Prince Yamato
Member
Well, if this case goes our way, ONE of you should try to get a new M4 and get this straightened out... because Prince Yamato wants a new AK-47 with a happy switch! 
"Gura tossed machineguns under the bus! What is he, a lawyer for the Bradys?!?"
- Thread starter jlbraun
- Start date
- Status
Jamie C.
Member
So you think everybody has a right to a "happy switch"?
J.C.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness remember?
ctdonath
Member
We certainly won't if we don't TRY.
The problem with Stewart and Raich is that SCOTUS laid down the principle that if an activity so much as reduces commercial demand in an illegal market then "interstate commerce" applies.
Don't get wrapped up in finding "cute" ways to take on 922(o) et al. That's why we haven't gotten very far: the cases were to cute, criminal, and/or convoluted.
Approach 922(o) with the 2ndA, straight up: If the 2ndA protects an old (>45yo) man defending his bedroom, then it most certainly protects those who Congress has declared part of the militia, not otherwise provided with arms, who seek to obtain that which any soldier is commonly expected to use in combat.
The only obstacle is that The Powers That Be view MGs as a "third rail".
rbernie
Contributing Member
Of course, silly. If I can trust you to have a firearm, you should be able to have a firearm of your own choosing. If I can't trust you to have a firearm, I would expect that you should probably not be walking about as a Free Man.
Jamie C.
Member
Y'all do know I was just teasing P.Y. about the term "happy Switch", right? 
I mean, I can only imagine the legal briefs that would be written arguing that particular item.
J.C.
I mean, I can only imagine the legal briefs that would be written arguing that particular item.
J.C.
madmike
Member
I have a belt fed Browning with a crank activator. At current ammo prices, a one minute burst of happiness would cost about $115
When the time comes, that will be pointed out in amicus--that street punks can't afford to use the Happy Switch.
Incidentally, I want my fire control switch to read
When the time comes, that will be pointed out in amicus--that street punks can't afford to use the Happy Switch.
Incidentally, I want my fire control switch to read
It means baby steps. We can all sit here and talk about how you should be able to order a machine gun from sears and how we should be able to be as well armed as any individual soldier but in the process of restoring our rights we need to keep in check with society. Our concealed carry laws show the progress we've made but we still have to go slow and steady to not spook the herd. We have a long way to go to convince people that machine guns aren't necessarily what the movies and brady group have been teaching them to think they are. You wouldn't try to go from a no carry state to vermont style carry and you can't expect to go from a dc ban on any useful weapon in the home to machine guns for anyone.
It seemed to me like the whole MG discussion was all rhetorical. Gura just kinda popo'ed the whole thing, sure, fine, status quo, etc. Not much else he could really do. The case is not about anything other than Hellyer not being able to buy a hand gun in DC. Period. Gura did an excellant job on that point.
It certainly appears on the surface the Court was on board with the 2A as an individual right. It would seem to follow that if they give Hellyer his pistol they also have to declare the 2A an individual right in their decision.
If Hellyer does come out with a individual right ruling the next steps are to take on Chicago or some similar ban at the local level. Along with an effort at the state level, CA or NY AWB would be good candidates. New civilian MGs are going to be a goal for the future.
It certainly appears on the surface the Court was on board with the 2A as an individual right. It would seem to follow that if they give Hellyer his pistol they also have to declare the 2A an individual right in their decision.
If Hellyer does come out with a individual right ruling the next steps are to take on Chicago or some similar ban at the local level. Along with an effort at the state level, CA or NY AWB would be good candidates. New civilian MGs are going to be a goal for the future.
OMGWTFBBQ
Member
I think an overturn of 922(o) would be quite easy(comparatively speaking). It's basically a registration scheme like the D.C. gun ban, right? I mean it isn't as if we're talking about repealing the NFA or anything, all we would be going for is allowing people who can pass the extensive background check conducted by the feds and who pay the tax to own a current manufacture machine gun. Nothing more. They'll still be as heavily regulated as they are now with regards to acquiring one, they'll just be cheaper.
A .22lr belt fed machine gun would be a pretty cool toy
. Unfortunately FA m16s are little out of my price range right now .madmike
Member
A hundred years ago you could buy or carry anything. Fifty years ago you could buy anything with some hoops and fees. Thirty years ago it was pretty hard to buy or carry anything. Twelve years ago it was reasonably easy to carry, but very hard to buy. It's now generally easy to carry, but annoying to buy and there are less places to buy from.
"Never" is a long time.
And I must confess...there are a LOT of things and people I'd gladly toss under the bus to get SCOTUS to recognize 2A as a right.
To get it incorporated, I'd possibly toss OLEG under the bus I'm sure he'd understand.
"Never" is a long time.
And I must confess...there are a LOT of things and people I'd gladly toss under the bus to get SCOTUS to recognize 2A as a right.
To get it incorporated, I'd possibly toss OLEG under the bus
I'm sure he'd understand.It also should be kept in mind that like every other attorney walking into any other court, Gura has a client who's interests he is sworn to protect. While we would all like to believe that he was in there arguing just for us, he was arguing for Dick Heller (and us a bit). If he had to throw MGs under the bus to get a win for his client, then that's what he'd do. But I don't think that's what he did.
