Quantcast

It's 2010, and it's Time to Get Rid of the 1986 Machine Gun Ban

Discussion in 'Legal' started by SSSCLimitedTrademark, Jan 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SSSCLimitedTrademark

    SSSCLimitedTrademark Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    United States
    Hello folks, it's been a while since I've posted here on The High Road.

    I'm sure many of you are aware of the most blatant infringement of our Second Amendment rights, the 1986 Machine Gun Ban, or otherwise known as the Hughes Amendment, incorporated at the last minute into the FOPA as a "poison pill" to basically screw us all over. Setting aside the facts of the Hughes Amendment which have been discussed time after time in many other forums, I believe it is time to realize that we must not live on like this, being limited to what we can and cannot do by the ATF as well as the Federal Government.

    Frankly, I am tired of the Federal Government and the ATF telling law abiding gun owners, "No, you may not possess a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986." I'm tired of not seeing any kind of legislative action taken by the NRA or other organizations regarding the repealing of this subject. We have waited too long, and the prices of these weapons have climbed so high, that the ordinary citizen cannot own a full size automatic weapon. It is simply out of reach of the common folk, which is where the word "unavailability" becomes synonymous to the word "illegal".

    The time is 2010. The beginning of a new decade. Think about it for a minute, just how long this issue has gone unresolved. I thought that after the Hughes Amendment became law, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated that the entire organization would have the repealing of the ban on their top priories of things to do. Well, what have they done about it? I haven't heard anything about anything done to throw this issue up into the Federal Government and have the law proven unconstitutional once and for all. But why? I would not know. Looks to me like the NRA and the rest of the gang have simply forgotten about it. Frankly, someone needs to do something about it.

    Any law abiding citizen who wishes to use a machine gun for lawful purposes shall not be denied liberal access to these weapons by the government. To be told that I cannot own a post-1986 fully automatic weapon is an infringement of my Second Amendment rights, as well as your own. As in other countries, they take the machine guns away, then they come for the semi auto's, and then pretty soon everyone's down to single shot shotguns. So be warned that we are already on Strike 1.

    So what's the deal here? Are we going to wait until all transferable machine guns become C&R eligible, or are we going to stand up and do the right thing here. I think we've heard enough of "Oh, we should do this!" or "Oh, we should do that!" It's time to do it. If we let things sit like this for any longer than it already has, we will never be able to undo the damage that these Liberals have done to us.

    It's a new decade of the 21st century. It's time to get out there and make a difference. We have weakened many of the gun grabbers out there, and it's necessary to go even further when they're even more vulnerable. Time for the NRA and the armed citizen to prove a point, get out there, and get our rights back.

    Thanks, for listening.

    Best Regards,
    Steve
     
  2. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,967
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    Well, they're telling us that because IT IS THE LAW.:rolleyes: I think your anger is two decades too late.

    Until WE elect congressmen & a president who thinks like we do, this mysterious "Federal Government and the ATF" will continue to enforce the law. And that law is the Hughes Amendment.
     
  3. SSSCLimitedTrademark

    SSSCLimitedTrademark Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    United States
    Laws, especially the Hughes Amendment in this case, are not always legal themselves. If they infringe upon our constitutional rights, they shall be challenged and then repealed. The government for the people, of the people, and by the people, shall not be judged by a group of moronic Liberals late at night in the Spring of 1986, commencing a voice vote with no fair opposition being present, to judge whether I can own a certain kind of weapon or not. Our anger is not two decades late, it will be a century late if nobody does anything about it.
     
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,540
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Go for it. But in the current political climate disposing of the Hughes Amendment through the political process is a non-starter.

    That leaves litigation. This sort of litigation is very expensive and time consuming. At present, it appears that the main focus is McDonald and incorporation to apply the 2nd Amendment to the States. After that, the primary focus, I suspect, will be the draconian restrictions in States like Illinois, New Jersey, New York (and in New York City), Maryland, Massachusetts, California and several others. Some of this litigation is likely to use most of the currently available resources, but it also will serve the interests and needs of the most gun owners.

    But the courts are open to you. If you have an extra few million dollars to invest in the effort, perhaps you'd like to take it on.
     
  5. MrWesson

    MrWesson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    729
    Would you care to be the test case or challenge the law yourself? I dont doubt it could be challenged but think it will take an organization to challenge it. Do you think the NRA will back this considering the only people who would oppose it more than libtards would be current Class III owners(13k weapon would be worth 2k overnight).
     
  6. Crawfish141

    Crawfish141 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    Ca
    Agreed, the laws should be repealed or at least changed so that MG's aren't unattainable (maybe a $200 tax stamp could act as a stepping stone). It's quite odd how the shooting community has almost ignored the issue. When the assault weapons ban passed there was anger, but not so much for the machine gun ban. It's almost like the shooting community has humored itself into believing that there are no real infringements on the 2nd amendment anymore.

    Though it may be for the best that MG's are basically unattainable, who can afford the ammo? ;)
     
  7. SteveCase

    SteveCase Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    118
    How bout we repeal the 1934 NFA and the GCA of 1968 first, I mean its 2010 and its time to get rid of it
     
  8. Crawfish141

    Crawfish141 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    Ca
    Those would be nice to repeal too; however, the 86 ban is the most intrusive. It actually stops you from owning a class of weapons, regardless of paperwork.
     
