Bubbles
Member
Historic Arms LLC:
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Machine-gun ban -- test cases
- Thread starter awkx
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
woerm
Member
CSMKERSH, 922 was ammended in 05/06
the part that ok'd new selectfire weapons for gov't contractors (mercineries)
text here:
it's subtitle d, sect 653 of now public law
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...LD010:@1(hr190)
is the conference report
text snipped from thomas
SEC. 653. USE OF FIREARMS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after section 161 (42 U.S.C. 2201) the following:
`SEC. 161A. USE OF FIREARMS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL.
`a. Definitions- In this section, the terms `handgun', `rifle', `shotgun', `firearm', `ammunition', `machinegun', `short-barreled shotgun', and `short-barreled rifle' have the meanings given the terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
`b. Authorization- Notwithstanding subsections (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(2), (b)(4), and (o) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, section 925(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code, section 5844 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and any law (including regulations) of a State or a political subdivision of a State that prohibits the transfer, receipt, possession, transportation, importation, or use of a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, a short-barreled shotgun, a short-barreled rifle, a machinegun, a semiautomatic assault weapon, ammunition for any such gun or weapon, or a large capacity ammunition feeding device, in carrying out the duties of the Commission, the Commission may authorize the security personnel of any licensee or certificate holder of the Commission (including an employee of a contractor of such a licensee or certificate holder) to transfer, receive, possess, transport, import, and use 1 or more such guns, weapons, ammunition, or devices, if the Commission determines that--
`(1) the authorization is necessary to the discharge of the official duties of the security personnel; and
`(2) the security personnel--
`(A) are not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State laws relating to possession of firearms by a certain category of persons;
`(B) have successfully completed any requirement under this section for training in the use of firearms and tactical maneuvers;
`(C) are engaged in the protection of--
`(i) a facility owned or operated by a licensee or certificate holder of the Commission that is designated by the Commission; or
`(ii) radioactive material or other property owned or possessed by a licensee or certificate holder of the Commission, or that is being transported to or from a facility owned or operated by such a licensee or certificate holder, and that has been determined by the Commission to be of significance to the common defense and security or public health and safety; and
`(D) are discharging the official duties of the security personnel in transferring, receiving, possessing, transporting, or importing the weapons, ammunition, or devices.
`c. Background Checks- A person that receives, possesses, transports, imports, or uses a weapon, ammunition, or a device under subsection (b) shall be subject to a background check by the Attorney General, based on fingerprints and including a background check under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159; 18 U.S.C. 922 note) to determine whether the person is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.
`d. Effective Date- This section takes effect on the date on which guidelines are issued by the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney General, to carry out this section.'
still have not been able to get any response from misreptile or senathores as to why all three (2nd amendment champions) vote for the stinking thing instead of just deleting 922(o) altogether.
r
the part that ok'd new selectfire weapons for gov't contractors (mercineries)
text here:
it's subtitle d, sect 653 of now public law
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...LD010:@1(hr190)
is the conference report
text snipped from thomas
SEC. 653. USE OF FIREARMS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after section 161 (42 U.S.C. 2201) the following:
`SEC. 161A. USE OF FIREARMS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL.
`a. Definitions- In this section, the terms `handgun', `rifle', `shotgun', `firearm', `ammunition', `machinegun', `short-barreled shotgun', and `short-barreled rifle' have the meanings given the terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.
`b. Authorization- Notwithstanding subsections (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(2), (b)(4), and (o) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, section 925(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code, section 5844 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and any law (including regulations) of a State or a political subdivision of a State that prohibits the transfer, receipt, possession, transportation, importation, or use of a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, a short-barreled shotgun, a short-barreled rifle, a machinegun, a semiautomatic assault weapon, ammunition for any such gun or weapon, or a large capacity ammunition feeding device, in carrying out the duties of the Commission, the Commission may authorize the security personnel of any licensee or certificate holder of the Commission (including an employee of a contractor of such a licensee or certificate holder) to transfer, receive, possess, transport, import, and use 1 or more such guns, weapons, ammunition, or devices, if the Commission determines that--
`(1) the authorization is necessary to the discharge of the official duties of the security personnel; and
`(2) the security personnel--
`(A) are not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State laws relating to possession of firearms by a certain category of persons;
`(B) have successfully completed any requirement under this section for training in the use of firearms and tactical maneuvers;
`(C) are engaged in the protection of--
`(i) a facility owned or operated by a licensee or certificate holder of the Commission that is designated by the Commission; or
`(ii) radioactive material or other property owned or possessed by a licensee or certificate holder of the Commission, or that is being transported to or from a facility owned or operated by such a licensee or certificate holder, and that has been determined by the Commission to be of significance to the common defense and security or public health and safety; and
`(D) are discharging the official duties of the security personnel in transferring, receiving, possessing, transporting, or importing the weapons, ammunition, or devices.
