"Gura tossed machineguns under the bus! What is he, a lawyer for the Bradys?!?"

[ilbob]

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end.

Guess that means there will never be a solution. Other than the heroic Ron Paul, has anyone ever introduced a bill to loosen or eliminate the MG freeze?

I don't think it is "never".

But the fact is that there are some things that are not likely to be touched by the courts, simply because they feel they are political in nature, and should thus be dealt with legislatively.

We need to keep up the pressure for a long time and get these things gradually rescinded. Fifty or 100 years from now, we may end up back where we were pre depression era.

 

[General Geoff]

The slippery slope argument works both ways. If the Heller decision is favourable, look for continued erosion of existing gun laws.

 

[only1asterisk]

Make this thread disappear!

 

[jlbraun]

Make this thread disappear!

Why?

It's not like other people aren't going to mount a 922(o) challenge the minute an individual rights ruling is handed down. I personally have heard of or read of at least a dozen people that are going to file to register a NIB fullauto milspec M4 the very day Heller is ruled on.

 

[Travis Morgan]

Due to dates of manufacture, I'm pretty sure an M-4 would not be possible. Or am I misinformed?

 

[General Geoff]

^^Under current regulation. That's the point.

 

[jlbraun]

Due to dates of manufacture, I'm pretty sure an M-4 would not be possible. Or am I misinformed?

That's the point. An individual rights Heller decision means that outright bans on registration of new individual weapons after a certain date are unconstitutional. Guess what 922(o) is? Yup. A ban on registering new individual weapons after a certain date. Heller filed to register a pistol, and was denied. Therefore, he had standing.

All we need to drop 922(o) then is a coalition of men between the ages of 17 and 45 not in the military (unorganized militia enrollees under USC 10.311) in NFA-friendly Circuit Court districts to file to buy new in box M4s and get denied. Instant standing.

 

[brighamr]

Personally, I think attempting to register a NIB M4 the day Heller is decided, might keep the momentum going. However, the people that do this need to do it in very NFA friendly states, and have a large cash reserve for the legal fees.


On the flip side, if we get a W on Heller, then someone in CA tries to register NFA, we can kiss all this good momentum goodbye.

 

[Igloodude]

All we need to drop 922(o) then is a coalition of people nationwide to file to buy new in box M4s and get denied. Instant standing.

Turning it into a sort of class action suit against the feds? Truly, the mind boggles.

 

[jlbraun]

However, the people that do this need to do it in very NFA friendly states, and have a large cash reserve for the legal fees.

Edited. Thanks.

 

[General Geoff]

So who lives in Montana, wants an M4, and has a lot of disposable income?

 

[jlbraun]

Montana is in the 9th Circuit, which includes California. . I think one would have more luck in the 10th Federal Circuit Court, which is CO, NM, WY, UT, OK, and KS. The 8th would be good as well.

http://www.uscourts.gov/courtlinks/

 

[lacoochee]

Actually, I think since you are suing the Federal Government you can do it in DC in the DC Federal Circuit Court. This is why SCOTUS picked up the case this time had they left the ruling in place, the next day the lawsuits would have been rolling in against Federal restrictions. (The decision was that much in our favor, it was a home run.) Outside of the DC Federal Circuit Court the 5th Circuit Court would be our best bet as they have already ruled that the second mandment is an individual right.

 

[DKSuddeth]

sooner or later, there is going to have to be an understanding amongst us that we will not see a removal of 922(o) in our lifetime. Despite the concrete legal fact that a simple copy and paste from heller to a suit involving MGs would should make it so, it will not happen. This is not negativity, not admitting defeat, etc. it's about the political reality that machine guns being available by a judicial decree would result in an almost immediate call for a constitutional convention to amend the 2nd with specific wording to ensure that machine guns would not be available for civilians.

 

[lacoochee]

sooner or later, there is going to have to be an understanding amongst us that we will not see a removal of 922(o) in our lifetime. Despite the concrete legal fact that a simple copy and paste from heller to a suit involving MGs would should make it so, it will not happen.

I disagree, you are being negative, I am quite certain there was a guy with the same take concerning CCW in Florida during the 80's, it took multiple attempts to get that to happen as well. I actually think that of all of our goals that it is the easiest to get done, machine guns are not banned at the Federal level nor are they banned in most States. Hey just saying, we will see in the next few years or so I am sure. Regardless, I am quite happy with the status quo, if everything remained exaclty as they are today, I will consider that victory enough.

 

[Jamie C.]

sooner or later, there is going to have to be an understanding amongst us that we will not see a removal of 922(o) in our lifetime.

Hey I never thought I'd live long enough to see the Supreme Court hear a 2A case, much less expect them to rule favorably on it.

Now I've not only seen the first part, but it's also looking like I may see that last bit in a matter of a few months.

The point here is that "never" is a long damn time, and that with a little patients almost anything is possible.

Let's see what happens in the next year or so at least, before anyone goes the "never, ain't gonna happen, just not possible" route.



J.C.

 

[Travis Morgan]

I think y'all are misunderstanding me about dates of manufacture. I was speaking about class III's. I'll try to get around to looking it up.

 

[jlbraun]

sooner or later, there is going to have to be an understanding amongst us that we will not see a removal of 922(o) in our lifetime.

...or a repeal of the AWB.

...or shall-issue CCW coming to the supermajority of US states.

...or...or...or...

Blind fatalism isn't a strategy. There will never be an "acceptance" that 922(o) isn't going away. Never.

 

[green-grizzly]

I'm in the 10th circuit and have been thinking about this. I think you would want as plaintiffs a couple members of the national guard, a couple LEOs, a couple people in the unorganized militia, some girls (not in the unorganized militia), a couple people who already own NFA items, etc. Of course we will have to see what the Heller decision says.

I think the 5th circuit would also be a great candidate. I'm really kind of shocked there has not been any significant follow-up litigation there since Emerson.

There is a lot to think about, but I do not think we should just let things stew. Conservatives tend to let landmark rulings in their favor atrophy because they never pursue follow-up litigation. The leftist interest groups always keep working at it, even in circuits where they know they are going to lose to create circuit splits. We should follow their lead.

But I think incorporation ought to come before targeting 922(o). We should not let the courts know how far we really want to take this before gathering the low hanging fruit.

 

[Vibe]

I think y'all are misunderstanding me about dates of manufacture. I was speaking about class III's. I'll try to get around to looking it up.

No Travis, most everyone is aware that you are referencing the outright ban on civilian ownership of post 1986 MGs. What they are trying to tell you is that, that is exactly WHY the purchase of such an arm should be attempted. Because it will be denied. The denial is what gives the case "Standing" or legal reason for being. So in order to challenge a law you first have to be affected by it, or denied a freedom.

 

[Librarian]

Blind fatalism isn't a strategy. There will never be an "acceptance" that 922(o) isn't going away. Never.

Well, OK.

So, do you agree with Gura that the solution has to be political? I do.

If that's so, what set of legislative districts will vote to support candidates who vow to work on repealing 922(o)? We need 51 Senate seats and 218 Representatives.

Support for machine gun ownership is a minority position in this country. I think it's OK; I don't see why anybody should actually care whether other people have slings or mortars, so long as crimes committed with them are prosecuted and punished as appropriate.

But we have to sell that to about a hundred million voters.

 

[Vibe]

But we have to sell that to about a hundred million voters.

Make that a hundred million ignorant voters. Whose ignorance has been encouraged in order to foment the fear required to maintain the control over their choices. We're fighting decades of brainwashing in that route. Probably in any route.

 

[jlbraun]

So, do you agree with Gura that the solution has to be political? I do.

No, I do not. As I said, Congress will not touch this.

The path forward is to file dozens of Form 4s on NIB machineguns, and sue once you are denied. SCOTUS will take it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

The path forward is to file dozens of Form 4s on NIB machineguns, and sue once you are denied. SCOTUS will take it.

SCOTUS will not take it. The machine gun issue has been addressed in US v. Stewart (2003)

On November 13, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion vacating Stewart's conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922o, but affirmed his convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Using the Morrison test, the Ninth Circuit ruled 18 U.S.C. § 922o did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and was unconstitutional as applied. In its opinion the circuit court wrote:

"...a homemade machine gun may be part of a gun collection or may be crafted as a hobby. Or it may be used for illegal purposes. Whatever its intended use, without some evidence that it will be sold or transferred—and there is none here—its relationship to interstate commerce is greatly attenuated."
"...section 922(o) contains no jurisdictional element anchoring the prohibited activity to interstate commerce."
"...there is no evidence that section 922(o) was enacted to regulate commercial aspects of the machine gun business. More likely, section 922(o) was intended to keep machine guns out of the hands of criminals—an admirable goal, but not a commercial one."

Supreme Court
After the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the United States Department of Justice then requested and received a stay while it appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Upon granting certiorari, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case back to the court for further consideration in light of its recent ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ____ (2005).

 

[PercyShelley]

What would be a nice intermediate step between re-opening the registry and where we are now? It sounds like gura is saying that it's too big a step, and that it plays too much into propoganda that we want machineguns everywhere.

It sounds like it ought to be something legislative, and preferably something small-sounding, but substantial. An end to "sporting use" distinctions, perhaps?