate state militias aren't provided with weapons by any government.

Some information for us laypersons, read then ask

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

Personally, I'd go with a member of one of the state militias

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, half the states still have a State Defense Force of some sort. Maybe if we all started signing up for those then trying to register MGs, we could get the courts' attention. Could even point at the dissent in this case and be like "even Stevens and Ginsburg think members of the militia have a right to own them!"

Or perhaps we could even go at the NFA itself piece by piece. Probably couldn't get unregistered MGs any time soon, but I almost think the whole SBR/AOW thing should be vulnerable to even a rational basis challenge now. Think about it.

AR with a 6.5" barrel and no stock? Pistol, which the Heller opinion says are protected.

Snap on a stock, and it's a SBR even though it's less concealable than it just was. Wasn't concealability the reason for the SBR tax?

Stick a foregrip on it instead, and now it's an AOW?

But put the stock back on and it's a SBR again?

But the foregrip or stock doesn't change the status of a rifle/carbine.

None of that is rational!

Maybe we could punch enough holes in the NFA that, at the very least, Congress would have to rewrite it.

All the "irationality" in the '34 NFA surrounding SBR's, SBS's, and AOW's, is from the fact that originally the '34 NFA wanted to make ALL HANDGUNS NFA items as well.

And the classifications were created to prevent people from using cut down long-guns to make "handguns".

When it was realized that the NFA wouldn't pass muster if it had handguns in it, they were dropped, but the SBR and SBS and AOW remained because they still bore some resemblance to the items that turned up in the posessions of the notorious crime gangs.

Now that handguns are a protected class, and that the SBR, SBS, and AOW categories even exist to close loopholes in a handgun ban that never was...

Like I said earlier today, at around 11 or so, that CNN said that the ruling would allow good measures to prevent gun violence such as assault weapons bans.
thats them talking not me....
it goes to show you that they are already thinking of it....

the decision has laid the foundation for us to push gun rights but the big stuff is still ahead of us. this is just the beginning,
at least now we have something to go on when we go up against the leftists.
There are loopholes that we need to tighten.
we are on the offensive now....

ctdonath said:

These "baby steps" take years to complete.
I'm 40.
Doing the math, I don't have all that long before I'm not going to care that much any more (one eventually becomes keenly aware how short life is).
I'm not impressed with "baby steps" when "shall not be infringed" should have resolved ALL our questions today.

Click to expand...

I feel similarly.

Like I said earlier today, at around 11 or so, that CNN said that the ruling would allow good measures to prevent gun violence such as assault weapons bans.
thats them talking not me....
it goes to show you that they are already thinking of it....

Click to expand...

They may be thinking it but I think they will not be as successful as they are hoping without some new SCOTUS justices. I only skimmed part of the ruling but I think the individual right ruling cuts off a lot of options for gun control laws.

Regulations such as registration or licensing are still possibilities for now but I think a flat out ban won't be supported by Heller very well. I think that Heller holds a chance of opening the MG registry for instance.

Overreaching on licensing and regulation by a state or municipality (like say, Massachussetts) is probably not going to hold up either.

Actually, wouldn't the AWs, SBRs, etc, be covered under what I called the "Glock 18 exception" in my earlier post. You can get an AK pistol- they can't ban the pistol, so therefore, how can they ban a rifle which is the same thing except with a stock and longer barrel?

But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty.

Click to expand...

Full-auto is going to be tough under that understanding, and heavier stuff pretty much right out.

Good point ConfuseUS, it would be a bad time to try and introduce such legislation, but that doesn't mean they are not thinking about it. Its fresh in their minds.

but I have to agree with you

This would be an outstanding time for everyone here to buy something in .50 BMG so it can be demonstrated that that cartridge is commonly in personal ownership and use.

All great points yet I must say that in my opinion they are all irrelevant...ultimately.

What if Heller had gone the other way. Does that make my rights any less than they are...GOD GIVEN and individual? I don't need the government to give me it's blessings to defend myself from criminals or from them!!!

All any 10 year old has to do to understand the constitution and specifically the second amendment is get a Websters dictionary.