`c. Background Checks- A person that receives, possesses, transports, imports, or uses a weapon, ammunition, or a device under subsection (b) shall be subject to a background check by the Attorney General, based on fingerprints and including a background check under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159; 18 U.S.C. 922 note) to determine whether the person is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.
`d. Effective Date- This section takes effect on the date on which guidelines are issued by the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney General, to carry out this section.'
still have not been able to get any response from misreptile or senathores as to why all three (2nd amendment champions) vote for the stinking thing instead of just deleting 922(o) altogether.
r
ctdonath
Member
There is, admittedly, an exception to the post-'86 MG ban which allows the well-connected to receive governmental authorization and thus be exempted from the law.
There are rumors and indications that this has happened. Being a third-rail issue, any such exemptions are presumably kept secret. The NFA registry is NOT open to the public so we can't find out who pulled strings (though I do wonder if a FOIA request, allowing for redaction of personal information, could reveal abuse). Of note, the reported size of the registry is apparently growing faster than can be accounted for.
Just because a fact isn't publicized doesn't mean it's not true.
There are rumors and indications that this has happened. Being a third-rail issue, any such exemptions are presumably kept secret. The NFA registry is NOT open to the public so we can't find out who pulled strings (though I do wonder if a FOIA request, allowing for redaction of personal information, could reveal abuse). Of note, the reported size of the registry is apparently growing faster than can be accounted for.
Just because a fact isn't publicized doesn't mean it's not true.
I see relief coming in an "amnesty" far sooner. There are several reasons for one that have been discussed endlessly here and elsewhere. Bottom line in order to use the NFRTR [registery] as a Federal Law enforcement tool, a future correctional amnesty is eminent, and actually mandated by Congress according to the GCA in order to maintain the NFRTR. Without one soon, ATF is fast approaching the inability to enforce certain portions of the NFA/GCA in Federal Court.
I did a search of the forum, but couldn't find appropriate info. Do you have a link or some place you could point me to?
Reid
I own over 30 firearms. I carry every day, everywhere it's legal for me to carry. I believe I have a constitutional right to do so. I also believe thatfighting for the right to own machine guns is not in our best interests.**Now that I have your attention: We have our hands full defending our rkba right now. If you want to scare the h**l out of the average citizen, who outnumber us and who will eventually determine whether or not we can continue to legally own and carry firearms, like it or not, tell that average citizen that we should now be allowed to have fully automatic weapons in our possession. While most of our fellow citizens are currently quiescent on the issue of gun control, they won't remain so about automatic weapons.IMO this is a short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating goal.Let sleeping dogs lie, guys. Have at it.
ctdonath
Member
That dog is about to get poked with a sharp stick.
I understand the theory of "don't go there yet, let's creep up on it by taking care of a bunch of other things first."
That's why the NRA tried to derail Heller; now look at where that case is.
Go hang out on the NFA boards for a while (subguns.com, silencertalk.com, etc.). Look at what they're talking about.
Understand this:
There WILL be numerous suits filed against 922(o) - soon.*
Begging people not to won't stop 'em.
If you want the result to turn out well, HELP OUT.
It's going to happen; which side will you be on? help or hinder?
