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

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Personally, I think it makes much more sense to try to get the restrictions on SBR/SBSs and suppressors overturned. Barrel length is something that most average people have no idea about. It doesn't have the same stigma as "machine gun."

 

[brighamr]

One thing's for sure, if someone starts a well planned case for reopening the registry, there would be plenty of money donated to back it.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Thus they skirt the machinegun issue: common folk don't have them, therefore they are not protected - utterly failing to take into account that a tool cannot become common if it is largely prohibited before broad distribution is reached (to wit: every AR15 would likely have a "third position" if not prohibitively expensive, and subsequently prohibited outright).

Bingo. They put the cart in front of the mule. This is the logic of the Supreme Court justices.

"They might be legitimate for people to own if more people had them, but more people don't have them. They don't have them because they're prohibited. Now doesn't that make sense to everyone?"

This is what happens when people believe a certain group of men have some kind of proprietary power to make decisions about what your rights are.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[lacoochee]

I would argue that the 200,000 legally registered full-autos as well as the huge number in military (regular and select militia) and police hands make them extremely common especially M-16 and M-4 configurations.

Oh well, Chicago first, New York City after that, and so on.

 

[M1911Owner]

Bingo. They put the cart in front of the mule. This is the logic of the Supreme Court justices.

"They might be legitimate for people to own if more people had them, but more people don't have them. They don't have them because they're prohibited. Now doesn't that make sense to everyone?"

No, that's not the logic of the Justices. Their logic is, "How are we going to come up with a ruling supporting an individual interpretation, without it immediately dropping out that you have a right to the main infantry weapon of the National Guard? It would be the 1930's all over again if we did that. I know!--I have this idea for a 'common usage' test..."

 

[Sans Authoritas]

M1911Owner,

Maybe that's their game. But I don't like how they're being intellectually dishonest and deliberately illogical to achieve the goal.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[razorblade31]

I believe it was noted earlier that it was probably to swing Kennedy to the pro-civil-rights side that they didn't say machineguns can't be banned. While we don't know for certain, I'll take this intellectually dishonest 5-4 victory over an intellectually honest 5-4 loss any day

 

[Sans Authoritas]

If it only passed because it was intellectually dishonest, was it really a victory?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[M1911Owner]

To have let it go the other way would absolutely have been a loss.

I don't like it too much either. But I understand the "sausage" that you sometimes have to make in the political process of forging an agreement.

 

[M1911Owner]

Dumb question: Was the "common usage" stuff part of the binding ruling, or was it just non-binding dicta?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Dumb question: Was the "common usage" stuff part of the binding ruling, or was it just non-binding dicta?

It was part of the ruling.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, having read more of the opinion now. I would say that challenging machinegun regulation with THIS court is a loser case.

However, it looks to me as if Justice Scalia has left a few doors open that might be useful in a later case.

We aren't going to get there with this Court though. We came close to losing on the basic issue of "individual right" so machineguns (even 922(o)) are totally unrealistic until the makeup of the Court changes.

 

[ozwyn]

I am thinking machine guns is a protacted fight. Getting bans on semi-autos with a "certain number of bad parts" lifted seems like a MUCH easier baby step.

once we can show a large number of semiautos with mostly the same parts are common and prevalent, they you can argue that those few uncommon parts do not make a whole design uncommon when so many variants exsist. therefore all variants should be available.

that's how a common ar-15 or civilian ak or uzi or thompson copy gets full auto legalized. When that baby step is won, then you can say since full auto is now common, banning that class also fails the miller test.

then you've won.

baby steps.

 

[Bubbles]

if someone starts a well planned case for reopening the registry, there would be plenty of money donated to back it.

I got word last night that the same folks who worked hard behind the scenes (think CATO not NRA) to bring us Heller are plaintiff-shopping for a lawsuit to overturn 922(o). The only reason they're not further along is that they focused first on the Chicago case.

