Any lawsuits over 1986 machine gun ban?

[ctdonath]

We can only hope for another amnesty.. that is the only REAL legal recourse.

There is the strong possibility of another amnesty, as BATFE has stated in court that the NFA registry is grossly, perhaps even criminally, erronious.

Unfortunately, an amnesty will do few any good. It will NOT let you register any post-'86 guns, period. Would-be registrants would have to convince the BATFE (the ones who screwed up the registry in the first place, sometimes wilfully) that the gun in question was in fact made pre-'86 - and that, most likely, by showing something to reasonably indicate the gun was in fact registered at one point (say, the BATFE authorization paperwork WITH cancelled NFA stamp, which oddly has no counterpart in the archives). A future NFA amnesty does NOT mean you can suddenly get & register an M4 or P90 (or any other guns which plainly are post-'86).

 

[ctdonath]

There is nothing inapplicable, unenforceable, or 'resting' about the NFA; 922(o) just adds another layer to the NFA which prohibits new registrations of MG for the civilian market.

The Rock River Arms case held that NFA did not apply where 922(o) applied, to wit: you can't be convicted of not paying the NFA transfer tax on a machinegun which 922(o) prevents the BATFE from collecting the tax on. You can't get in trouble for not paying a tax the tax collector won't collect; however, that does not lessen the fact that you can't have post-'86 MGs.

 

[Langenator]

What case was it that stated that upheld the $200 NFA tax on automatic weapons? U.S. v. Miller applied specifically to short barreled shotguns, resting on the fairly flimsy reasoning that an SBS had no purpose in the maintenance of a militia.

Given current military armaments, this obviously wouldn't apply to either automatic or select fire weapons (M2, M240 family, M16/M4) or short barrelled rifles (M4-14.5" barrel). However, the courts have consistently and persistently misread Miller to read that placing a tax on something, whose possession is a right protected by the Second Amendment, is not an 'infringement,' and thus the NFA is OK.

Now, if you want to take on the '86 ban on the basis that the US military has something that civilians have no way of buying, SOCOM has just adopted the SCAR-L and -H. Navy SEALS also use the Mk-46 and Mk-48 machineguns, which to the best of my knowledge have never been available on the civilian market.

However, given the court's reluctance of the last couple of decades to issue broad, sweeping rulings, such a ruling would just make those specifc models legal, and Congress would close the registry again after FN had sold about a dozen of each.

 

[beerslurpy]

Too late. In 1934, the tax/price proportions were about the same. It was a $200 tax on a (then) something like $5 gun. And yes, SCOTUS found that entirely Constitutional.

You again. The supreme court never found the NFA constitutional. It dodged on an as-applied challenge to the NFA but didnt decide one way or the other.

Anyway, I think the current congress is pro-gun enough that revisiting the MG tax wouldnt happen.

 

[publius]

The supreme court never found the NFA constitutional.

Yes, they did.

SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES , 300 U.S. 506 (1937)

The question for decision is whether section 2 of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, 26 U.S.C. 1132- 1132q (26 U.S.C.A. 1132-1132q), which imposes a $200 annual license tax on dealers in firearms, is a constitutional exercise of the legislative power of Congress.
...

Here the annual tax of $200 is productive of some revenue. We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed. As it is not attended by an offensive regulation, and since it operates as a tax, it is within the national taxing power.

 

[MGshaggy]

The Rock River Arms case held that NFA did not apply where 922(o) applied, to wit: you can't be convicted of not paying the NFA transfer tax on a machinegun which 922(o) prevents the BATFE from collecting the tax on. You can't get in trouble for not paying a tax the tax collector won't collect; however, that does not lessen the fact that you can't have post-'86 MGs.

First off, an apology. I completely missed your point yesterday. Sorry about that. For some reason I went off on a tangent about the constitutionality of the registration requirements vis-a-vis the 5th Amendment. I don't know what I was thinking...maybe thinking about all the bases upon which the NFA has been challenged threw me off track.

Anyhow...

Its clear to me now you were referring to the Rock Island case about their M60s. Rock Island, while definitely holding that one could not be prosecuted for possesion of an unregistered MG under the NFA when 922(O) prevented payment of the necessary tax, was impliedly overruled by US v. Ross in the 7th Circuit (which hears appeals from the District Court of Illinois in which Rock Island was decided), following the same logic of the 4th Circuit in US v. Jones. The following, originally from Jones, was quoted in the Ross opinion to explain:

"In the absence of some affirmative showing of an intention to
repeal, the only permissible justification for repeal by im-
plication is when the earlier and later statutes are
irreconcilable." . . . [T]he two statutes are not
irreconcilable because, despite Jones' assertions to the
contrary, Jones can comply with both acts. While he may not
be able to register newly-made machine guns in which he deals,
neither act requires him to deal in such guns. Simply put,
Jones can comply with both acts by refusing to deal in newly-
made machine guns.... What Jones is really complaining about
is that the amendment to the Gun Control Act effectively
tendered possession o certain guns automatic violations of
both the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Yet
there is nothing either inconsistent or unconstitutionally
unfair about Congress' decision to do so. And, faced with two
equally applicable penal statutes, there is nothing wrong with
the government's decision to prosecute under one and not the
other, so long as it does not discriminate against any class
of defendants.​

 

[coat4gun]

Infringe

The word is clear to me.... precident is bull... the Feds have no authority to make any law that Infringes on My Right to Keep and Bear anything I consider an Arm... since I am the Person with the Right being Infringed... machine guns included.

lets not get caught up in the heat of the argument. All of these Federal laws are totally unconstitutional and therefore should be deemed invalid. This is the decision that needs to be made by SCOTUS. It is the only decision that is the Truth. All other decisions are half truths... and therefore are part lie.

Unrealistic... maybe, but I can dream, can't I...

 

[Autolycus]

The word is clear to me.... precident is bull... the Feds have no authority to make any law that Infringes on My Right to Keep and Bear anything I consider an Arm... since I am the Person with the Right being Infringed... machine guns included.

lets not get caught up in the heat of the argument. All of these Federal laws are totally unconstitutional and therefore should be deemed invalid. This is the decision that needs to be made by SCOTUS. It is the only decision that is the Truth. All other decisions are half truths... and therefore are part lie.

Unrealistic... maybe, but I can dream, can't I...

Thats pretty much the way I feel. We all know that the $200 tax was meant to prevent people from owning such weapons. We all know what the motive was behind all of this BS gun control legislation. Lets not forget the spirit of the law.