The M4 is the modern version of what the Founding Fathers exactly intended be in the hands of the general populace. Nothing is more plainly evident as to what was intended for 2nd Amendment protection. Even Mr. Heller et al had to downplay the "militia" prefix to cover the tool & owner they wanted covered; the M4 in the hands of male citizens 17-45 does not need such "clarification" and "explaination" to reach protection. We just need SCOTUS to acknowledge: the 2nd Amendment says what it means, and that includes new MGs in private hands.
It's not about whether the average citizen (or politician) likes it.
It's about rights which a minority can enjoy even if the majority disapproves.
Sure, if the issue is pressed, the result may be ugly.
But, if the issue is not pressed, the result is already ugly.
The issue WILL arise in the courts, and soon. Be ready to facilitate it, because there will be an outcome and it will affect you.
(* - No, I don't have any specifics. That doesn't mean it won't happen.)
I understand the theory of "don't go there yet, let's creep up on it by taking care of a bunch of other things first."
That's why the NRA tried to derail Heller; now look at where that case is.
Go hang out on the NFA boards for a while (subguns.com, silencertalk.com, etc.). Look at what they're talking about.
Understand this:
There WILL be numerous suits filed against 922(o) - soon.*
Begging people not to won't stop 'em.
If you want the result to turn out well, HELP OUT.
It's going to happen; which side will you be on? help or hinder?
The M4 is the modern version of what the Founding Fathers exactly intended be in the hands of the general populace. Nothing is more plainly evident as to what was intended for 2nd Amendment protection. Even Mr. Heller et al had to downplay the "militia" prefix to cover the tool & owner they wanted covered; the M4 in the hands of male citizens 17-45 does not need such "clarification" and "explaination" to reach protection. We just need SCOTUS to acknowledge: the 2nd Amendment says what it means, and that includes new MGs in private hands.
It's not about whether the average citizen (or politician) likes it.
It's about rights which a minority can enjoy even if the majority disapproves.
Sure, if the issue is pressed, the result may be ugly.
But, if the issue is not pressed, the result is already ugly.
The issue WILL arise in the courts, and soon. Be ready to facilitate it, because there will be an outcome and it will affect you.
(* - No, I don't have any specifics. That doesn't mean it won't happen.)
DKSuddeth
Member
There WILL be numerous suits filed against 922(o) - soon.*
with the current makeup of the supreme court and the soccer mom mentality of a majority of americans, the only thing that will happen IF a case ever makes it to their court is going to be a flat out denial and a ruling that it is within the necessary and proper clause to provide for public safety by denying civilian ownership of newer and more powerful automatic weapons. Even though an intellectually honest court should recognize that MG ownership should be entirely constitutional, they will not rule that way. That will only pave the way for the government to outlaw total ownership of ALL machine guns, forcing current NFA owners to have to 'turn em in', since it will now be within their power to do so.
on second thought, maybe that's what we need to galvanize a larger majority of the gun owners in this country.
Gunnerpalace
Member
.Let sleeping dogs lie
Seems to me that was said in the UK in the late 80's and Australia too, I'm just saying,
The court would not use the "necessary and proper" clause because there is no way it is applicable and nobody who is a clerk or justice at the supreme court is stupid. The way smart people will create a line between "evil guns" and "good guns" after a decision for Heller will be analogous to how the first amendment is restricted which will be facilitated by opinions taking as legislative fact the supposed increase danger of automatic weapons or perhaps even "assault weapons." The court will then explain that given this danger and given that such weapons are not required for the purposes of the second amendment that governments can impose restrictions on them. This is like a "manner" restriction on first amendment liberties.
This is the test for time, place, and manner restrictions of speech. If we change it a little,
1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular message?
3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages?
This is the test for time, place, and manner restrictions of speech. If we change it a little,
and we have a pretty good framework for absurd decisions based on absurd legislative facts.1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest?
2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the general suppression of the right to bear arms?
3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest?
4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for bearing arms?
The "Three-round burst' trick is fairly useless. A good portion of the M4 carbines being issued these days are technically M4A1 carbines, which, like the M-16A3 (which is also currently issued), is full auto and not three round burst. Easy way to tell: if the carrying handle is permanent, its an M4. If it isn't, or its just a sight rail, its an M4A1.