  9. StrikeFire83

    StrikeFire83 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    Texas
    I agree that the machine gun ban is unconstitutional, but like others have said, there's still quite a few fights worth fighting that many would put above ending the machine gun ban.

    The problem is, the "assault weapons" ban was just such a goofy piece of garbage that when old-timers and even luke-warm gun owners read it they said "this is stupid" or "hey, a bunch of my guns just became 'assault weapons'" and they wrote to their congressmen and joined the NRA. But nobody owns machines guns. Or rather, very few people own them, and they've become so expensive / nearly impossible to transfer that the numbers of legal owners are only decreasing year by year. Add to that horrible expense of buying legal machine guns, and well, there you go.

    I'm not saying that I wouldn't love to walk into my gun shop, fill out my paperwork, pay my money, and walk out with a machine gun...but I just don't see that happening any time soon.
     
  10. stampsm

    stampsm Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2008
    Messages:
    100
    the mcdonald case has to be settled before it would even be possible to go after the hughes amendment. the second part is it has to be well thought out and planned. going out and filing a sear and getting arrested is a bad way to challenge the law. the problem about challenging the law is you have to have a valid reason in the eyes of the court to challenge it. specifically you want a way to challenge it without breaking any existing laws so you don't become and instafelon. you want a way to challenge it that allows public opinion to be on your side. not just the gun shooting club public opinion but the opinion of the common citizen. the whole case would have to be highly orchestrated. just like the heller case it all did not happen by accident. nearly a year was spent planning it before the case was filed. read up on the background for the heller case.

    one of the hardest parts is going to be the funding. you need a large sum of cash sitting around. I remember reading what the heller case cost and it was in the multi millions range. the problem right now is all the big name people you could have go after the issue are busy with other gun issues. they do not want to split their resources between the two and risk having both fail. so basically you need a trustworthy entity to the gun community. who is not currently tied up in some sort of litigation. you also need some top end lawyers on board who can plan out a good strategy. the final key is we need to throw gobs of cash their way. I can see an issue like this where you are going after the federal gov and not a local gov costing alot more. the fed have much more money sitting around to spend on lawyer tricks to delay or stop progress. i would not be shocked to see figures of 20 mil or more tossed around.

    so yes it can happen but who is going to do it?
     
  11. billwiese

    billwiese Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Clamoring for MGs when we have a ton of gun freedoms to restore in various areas of the country - when it's still hard to get a handgun in DC or NYC even after Heller - are unwise and can throw off current litigation.

    The only reason Heller got thru is because Anthony Kennedy was worried about MGs - and you wanna throw them into the fray right now while things are still up in the air, and before McDonald v Chicago is resolved? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


    Let's worry about NFA 10-15 years from now. Certain NFA aspects - like SBRs (16" is kinda arbitrary/caprcious) and suppressors (health/hearing aspects) may be easier to do a bit earlier than that.


    Bill Wiese
    San Jose cA
     
  12. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    Walk -> Run
    Underwear -> Trousers

    Lets get 2A incorporated first shall we ?
     
  13. divemedic

    divemedic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,459
    Location:
    Near Ocala
    Even if a case challenging the Hughes Amendment were filed today, McDonald would be resolved before you even got past interrogatories and pretrial motions. 10-15 years? Nah. There will be a challenge to the Hughes Amendment within the next 5.

    Challenging GCA68 or the NFA itself? That is a fool's errand. GCA is firmly within the "Interstate Commerce" clause, since all it does is control how firearms are sold interstate (ie, through dealers, only to person who lives in same state, etc)
     
  14. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,181
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    The infringement issue has been argued and has lost with other guns laws already, has it not? You are going to have to come up with how it is that such an infringement isn't unreasonable, and then it will open the door for me to have all the arms I would like to own.
     
  15. wishin

    wishin Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,430
    Location:
    Georgia
    Agreed.

    Let's hope we're not in this same position of near hopelessness regarding the repeal of the, all but sure, national healthcare bill 25 years from now!
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2010
  16. husbandofaromanian

    husbandofaromanian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Nashville, Tn
    I bought a Ruger Charger, high capacity magazines, & a crank that goes on the trigger guard, and I get up to about 600 rpm. I put this together for less than $400.00.
     
  17. Gatorbait

    Gatorbait member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Vienna, Virgnia; grew up in Miami, FL, area
    SSSCLimitedTrademark: You posted, "I'm sure many of you are aware of the most blatant infringement of our Second Amendment rights, the 1986 Machine Gun Ban. . . ."

    I suppose I'd have to take exception to your premise and feel certain there are plenty of city dwellers (poor things) who'd agree with me. Take this fellow McDonald in Chicago. He believes that the most blatant infringement is that by the mayor-for-life and his merry crew of henchmen who prohibit the possession of any handguns. He, and I'm certain competent legal advisors have judged that taking on "infringements of the right" all the way across the spectrum of infringements would be futile.

    His case would suffer that commonly invoked destructive method--it could be nibbled to death by ducks. Every preposition and semicolon would be challenged until the final sunset.

    JMHO, of course.
     
  18. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    45,939
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Philosophy and politics...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice