Overturning the 1986 Machine Gun Ban

[Lord Soth]

Ok I probably do not know what I am talking about here but here goes... Just out of curiosity, do any of you think it is possible to get the 1986 machine gun ban lifted? What would it take? What steps would one need to take to try to get it overturned?

 

[Standing Wolf]

If every leftist extremist in the country were to move to red China or North Korea, there might be a chance; otherwise...

 

[chas_martel]

Oh man. I don't see it happening. But you never can tell.

I do wish for it to happen tho.

I don't know why more of a fight is not put up against all the lost rights by the NRA and everyone else.......... ;(

Someone needs to come up with a creative way to attack it. Like, say it descrimates against non-affluent persons. Somehow tie that to other civil issues perhaps. I dunno long shot I guess but that's off the top of my head. Perhaps like the guys in California are attacking non-Shall issue - they are tying it to race.

 

[ctdonath]

The latest best chance of overturning it comes from the disagreement between the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts Of Appeal. Hopefully the Supreme Court will feel obligated to FINALLY examine & rule on the 2nd Amendment's meaning, which if dealt with honestly MUST result in the legalization of standard military arms (which now features the machinegun).

A straight-up attack on the '86 ban won't work now because no lower court will overturn it and no higher court will take the appeal (as we've seen in numerous gun cases); there's ususally SOME loophole they can wiggle through.

I believe the ban WILL be overturned in my lifetime, but doing so will require something more devious (if not downright accidental) than a straightforward rational proper approach.

 

[Monkeyleg]

We got to the stage we're at by our opponents using incremental steps: a ban on pre-'86 fullauto's; a waiting period; background checks; bans on cosmetic features; prohbitions on ownership by "domestic abusers."

Our problem is that, when we finally gain some high ground, everybody wants to lay back and take in the sunshine. That's fine for a month or two, but when you've got the momentum you should use it. We're not doing that.

Everybody's talking about how we don't have that much to fear under GW, or (insert your favorite governor here). Instead we should be on offense, trying to roll back anti-gun laws or enact pro-gun laws.

It can be done. With the will and force available, we could take ourselves back to 1968 and then some.

Problem is, who's going to do it?

 

[Justin]

The only way that I would see this happening would be if someone quietly attached it as a rider on some unrelated bill. Even that would be a longshot, though. As soon as word got out, you'd have every Dem in the country blathering on about how their opponent wants to legalize the wanton distribution of high-explosive child-killing machine guns to felons and child molestors.

:banghead:

 

[4v50 Gary]

After we're attacked by Al Qaeda again and people scream for more guns, maybe. First, all the other anti-gun nonsense has to go away. Then the obnixous ban. Uzis for everyone!

 

[NRAdude]

There is actually a way..... The only way I might add. If one were to challenge the 1936 US vs Miller ruling in the supreme court and overturn it, then all of the existing gun bans would fall apart. They are all based on 1936 US vs Miller. The entire argument on behalf of the government at the time was that "the sawn off shotgun that Mr. Miller was in possession of was not used by the military and therefore not used by the militia" and therefore the government could "regulate" guns. Again the overturn of this ruling would dissolve all existing gun bans 1989 import ban, 1986 machinegun ban, California 50-cal ban, etc....

 

[RedLion]

HA! I can just imagine how many cuss words I'd be yelling at the T.V. when CNN did a report on that case!


I'd have to agree with the idea of small steps, no way is it going to happen overnight.

 

[yokel]

After we're attacked by Al Qaeda again and people scream for more guns, maybe.

Fear is a great motivator. Nobody moves faster than someone fighting for their life.

Unbeknownst to many Americans, who having seen and experienced mostly the goodness of America, machine guns are an essential element in the modern arsenal.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

We got to the stage we're at by our opponents using incremental steps.............background checks;

We will get Full-Auto's before that,

We will never lose Background Checks never.

 

[macadore]

I consider anything else a compromise.

 

[Kentak]

I believe it's unlikely. But, what do I know?

K

 

[romeo212000]

If the Heller case rules in our favor it could set the stage for this. It will be up to us as a collective force to begin pushing for other issues if this happnes immediately after.

 

[alsaqr]

The National Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control act and the 1986 Machine Gun Ban will never be legislated out of existance.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Would anyone like me to predict what will happen in the last five and one-half years? I can do it with complete accuracy.

