Hello,
(yes, this is a huge post. sorry about that. I just wrote random stuff in a text file over a couple days as I thought about this)
I've been thinking about the 1986 ban on registration of machine guns (86 ban) for a while. I planned to just lurk around this forum without registering until I could get more involved with RKBA, gun ownership, target shooting, etc., but I saw this thread and had to say something.
I want to post what I've thought about the 86 ban because, hopefully, something that I write might give you an idea that helps the court challenge. I'd hate to see this challenge lose and not have tried to help at all.
I'm just a (naive?) kid that wants to own a machine gun someday... (Something new, not a rusted out 40 year old pos at a 3500% markup.)
Take that into consideration when you read this, many of my ideas/thoughts are probably pretty stupid. All the experience I have is from reading about firearms law on sites like this.
Anyway, just adding ideas can't hurt, right? At least I'll get a quick education on this stuff if I'm really wrong.
0)
Before I get going, why has everyone been interpreting previous court cases? If the goal is to repeal the 86 ban, what's the homemade/interstate commerce garbage mean? Especially if the only claim being used is the constitutional one...
"The '86 ban is completely unconstitutional and we demand that it be removed, but we still think that it is important that the select fire AR we ask to make be completely home-made because that Stewart ruling says that the '86 ban only applies to interstate commerce machine guns..."
Aren't previous cases supporting this are only a bonus, and not a win/lose thing?
How much does this constitutional law stuff matter if the law takes away from our freedom (we can't do this/that) while preventing no crime and not benefiting society? This is completely contrary to whatever principles most people will claim to have. If they say they want these restrictions even though they will not help anyone, they are practically admitting being power-hungry, wanting to enslave others, etc. I don't know, but it seems like a stupid thing to be caught saying, especially for these politicians. Great way for them to spook the sheep too.
I also think that if you spin the 2A to not uphold the individual right, then you're stating that we don't have a right to free speech/religion/etc. If "the people" really means "the government" in one case, why doesn't it apply in every case?
The constitution alone is the founding document.
Other debates/papers/opinions that the founding fathers had do not matter in this discussion because they have not been written into law like the constitution.
Isn't it "the text of the law" that matters, not the intent?
1)
Is this challenge aimed just at the 86 ban, or the whole NFA system ('34, '68, '86)?
I've always thought that going one piece at a time may work better.
Attacking the 86 ban first, then hitting the '68, then '34 (throw in other national/local legislation on the way)...
I think there's a pretty good chance that we could win a case against just the 86 ban, but I doubt we'd be able to repeal the whole NFA in a single case anytime soon.
Here's a question for those of you that know how courts work; could a case against the whole NFA system end with a partial victory? Something like some restrictions being removed while the main NFA system remains in place, or are court cases "all or nothing"?
In the rest of my post, I'll assume that the case is only against the 86 ban. I just think it's a more reasonable goal for a starting court case, something winnable that'll give us a good start in overturning some of these other firearms laws.
Just referring to "the 86 ban" is also a lot simpler than talking about all the laws at once.
2)
This stuff is in a "how do you think this would work?" format. It may provoke some extra thoughts and responses, and I won't be attacked as readily by people who didn't read the whole post. I'm not a lawyer!
This also has little to do with constitutional law and previous court challenges because no one seems to have brought this stuff up (I'm kinda worried about that...).
-Consider applying to make a antique styled full-auto too (BAR/Thompson/etc). It may be possible to put a "collector"/obsolete design/"more politically correct weapon" spin on the challenge... This would probably defeat your own militia arguments though, I'm not sure, it may be something to look into though.
-Would it help to charge that the 86 ban is unconstitutionally restricting machine gun ownership to the wealthy by artificially inflating prices and limiting ownership to a small pool of firearms? It is effective as a ban, though it is not explicitly written that way. Maybe bring up the idea of wealthy elites having rights that the commoners don't...
"This law restricts the ownership of a entire class of personal arms to wealthy elites, establishing segregated classes of American citizens under the law" (commoners + elites)
-What about bringing up that there has only been 1 real crime with a legal machine gun since 1934, committed by that police officer?
Perhaps emphasize that the 86 ban takes away the ability/right to own machine guns while having no affect on crime.
Was the 86 ban even intended to reduce crime? How could it be, with only 1 crime (1988, 2 years after the ban) since 1934?
A lot of useful arguments could come from the lack of machine gun crime after 1934...
("the NFA is proven to work fine, but the 86 ban is excessive...", etc.)
-Would it sound good to a judge to only challenge the 86 ban in this court case? You could say all kinds of stuff about how hard it is to actually get a machine gun. Emphasize the 3-6 month waiting period, fingerprinting, FBI background check, etc. This would be useful in showing that machine guns wouldn't really become available to everyone after the 86 ban is removed.
This would destroy the "anyone could walk into a hardware store and leave with a evil machine gun if this law is repealed" emotionalism.
-would it help to emphasize that criminals can easily obtain machine guns illegally? Show how easily a criminal can convert/steal/buy/make/etc?