 

[ronaldbeal]

Because Heller is fresh on our minds, we are looking at how to get the court to overturn 922(o). Let us not forget congress can simply repeal or amend it. The chance of an outright repeal is low, but remember it was a last moment poison pill to try to kill the FOPA. No reason a repeal of 922(o) can't be used as a poison pill in some other "undesirable but probably gonna pass anyway" legislation.
Attack on multiple fronts.
RB

 

[arthurcw]

Because Heller is fresh on our minds, we are looking at how to get the court to overturn 922(o). Let us not forget congress can simply repeal or amend it. The chance of an outright repeal is low, but remember it was a last moment poison pill to try to kill the FOPA. No reason a repeal of 922(o) can't be used as a poison pill in some other "undesirable but probably gonna pass anyway" legislation.
Attack on multiple fronts.
RB

I believe you are correct. After some form of incorporation and IF so many, so called, "pro gun" Democrats are indeed in the House; It would be wise to make the argument that "you say you are pro gun, then throw us a bone on a weapon that is ALREADY legal in older forms and will STILL be heavily regulated."

Heck, we can even suggest that the Tax Stamp be increased or that it even be made a Flat Tax + Percentage. Something on the order of $500 or 15% which ever is greater. You want that Collectors Grade Thompson? Get ready to pony up a bit more (but still most likely less that you pay now). You want a new M16? You’ll be looking at a much lower Tax Stamp than the Thompson and a fairly small outlay compared to a 40 year old M16 that you can get with today Ban in place.

Just thinking out loud.

Either way, bringing a Machine Gun case to this court is a bad idea.

 

[another okie]

Just remember that the 15th amendment preventing states from discriminating against blacks in voting was passed in 1870. In 1964 Congress had to pass a whole new civil rights bill to try to implement it. The 14th Amendment requiring states to treat everyone equally passed in 1868; Brown v. Topeka Board of Education was in 1954.

You might consider reading Martin Luther King's "Why we can't wait."

I can't believe how many grumpy, unhappy people there are posting on here.
This is a major victory. We should all be dancing in the streets, buying new guns and having "June 26, 2008" engraved on them. Four members of the Supreme Court believe that a complete ban on handguns is compatible with the Second Amendment. We should be very happy. This is the real world, where there are many highly educated, motivated, and well-funded people who want to ban all firearms.

Party time!

 

[ctdonath]

I'd like to have "June 26, 2008" engraved on a new M4.
For most of us, the DC ban was an abstract concept, not a concrete reality. My concrete reality is, despite this wonderful verdict, I still can't get a new M4 (exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our modern day) despite having cash and a willing seller.

 

[LAR-15]

I think we'd have a good case.

922(o) is generally a prohibition

Congress and the Roosevelt Administration NEVER intended for machine guns to be banned.

They wanted them banned but could not do it (Second Amendment) so they came up with the NFA.

We have this on our side.

 

[LAR-15]

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/NFA-1934house.pdf

 

[lacoochee]

Maybe I am crazy but we don't really need to go to the Supreme Court to get rid of 922(o) do we? Don't we in fact, have a new reality with regards to the second amendment?

Machine guns ARE legal just very expensive --> They also require permission from largely white male law enforcement officers --> the paperwork is onerous and difficult to comprehend --> Thus making them nearly impossible for poor citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are minorites, to acquire.

We may actually get this one done and easily. We don't even need to appeal this one using Heller, just the fact that Heller exists establishing the second amendment as an individual right will force the circuit courts to decide in favor of removing 922(o). We don't even need to file in a state, we can just go back to the District Court of Appeals and apply for relief from 922(o) because it is a Federal Regulation on the grounds that it violates the Civil Rights Act, so no incorporation necessary.

 

[PercyShelley]

I think we'd have a good case.

922(o) is generally a prohibition

Congress and the Roosevelt Administration NEVER intended for machine guns to be banned.

They wanted them banned but could not do it (Second Amendment) so they came up with the NFA.

We have this on our side.

I don't know about that. What was $200 in 1934 dollars?

And look at the reasoning behind the restrictions upon SBRs and SBSs. Not the malarkey about "being too concealable" or anything like that. The 1934 NFA was one of the most nakedly classist pieces of Federal legislation the nation suffered in the twentieth century.

 

[kurtmax]

According to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/:

$3171.59

Not bad actually, considering the prices today. But I'd like to see any other consumer goods today that require a tax stamp that costs 3x the price of the good. Not even fuel/cigarettes/beer is that high.

 

[wolf13]

Kurtmax,

But you have to think about how much money $3171 was back then. Just did a quick search for how much a car was, it was $100, and $75 on sale.

 

[kurtmax]

3171 in today's USD. If you consider that an auto-sear is 15k it would actually be cheaper to buy a rifle (maybe 1500 in today's usd). So basically a machine gun cost 4500USD in today's money, and today a machinegun actually costs 10k and up because of price inflation.