As a sample of what I can do, since January of 2003--when this thread originated--the Democratic Presidential nominee is likely to be a guy named "Barack Obama." I bet you didn't even know he existed in 2003. But I bet you probably guess that Hillary Clinton wants to be President too.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

The National Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control act will never be legislated out of existence

Fixed it,

I believe It can be overturned through legislative or legal means,

I think if it is legislative Congress will open the registry but will adjust the NFA tax for inflation which would mean, hold on I need to find that inflation calculator..............WOW

$3,186.99
2008

 

[ilbob]

The National Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control act and the 1986 Machine Gun Ban will never be legislated out of existance.

Maybe the answer is to handle it like congress handled the relief provisions for felons and others who want to get their gun rights back. Just don't appropriate any money to enforce these laws.

 

[brighamr]

I like the "adding it to a non-related bill" venture. Seriously, if some bill (insert whatever you can think of here) seems to have a 100% chance to pass, maybe one of the senators who still has some balls can write in a one liner on the final day (kind of how it happened in the first place).

If not that, then as others have suggested, we have every person on this forum apply for an M4 and get denied, then file collectively?

 

[yokel]

We must be fully committed to the elimination of all bans and measures that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning legally obtained firearms as the ultimate aim of all we do.

It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, amongst us, appeasers and apologists and they have to be fought intellectually and politically.

 

[Zoogster]

There is actually a way..... The only way I might add. If one were to challenge the 1936 US vs Miller ruling in the supreme court and overturn it, then all of the existing gun bans would fall apart. They are all based on 1936 US vs Miller. The entire argument on behalf of the government at the time was that "the sawn off shotgun that Mr. Miller was in possession of was not used by the military and therefore not used by the militia" and therefore the government could "regulate" guns. Again the overturn of this ruling would dissolve all existing gun bans 1989 import ban, 1986 machinegun ban, California 50-cal ban, etc....

I have thought of the Miller case many times. It is contradicted so many times and is the basis of a lot of laws restricting firearms.

Since the entire argument that a sawn off shotgun was allowed to be banned under the NFA is that it was not a military weapon suited for a militia, then arguably full auto "machineguns" used by most military infantry are not covered under the NFA based on that logic.



The time to challenge gun laws is within a few years of them becoming law. That way the average person can recall the streets were perfectly fine and there has been little difference before or since the law.
Over 20 years later many people cannot even imagine such things. You hear "It was a different time" etc It is a more uphill battle because it seems so foriegn.

The same would have been the case for the federal assault weapon ban if it had lasted much longer. Fortunately it ended, and now many people that were just children back when it happened now know the streets have not changed much when such items are legal and widely available. If it didn't have a sunset clause, it may have been permanent, especialy if another 5-10 years had gone by.
Once something "too dangerous" has been illegal for a long enough period of time, the average person will believe the hype about how things would be much worse and more dangerous if it was changed.

We see that in nations that have restricted many weapons. We see that even here. I can recall many posters on this site talking about how things would be much more dangerous if the average person could just buy an affordable machinegun. Now if someone had said such a thing in 1987 or 1988 you could show them that is a bunch of crap with many years in thier recent memory as examples.
If they say it in 2007 or 2008 you cannot simply point to a couple years prior when it was not a problem. In another 10 or 20 years when most of the largest voting segment was not even alive or has memories of years prior to 1986 then it will be even harder to overturn it.

When laws are passed they often placate the current owners with grandfather clauses etc and keep a large number of them from focusing a lot of energy on overturning it. That keeps most of them content for the 5-10 years when they have the best chance of changing things.

 

[Deavis]

blast from the past!

 

[bigdaddydan]

probably not but in this day and age I have learned to say never we all need to get behind dr piazza of frontsight in Las Vegas Nevada and become first family members if you can afford it pretty expensive but well worth it

 

[MD_Willington]

Would be nice.. then I could buy my dream carbine, Russian "Knight" Carbine in 9x19... or a FA Krink

 

[RNB65]

The chances of getting the ban overturned are slim to none.

The best way would be to challenge the legality of the Hughes Amendment which authorized the 1986 limit. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA was passed by an illegal voice vote late at night after many members of the House had gone home for the evening. It was a carefully orchestrated event by vengeful Democrats and spearheaded by Charlie Rangel. And it was completely illegal.

Attacking the legality of the Hughes Amendment is probably the only chance that the ban will ever be overturned because most politicians from either party could care less.
-