Interesting ideas from DCGunCase.com's FAQ

[PTK]

While reading through DCGunCase.com's FAQ, I noted a few particular areas that were quite interesting indeed.

Another goal of the case is to secure a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the Second Amendment means what it says, namely, that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Of course, that right – like every other constitutional right including free speech and religious liberty – is subject to reasonable regulation by the government. But a total ban certainly is not a “reasonable regulation,”

This, to me, means that if Parker v. District of Columbia were to be ruled in favor of removing the registration requirement, or similarly allowing new registrations, then 922(o) could be removed from the 1934 NFA as it is a similar total ban on new machine guns being registered.

The specific part of the FAQ that addresses the similarity between DC's handgun registration turning into a complete ban and the 1934 NFA being twisted by 922(o) into a ban is as follows:

Washington, D.C. requires that all guns be registered, but has forbidden handguns from being registered for over 30 years. This amounts to a complete ban on the possession of handguns in Washington, D.C.

For those that don't know about 922(o), it involves denying any new Form 1/Form 4 applications to make/transfer (respectively) new machine guns for/to civilians. This started in May of 1986, when 922(o) was added to the 1934 NFA. Being that you must register and properly transfer machine guns to be legal as per the 1934 NFA, this amounts to a total ban like the DC ban.

If the DC ban is struck down, then 922(o) could be easily struck down as well, I believe.

Am I understanding this correctly, or do I need more sleep?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No, you understand it well. There are some similarities between the cases that make 922(o) a likely target. Just the fact that 922(o) deals with machineguns though will make it a whole different ballgame.

Specifically, look at the arguments that D.C. is making with respect to handguns. D.C. is arguing that even if the Second Amendment is an individual right, handguns are so particularly dangerous, choice-of-criminals, etc. that regulating them is a reasonable restriction under strict scrutiny.

So an individual rights holding isn't half as important as what type of test the Supreme Court suggests they might use in determining whether regulation is reasonable.

 

[PTK]

o an individual rights holding isn't half as important as what type of test the Supreme Court suggests they might use in determining whether regulation is reasonable.

Indeed! If the test is along the lines of "it provably reduces crime" then it would be fantastic. If, however, the test is "51% or more of the vote means it must be reasonable", we're still going to have trouble.

I suppose time alone will tell the outcome of this case. It could prove very interesting.

 

[M_Olson]

So an individual rights holding isn't half as important as what type of test the Supreme Court suggests they might use in determining whether regulation is reasonable.

the whole "reasonable regulation" thing is the biggest constitution violating scam to ever have been thought of. what exactly a "reasonable regulation" is changes with the wind.

your rights end where mine begin. any regulation having to do with that statement is what is "reasonable". anything beyond that is unreasonable. rights are, contrary to that FAQ's claims, absolute. they end where anothers begin, anything beyond that is, by definition, not a right. people saying that rights are not absolute is one of my biggest pet peeves...

i hope for the best from this case, but i cant help but be upset when the people that are on our side continue to perpetuate the false claim that rights are not absolute.

 

[roscoe]

I suspect that the whole "machinegun" thing willbe like yelling fire in a crowded theater. I personally hope the NFA is not challenged until we all have secured CCW in places like DC.

And as in the example above about free speech: no, rights are not absolute. Fundamentalism will not win this one.

 

[PTK]

I think that the fact we can have machine guns, simply not register new ones (total ban) makes it more similar to the DC ban than a "reasonable restriction".

Time will tell, but until then I'm saving money. I was very, very close to buying a Mac 11, but I would hurt myself if I purchased one and then less than two years later they were $300 again.

 

[Sam Adams]

Specifically, look at the arguments that D.C. is making with respect to handguns. D.C. is arguing that even if the Second Amendment is an individual right, handguns are so particularly dangerous, choice-of-criminals, etc. that regulating them is a reasonable restriction under strict scrutiny.

If MG's are so "particularly dangerous," then why is it that there are some 200,000 of them on the NFA list, yet since 1934 there has been exactly 1 crime committed with a registered MG (and that by an off-duy cop)?

Choice of criminals? Nonsense - the choice of criminals is something cheap and concealable. MGs don't fall into those catagories (except maybe a mini-Uzi is concealable).

I know, I know - you're not advancing the arguements, only stating what you think that they'd likely be. But they are easily handled.

 

[joffe]

'Reasonable regulation'? There is no such thing as 'reasonable regulation', there is no way to define something as vague as that. I guess it's up to the people's elected representatives to decide what counts as 'reasonable'.. And that has worked very well in the past.

 

[CleverNickname]

yet since 1934 there has been exactly 1 crime committed with a registered MG (and that by an off-duy cop)?

More like one murder with a personally owned registered machine gun, committed by the owner.

There's been many paperwork violations by owners of legally owned machine guns. There's been crimes by thieves who've stolen legally owned machine guns. There's been violent crimes by law enforcement officers using agency-owned machine guns (the officer who killed a couple of his neighbors and then himself with an MP5 a couple years ago in NJ comes to mind). There's been other violent crimes committed by owners with their personally owned machine guns. Apparently some guy out in NV used his MP40 years ago to rob a casino, but no one was hurt.

All of those situations would fit into your statement that I quoted, so it's not exactly accurate.

 

[M_Olson]

I suspect that the whole "machinegun" thing willbe like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

in the way it pans out, maybe. but in reality they have no similarities. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater involves a willful and malicious act to be performed. thereby infringing on the rights of others not to be trampled. buying a machinegun, in and of itself, harms absolutely no one.

 

[F4GIB]

More like one murder with a personally owned registered machine gun, committed by the owner.

IIRC, he was a police officer who used his own gun in a contract hit. Can any of you Class 3 guys confirm this?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I know, I know - you're not advancing the arguements, only stating what you think that they'd likely be. But they are easily handled.

I think there are good logical counters to them; but I think that as a culture, the idea of machineguns being available to the public makes people squeamish and I question whether the Supreme Court is willing to go that far. If they aren't, then even a flimsy argument will suffice.

 

[Crunker1337]

This may well be the case. Vote Ron Paul and we could see it happen (along with hopefully the demise or at least declawing of the BATFE).

 

[Sam Adams]

More like one murder with a personally owned registered machine gun, committed by the owner.

Better & more accurate. Thanks.

 

[Sam Adams]

but I think that as a culture, the idea of machineguns being available to the public makes people squeamish and I question whether the Supreme Court is willing to go that far. If they aren't, then even a flimsy argument will suffice.

Yes, but there are ALREADY some 200,000 full autos in public hands. The brief for any such case that might arise would undoubtedly show the incredibly low rate of crimes that the owners of these firearms were involved in, particularly involving the firearms themselves, so as to dispel the fear/accusation. Besides, there was unlimited availability pre-1986 (limited only by having money to buy the guns at much cheaper prices than today and to pay the $200 tax stamp). Why are we limited in exercising a right that was freely exercised only 21 years ago? Why can't someone who bought a MG in 1985 or 1986, and who's had no criminal activity, etc., buy a NEW gun like he could then, or like he can STILL buy a new gun?

As for the "flimsy argument" stuff - much to the chagrin and shame of the Founding Fathers, whose bodies are not merely rolling over, but rotating at thousands of RPM, you are correct. That's why you dispel the fear/accusation with a great brief.

 

[Robert Hairless]

If I were in the bumper sticker business the one I'd make for American gun owners and distribute free translates a quotation from Voltaire:

The perfect is the enemy of the good.​