"The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS shall NOT be INFRINGED"

If a monkey could read he could figure that one out.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

At the time of writing the second amendment "ARMS" had no definition. The people if they so chose to do so could have had a war ship or a cannon. Why can I not have a machine gun, because they are not common? And only so because the government limits their existence. Supply controlled by the government is low and this has driven the price up to between $3,000 to $20,000. NO F#$%#* kidding they are not common!

The court in this case as in many others failed to INTERPRET law. They chose to MAKE law and law that could come back to bite us in the butt. So once again Activist judges are meddling in things areas that they have no business doing so. The case and the taking of it were fine. But the broad brush by which they rendered their decision was not.

The fight continues. I will consider this one a win for this fact alone: The anti gunners are really pissed off. Chalk one off for liberty!

At the time of writing the second amendment "ARMS" had no definition.

Click to expand...

Well that's just... totally fallacious.

Anyway, I have to agree with Bart here, I was very, very surprised to see a narrow ruling here. Given the wording and logic used in the majority opinion, dissenting opinions seem like an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

The NG is regarded as a 'select militia,' and is already equipped with weapons by the state/federal government. To the best of my knowledge, these separate state militias aren't provided with weapons by any government.

Click to expand...

There you go. You're correct. Some here (sadly) fall into the antigun trap that the NG is 'the militia', under the now-dead collective right theory, and thus made the 2A void. Many states (mine included) still have the organized militia, as well as the sometimes controversial unorganized militia. I have a friend who serves in the organized militia of Ohio - but they mostly direct traffic and rarely carry firearms. In some ways, it itself is also a 'select militia'.

Going back onto topic, I think this could slow an AWB down for a bit - but as I predicted months ago, ammo control will move right along as scheduled.

Seems to me if someone wanted fight the 1986 law the dates would be the way to fight it.

I can legally own a Colt M16 built in April of 86 but can't own the same gun built in June of 86. That makes alot of sense.

Click to expand...

There you go - that's your case. IMHO, the ideal client is an ex-Special Forces type who has been extensively trained to use, and has used, full autos of many types that were manufactured post-'86, specifically the M16 and the M4. He's absolutely squeaky clean and has a great reputation, and also happens to own a pre-ban M16. He's applied for a tax stamp on a post-ban M16, and the BATFE has refused to issue it.

The '86 ban is functionally identical to the DC ban - if you didn't own one prior to "X" date, you can NEVER own one - the entire class of post "X" date firearms is out of reach.

As to "in common use," I don't think that it is as much of a problem as many here think. First off, one of the duties of a militia is to repel invasions and to put down domestic insurrections. I'll grant that we haven't seen many of either lately, but that doesn't mean that either or both can't happen in the future. How, pray tell, is the militia supposed to repel hordes of (for example) Chinese soldiers armed with full auto whatevers while wielding semi-autos? If the argument is made that semis are enough, the logical counter is "OK, then, so why does the military order only full autos? Why do police departments have full autos?" IOW, "common" use by WHOM? By deer hunters? By target shooters? By drug gangs? By armies and police forces? What's the limitation on "common use?" IOW, what if the armed forces adopt ray guns a few years hence - which guns are not sold to the public because it is either illegal or because the contract with the sole licensed manufacturer forbids civilian sales. Are we militia members stuck with semi-auto ARs and the like for 50 years? 500 years? Forever? Try applying that type of logic backwards, and we're stuck fighting with muskets. Apply it to the press and media, and only the government can own faxes, email-capable computers, copiers, etc. - none for the "media militia."

There's also the Catch-22 issue of "how the Hell could a class of guns be in common use when current law for the last 22 years has been that no new ones can be manufactured, and that limitation drove up the price of the artificially-limited supply of existing guns by 10 or more times?"

Additionally, FULL AUTOS HAVE NEVER BEEN ILLEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW (provided you pay for the tax stamp and jump through a few paperwork hoops, plus pay for the gun). If they're so damned bloody dangerous, why does current federal law permit the existence of 150,000-200,000 of them in the hands of the public?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctdonath
These "baby steps" take years to complete.
I'm 40.
Doing the math, I don't have all that long before I'm not going to care that much any more (one eventually becomes keenly aware how short life is).
I'm not impressed with "baby steps" when "shall not be infringed" should have resolved ALL our questions today.

