Machine Gun BAN loophole

[Sam1911]

Ok...well, like you said, we shall see how it all pans out...

 

[dogtown tom]

tyeo098

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam1911
You could say it's been covered:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...egislation.pdf

Sam,

That letter applies to FFL's and is carefully worded to make it sound like it applies to everyone, but they only have that authority over the FFL's. This is because they know with firearms made in accordance to the FFA they have no jurisdiction over.

If you think Federal laws regarding commerce in firearms only applies to FFL's you are terribly in error.

If you think ATF only enforces firearms laws on FFL's you are terribly in error.

If you think a state "firearm freedom law" will actually offer you immunity from prosecutuion then by all means go for it. Be prepared to lose everything you own.....which will be fine for the next ten years because you'll be living rent free.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed more than three decades before there was such a thing as a Federal Firearms License. But go ahead and make a pipe bomb out of materials you acquire locally. That would be a Destructive Device under the NFA and subject to a tax stamp, but since your "firearm freedom law" protects you, ATF won't go kicking in your door....right?

 

[tyeo098]

If you think Federal laws regarding commerce in firearms only applies to FFL's you are terribly in error.

If you think ATF only enforces firearms laws on FFL's you are terribly in error.

If you think a state "firearm freedom law" will actually offer you immunity from prosecutuion then by all means go for it. Be prepared to lose everything you own.....which will be fine for the next ten years because you'll be living rent free.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed more than three decades before there was such a thing as a Federal Firearms License. But go ahead and make a pipe bomb out of materials you acquire locally. That would be a Destructive Device under the NFA and subject to a tax stamp, but since your "firearm freedom law" protects you, ATF won't go kicking in your door....right?

Actually I live in VA where there is no such law, and without a relevant court case or law stating otherwise, the only thing we can do is speculate.

 

[Ford Prefect]

You're mixing two different issues to arrive at your conclusion. Yes, class 3 manufacturers can make new MG, as samples for LEO's. With a Demo letter only.
Although idividuals can make their own rifles, you cannot make MG's for yourself. If that is your "intent", then your "intent" is to break the MG law. Case law is clear on this. You will lose.

A quick search will turn up lots of people who have gone to jail because they tried what your OP claims. 10 years in club fed and $10k per offence. No thanks. Semi auto works just fine.

 

[Sam1911]

Yes, class 3 manufacturers can make new MG, as samples for LEO's. With a Demo letter only.

Not exactly. A Class 02 Manufacturer can make machine guns. A Class 03 Dealer cannot. A Class 02 doesn't need a demo letter. A Class 03 dealer does.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Thanks. I meant that yes, new MG can be made for LEO's by certain FFL's. What ever the license is called. If the intent is to make it for yourself, you're already out of bounds, regardless of license.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Ya, federal prisons are full of people that "found a loophole". Ask your lawyer if he will be willing to pay your fine and do your time.

 

[Ford Prefect]

tyeo098

Technically the laws of Congress only apply what they are based on, ie. Interstate Commerce.

If the machinegun never enters Interstate Commerce, the law doesn't apply to it ie Montana's Firearms Freedom law.

Thank the WOD. Simply replace the word MG for MJ.

Similarly, the Court upheld a ban on the growth of marijuana intended for medical use on the grounds that Congress could rationally conclude that this growth might make enforcement of drug laws more difficult by creating an otherwise lawful source of marijuana that could be diverted into the illicit market:

In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Gonzales v. Raich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Contemporary_Commerce_Clause_debate

 

[Art Eatman]

Bottom line: Nope, no loophole.