The oral arguments were very interesting, and you don't get the impact from just reading the transcripts. I highly recommend that anyone interested in this actually listen to the recordings.
The oral arguments were very interesting, and you don't get the impact from just reading the transcripts. I highly recommend that anyone interested in this actually listen to the recordings.
icebones
Member
ahh... i give you my fellow riflemen, ---the finest examples of corruption...
ted kennedy
hillary clinton
the brady center
all the other antigun admins.
they feel the proverbial noose tightening on them, and they are getting desperate. more and more americans are becoming gun owners, and more and more people are seeing them for what they truly are...
ted kennedy
hillary clinton
the brady center
all the other antigun admins.
they feel the proverbial noose tightening on them, and they are getting desperate. more and more americans are becoming gun owners, and more and more people are seeing them for what they truly are...
Vibe
Member
The nest greatest spectacle to watch is the reaction of the presidential candidates in June when the SCOTUS returns in our favor. Apoplectic fit anyone?
Gura has it right. MGs are dead. There is no political will or constituency of any import to change that. Make the American body politic believe that it is "all or nothing," and you will get nothing.
Flame me all you want. Engage in whatever philosophical/historical/idealistic debate you want. I'm all for that. It won't make a difference in the real world.
K
Flame me all you want. Engage in whatever philosophical/historical/idealistic debate you want. I'm all for that. It won't make a difference in the real world.
K
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Uhhh, that's #1 not what he said and #2 not his decision in any case.
legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
True, but if you read the oral argument carefully, that is what Scalia said.
But it will be Scalia's as well as the other members of SCOTUS. If I read their views via the oral argument properly, there are not 5 votes to extend the 2nd to MGs.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
The Second is already extended to MGs, everyone keeps leaving that one out.
You can buy and sell MGs all you would like under the current NFA.
MGs are not under discussion as being legal, they already are from a Federal standpoint, why does everyone keep forgetting that?
Trying to overturn NFA is the wrong approach. The first approach is to get Hughes overturned as illegal restraint OF AN ALREADY LEGAL TRADE.
It's an artificial price barrier, that's all Hughes is.
MGs are legal, pay your $200 and buy one. The problem is the 1986 restrictions, and that's an entirely different argument.
That one needs to go first, then worry about NFA as a whole.
Actually for a number of states MG's are wholly illegal, NJ for example.
Here we need the 2A to be incorporated or with apropriate verbiage so we can challenge that plus asinine restriction such as adjustable stocks and 15+ round magazines are eeeeeevil.
Here we need the 2A to be incorporated or with apropriate verbiage so we can challenge that plus asinine restriction such as adjustable stocks and 15+ round magazines are eeeeeevil.
JohnBT
Member
"What is he, a lawyer for the Bradys?!?"
I'm chuckling a bit.
At first the wails were directed at the NRA for not fully supporting the folks pursuing this case.
Now the wails are directed at the lawyer for the folks pursuing this case.
I'm surprised there aren't threads being posted saying it's the NRA's fault for not stopping this guy.
John
I'm chuckling a bit.
At first the wails were directed at the NRA for not fully supporting the folks pursuing this case.
Now the wails are directed at the lawyer for the folks pursuing this case.
I'm surprised there aren't threads being posted saying it's the NRA's fault for not stopping this guy.
John
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Give it a couple of weeks, GOA will be out with that one.
publius
Member
That's a bit of an understatement of what actually happened. The NRA attempted to take over the case by merging it with the Seegars case, which would not have worked out well, and the NRA also supported legislation which would have scuttled the Heller case by rendering it moot. If that's "not fully supporting" the case, what would "opposing" it look like?
publius
Member
Incidentally, I want my fire control switch to read
Hmmm... To avoid confusion and acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle us to the character of a well-regulated militia, I guess we should all get on board with this.
publius
Member
To the thread topic, I would point out that Gura could have done what SG Clement did in his oral argument:
In a similar fashion, Gura could have made some offhand comment that our side does not want to foreclose the possibility that, if such an argument ever came up, we might want to argue that the standard issue weapon of the NG is actually a militia-appropriate weapon. THEN he could have gone on and pandered to the modern interpretation that the second amendment is all about hunting and concealed weapons permits, and has nothing to do with the fact that we might one day need citizen-soldiers.
Of course, Gura has no power to foreclose that possibility, and he might have scared a skittish Justice with such a remark.
In a similar fashion, Gura could have made some offhand comment that our side does not want to foreclose the possibility that, if such an argument ever came up, we might want to argue that the standard issue weapon of the NG is actually a militia-appropriate weapon. THEN he could have gone on and pandered to the modern interpretation that the second amendment is all about hunting and concealed weapons permits, and has nothing to do with the fact that we might one day need citizen-soldiers.
Of course, Gura has no power to foreclose that possibility, and he might have scared a skittish Justice with such a remark.
- Status