Last edited:
TwitchALot
Member
ctdonath said:I understand the theory of "don't go there yet, let's creep up on it by taking care of a bunch of other things first."
That's why the NRA tried to derail Heller; now look at where that case is.
We had a decent chance to win Heller, and I think the NRA was too pessimistic about that. There is so much overwhelming evidence to support the notion that it's an individual right, and absolutely ZERO to support otherwise. And yet, this won't be a 9-0 decision.
Go hang out on the NFA boards for a while (subguns.com, silencertalk.com, etc.). Look at what they're talking about.
Understand this:
There WILL be numerous suits filed against 922(o) - soon.*
Begging people not to won't stop 'em.
If you want the result to turn out well, HELP OUT.
It's going to happen; which side will you be on? help or hinder?
At this point, it's not going to happen. As we heard during the Heller oral arguments, several Justices are very much apprehensive toward machine guns. If they rule in our favor for Heller, and a case is brought up the next day about machine guns (the ones Gura said could be restricted), they won't be too inclined to help us out. While Gura's word is not binding, I have a feeling some of the Justices who will probably side with us on Heller only did so because they were reassured machine guns were not an issue.
If it becomes an issue this quickly, I think they will feel betrayed and lied to by Gura, regardless of his intention. You don't want that.
It's not about whether the average citizen (or politician) likes it.
It's about rights which a minority can enjoy even if the majority disapproves.
Sure, if the issue is pressed, the result may be ugly.
But, if the issue is not pressed, the result is already ugly.
The issue WILL arise in the courts, and soon. Be ready to facilitate it, because there will be an outcome and it will affect you.
No, the result WILL be ugly, and far uglier than the status quo. If they rule against machine guns, that's IT. Over and done with. Machine guns are gone forever. And I don't like the odds when it comes to machine guns in the Court or in public. People are already confused/apprehensive about semi-automatic rifles looking like assault rifles. We would lose massive support. Taking rights back takes time and patience. The Heller case was a gamble, but it was a gamble that was in our favor because of the overwhelming evidence supporting our side and the sympathy of many of the Judges. Even so, it wasn't an easy fight, and by no means will be it be a 9-0 decision.
Put machine guns on the table in front of the Court right now or in the near future (barring massive change in public opinion about machine guns), and it's virtually assured that that right will be gone forever. And THAT is FAR worse than the status quo.
ctdonath
Member
You're missing my central point.If it becomes an issue this quickly,
It WILL become an issue this quickly.
I own over 30 firearms. I carry every day, everywhere it's legal for me to carry. I believe I have a constitutional right to do so. I also believe thatfighting for the right to own machine guns is not in our best interests.**Now that I have your attention: We have our hands full defending our rkba right now. If you want to scare the h**l out of the average citizen, who outnumber us and who will eventually determine whether or not we can continue to legally own and carry firearms, like it or not, tell that average citizen that we should now be allowed to have fully automatic weapons in our possession. While most of our fellow citizens are currently quiescent on the issue of gun control, they won't remain so about automatic weapons.IMO this is a short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating goal.Let sleeping dogs lie, guys. Have at it.
Okay, imagine this:
-------------------------------------------------------
I have had an abortion. I was raped and had a DNC to stop an unwanted pregnancy. I believe I have a constitutional right to do so. I also believe that fighting for the right to abortion on demand is not in our best interests.**Now that I have your attention: We have our hands full defending our for abortion in cases of rape and incenst right now. If you want to scare the h**l out of the average citizen, who outnumber us and who will eventually determine whether or not we can continue to legally have abortions at all, like it or not, tell that average citizen that we should now be allowed to have abortions on demand right up to delivery date. While most of our fellow citizens are currently quiescent on the issue of early term abortions for rape and incest, they won't remain so about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion on demand.IMO this is a short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating goal.Let sleeping dogs lie, guys.
------------------------------------------------------
This was not a "true story', as I am male. But I think is shows a point where the defenders of the 1st were in the early 1970s. If you believe that you have been granted a right by the Constitution, it is in your right to defend it. It does not matter that other people think it is scary or immoral. If you let what other people think dictate the limits of your rights, they will simply take your rights away.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 4K
