HR5005 might allow a challenge of the NFA and the '86 ban in the Supreme Court!?!

[jlbraun]

I have a dumb question.

*Really* dumb. Here is the text of Section 3 of the proposed amendment to HR 5005:

SEC. 3. POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF MACHINEGUNS FOR INDUSTRY TESTING AND SECURITY CONTRACTING.

(a) Machineguns for Federal Contractors- Section 922(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `except' and all that follows and inserting `except--

`(A) as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; or

`(B) to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to such services;'.

(b) Sale or Delivery of Machineguns to Federal Contractors- Section 922(b) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `Paragraphs (2) and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to a sale or delivery to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services.'.

(c) Post-86 Machineguns for Testing, Research and Development, Training, and Security- Section 922(o) of such title is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (A); and

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (E) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

`(B) a transfer to, or possession by, a person to comply with a contract between that person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services;

`(C) a transfer to, or possession by, a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer solely for testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm;

`(D) a possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of training persons to whom a machinegun, manufactured or imported by the licensee, may be transferred as described in subparagraph (A) or (B); or'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) A person shall not transfer a machinegun to another person in the circumstances described in paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection, unless the Attorney General has notified the person that the Attorney General has determined, based on the fingerprints of such other person and on information in the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, that such other person is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.'.

(d) Importation of Machineguns- Section 925(d) of such title is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking `or' at the end;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:

`(5) is imported or brought in for a purpose described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of section 922(o)(2).'.

(e) Importation Under the National Firearms Act- Section 5844 of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5844) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting `or' after the semicolon; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) a machinegun being imported or brought in to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services; or

`(5) a machinegun being imported or brought in by a registered importer or registered manufacturer for the purposes of training persons who acquire machineguns pursuant to paragraph (1) that were manufactured or imported by the registrant.'.

(f) National Security Services Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `national security services' means any protective, defensive, or security service provided pursuant to a contract or subcontract with a department or agency of the United States.'.

(g) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.4

Does the "provide national security services" in the amendment to HR5005 have to be explicit or can it be implied? That is, does there have to be a "The Federal Government hereby contracts Company X to provide national security services from this date to that date"?

Because if not... (cracks knuckles)

States contract with private businesses to run things like the DMV. The federal government contracts with the USPS (a private corporation) to provide postal service. Local municipalities contract out maintenance duties.

Could states (or municipalities) engage a private corporation to provide national security services in the event of a disaster or potential disaster? This would certainly enhance national security.

What if those services consisted solely of providing training, purchasing, and maintenance of firearms to eligible members of the community, who were given a salary of, say, $1/year and subject to range qualification every year?

And given that those corporations are explicitly contracted by the state or local governments under an *implicit* contract from the federal government - under the proposed amendment to HR5005, they are exempt from the 1934 NFA and the 1986 ban.

Therefore, under the amended HR5005, they are allowed to purchase military hardware for their "employees" - who are in reality just citizens who have volunteered for service - and of course, those "employees" must keep their weapons at home.

All it takes is one municipality to form a citizen's militia armed with NFA weapons under the amended HR5005.

Of course, the ATF will have something to say about it, and you'll have to take it to the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court will have to decide either #1 or #2:

1. Corporations are exempted from the NFA *and* the people shall not be restricted from owning NFA weapons.

OR

2. People shall be restricted under the NFA/'86 ban *and* corporations are restricted as well.

There's no possibility for a middle ground. If corporations are to be exempt from the NFA, SO TOO MUST THE PEOPLE.

Like I said, it's a dumb set of questions. Or is it? The more I think about it, the more interesting and far-reaching the implications are.

 

[LAR-15]

No.

Congress recently authorized security guards in contract at nuclear sites to carry machineguns but there are problems in implementing that.

This makes it clear.

 

[jlbraun]

LAR-15,

I don't understand. Can you explain further?

 

[AmYisraelChai]

This leads to a lot of problems. And I am sure the ATF will make up the solutions as they go.

For Example, does this now mean that I can get a demo letter from Blackwater or the likes? Seriously. It has some language about Manufacturures, but I didnt see anything about dealers. Do I not have the right to obtain weapons for sales prospecting as a dealer? And I can not obtain a weapon made after 1986 without a GOVERNMENT entity giving me permision to do so. Is the government picking and choosing who can sell to Contractors?

On a weird note, If this is not clarified, this issue could be the Lawsuit that brings down the 86 ban house of cards. I dont know why people are always harping on the fact that you have to fing something other than a second amendment issue to fight a second ammendment issue but that is what I always see. So this would have trade issues written all over it.

 

[Legion1776]

So this would have trade issues written all over it.

That's the way I see it.

 

[Gifted]

Paragraphs (2) and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to a sale or delivery to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services.'.

I'm contracted via me being defined as part of the unorganized militia according to the U.S. code. Does that mean I can get one?

Sorry, this was linked from the Wyoming lawsuit page, and this just clicked.