Maybe some research into the source of the few illegal machine guns used in crimes would turn up some arguments. Something like "the North Hollywood bank robbers just walked across the Mexican border with their guns, look at how effective this law is".
-Can you draw the law enforcement community into this? If you can make a good (and realistic) argument that the 86 ban makes it harder for officers to own machine guns, you'll get a lot of sympathy from the judge. Look for sympathetic officers to join w/"class action" status or something...
-Would suggesting that trustworthy, law abiding citizens should be well armed "in these uncertain times" be a good idea?
Well armed, trained and trustworthy American citizens can only be assets to the community and law enforcement, deterrent against terrorists and such...
-Something to look into, is it easier for the average law abiding citizen to get a legal machine gun or join the police and make arrests? Nothing against police, look at pilots, military, doctors, bus drivers, power plant operators, etc. You might find something out of line somewhere. This might not be a good argument to use in court, it would probably depend on the judge's stance on these things...
"You get a more thorough background check if you try to buy a machine gun than you do if you try to join the police/fbi/cia."
"It's easier and faster to become a cop and gain the authority and power of a badge than it is to purchase a legal machine gun."
-Only a law abiding citizen would even attempt to use the legal system (removal of 86 ban) to make/own a machine gun. Maybe arguing that it only prevents law abiding citizens from owning machine guns (artificial price increases), while Joe criminal can easily make his own or import it with his drugs.
-Useless law that only takes away rights, while not preventing any crime.
3)
I've read somewhere that there are about 120,000 legal civilian machine guns in the US. If a "10-20 dollar donation for every machine gun you own" campaign got distributed fairly well, you might be able to raise a lot of money. (Of course, a couple owners are probably just greedy sob's, and will attempt to protect their investments by fighting against the court challenge).
A "10 dollars for every EBR you own" campaign might work out too...
I can't see why a EBR owner wouldn't want to shoot a full auto once in his/her lifetime, or get the select fire upgrade.
The select fire upgrade doesn't seem like a bad idea if the $200 tax, LEO permission, background checks and registration get repealed. (I still think small steps would work out better, hit the 86 first, then 68...). I bet a lot of shooters would apply for the select fire upgrade if it became legal, even with the tax and registration.
Would Dillon or any big reloading companies donate? Ammo manufacturers? Ammo distributors? I'm sure they'd all love to see more civilian machine guns, it would be great for their businesses.
4)
Would it be possible to get a large group of police to support the court case? I remember that a major police group somewhere, something like a "Fraternal Order of Police" opposed the ballistic fingerprinting schemes.
If you could get a large police organization or two to publicly announce support for the repeal of the 86 ban, it would be really tough for the anti's to win.
It would be even better if a pro-RKBA police organization would throw in and join the court case, some sort of "class action"(?) thing...
The help of a couple local officers/sheriffs could be a big help, either by talking to the judges or by joining the case.
Maybe you could find a couple high-ranking officers in the military to help too.
Personally, I don't know if it would be possible to get the help of large police groups like this, but I don't see any reason why you can't.
It would probably be a problem for any organization to donate money or legal support, but even having the leaders write letters to the judges and large newspapers would help a lot. We could buy stamps/paper/pens for them if they need it.
I imagine that a press release from a police organization could snowball pretty well. Just something like a couple letters and telephone calls of "We, the <police org name> support the effort to repeal the 86 ban..."
I'm sure that some people here at THR have pretty good political/police/military connections that could help.
Look around for police (and other) organizations that might help the case.
Still, I'm just a naive kid... Wouldn't happen, right?
-Don't arouse any anti-RKBA police groups though... Need to somehow make sure that a group would help out or remain neutral before you ask them to publicly support something...
5)
Can the anti's screw the court case somehow? Donating to the opposition lawyers when you're in court? How's that work?
Somehow cutting off anti interference before the case starts would be a good idea.
6)
Everyone here at THR should be trying to help out!
Heck, a "legally carried guns confiscated" post has gotten more attention, even when it was resolved in our favor. We need to get people's attention on "going offensive"...
Don't bash bamawrx for a "incorrect" interpretation of a court case. Offer suggestions, ideas and help if you're able. The worst that will happen is that he (and his lawyers) will reject the idea.
Even if you don't want a machine gun, repealing some laws would slow the advance of AWB-2 (the complete semi-auto ban), right?
7)
Would it be best to make this case a huge public issue, or run it in "stealth mode"?
It'll definitely educate a lot of the fence sitters if it's public.
"I thought machine-guns just became legal with this sunset. Why did these guys start this court challenge?"
------------------------
I'll admit, I got pretty excited when I saw this thread, the 86 ban and AWB currently bother me a lot. A court challenge like this also seems to be the most realistic way to remove gun control laws.
I'm aware that the challenge probably won't make any progress, but I really hope it does.
I'd guess that the best way to make progress would be to pull in a big police organization, even just by having them announce that they support/appreciate the movement to repeal the 86 ban.
Whatever happens, good luck with the challenge. I wish I could really contribute somehow. Unfortunately, I won't be able to for a while.