Click to expand...

I feel similarly.

Click to expand...

I feel for you. Heck, at 28/29, I'm only a scant decade behind you. That said, every small bit counts.
We fight the battles AND the war, making big gains where we can, but always going one small steps forward.

We may not get there before you're 50, or even 60, but we will get there. You keep plugging away, I'll keep plugging away, and we'll get there.

Donate a bit of cash to your favorite 2A organization... then go buy a box of ammo and take a newbie out shooting.

Every new shooter is a new voter. Every new voter is a new voice to be heard. Every new voice heard resounds in a politician's ear.

We aren't going to win with sweeping judgments from our robed masters - we're going to do it by being active, armed citizens.

We've won the hard part - the affirmation of the individual right. We just need to keep on pressing the advantage.

One of the dissenting judges actually commented on this. He said something about some new energy weapon or something being invented and the govt. immediately banning it. Then it would never come into common use...

Many think that this is the ultimate victory. If the anti gunners take 3 steps forward and now today have taken 2 steps back, who is the winner? It's not us. I think this is a victory but not the ultimate as it is so full of room for abuse and only sets the stage for massive and many more law suites with many and varied outcomes.

Another thing this does is get the Republican base all fired up again about getting good "judges" despite having to vote for a RINO bafoon ( that's McSame ) that is anything but conservative. The ultimate irony for us is that is he is a gun grabbing RINO and would likely nominate liberal or "centrist" judges.

If it is loose, loose then I am just going to third party this one. That is a hard choice as I have been a R voter for over 16 years.

I am not sure about the machinegun ban. The Court rules that some regulation is possible, but backdoor banning of pistols by refusing registration is unconstitutional. Would this not be similar on the BATFE refusal to issue transfer stamps?

The arms in question might not be common today, but that is a function of geography and the 86' ban. Tax stamps opening the registry and transfer tax stamps could be argued.

In order for the NFA of 34' to be overturned I think the case would have to be made that it was put in place by faulty logic. The basis for the act was that since machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and silencers were not used by any militia (of which is certainly not true with the use of short M97 shotguns) that they were not protected by the second ammendment. So, this law fundamentally sides with a "collective right" theory of which the 2A has been determined not to be.

I think many of you are downplaying this a lot, yeah it allows for some gun regulation but it will not allow for the local, state, or federal government to deny you of working, modern, and usefull firearms for law-abiding use. I am only 25 and I remember not too long ago when pro gun groups like the NRA were downright convinced that it was just a matter of time before all guns (particularly semi-autos) were the next to be banned. Sure there is room for guns to be regulated (of which I do feel is constitutional at a local level) but they sure as hell are not going to be allowed to take them all away and that is very significant for those of us who were legitamately concerned that it could happen.

As far as what this means for the NFA of 34' or the ban of 86' I'm not sure anyone knows. But from what the Justices said, I think the government is going to have to make the case of exactly why they strictly limit the use of registered machine guns to law-abiding citizens at some point in the near future. Since there is no good reason I feel the best we can hope for in the short run is a lift on the 86' ban.

i would stand to argue that the day before each of the gun control bills, '34, '68 and '86, that the types of guns affected were more common than the day after them... this means that those laws were integral in making things like machine guns and true assault weapons uncommon arms... thus the laws were unconstitutional at the time of their inception because they did ban guns of a type that were common at the time...

The most interesting thing is the level of scrutiny. Scalia compared the 2nd Amendment "core" rights to the 1st Amendment "core" rights. While there was not a level of scrutiny announced, rational basis was specifically discounted. Then again, strict scrutiny does not seem to be designated. So we have to go with some intermediate scrutiny.

I don't see how people think a challenge to the machine gun ban is dead on arrival. The end of the document says that banning a whole class of arms is unconstitutional. The sale of machine guns has been restricted in much the same way as pistols in DC....if you had one prior you were good, but nothing after the ban. I think the reopening of the registry is a completely possible thing with this ruling. The removal of the registry, no dice there.