What's your alternative? How would you plan to achieve it?StarDust1 said:
Post-McDonald: Will the NRA take on the NFA?
- Thread starter essayons21
- Start date
- Status
Demand was tiny for select fire autos before the Hughes Amendment because automatic weapons are really expensive to feed and maintain. Common practice at least with an M16 is to put away the old upper and run through new uppers until they're trashed. Add ammo costs, even if you reload. ... and $200 was alot more in 1985 than it is now.
You'll find people who sold their's back in the day because they couldn't afford it. It's more of a once in a while novelty to most people. Many people are interested now because the initial purchase price is above the means of most shooters. Kind of like forbidden fruit.
They're fun. Subgun comps are really fun too. But it's a really expensive hobby.
It's not as high a priority right now as other gun issues.
You'll find people who sold their's back in the day because they couldn't afford it. It's more of a once in a while novelty to most people. Many people are interested now because the initial purchase price is above the means of most shooters. Kind of like forbidden fruit.
They're fun. Subgun comps are really fun too. But it's a really expensive hobby.
It's not as high a priority right now as other gun issues.
Last edited:
Gungnir
Member
But why is it really expensive...?
Is it because there are only 150k registered MG's available to the public?
Whether it's tiny or not isn't really relevant, full autos are a class of firearms, there is no evidence to say one way or the other if full auto was available in exactly the same way as semi auto how common they would be, because since 1934 there has been a $200 tax, and other requirements to own. It's only in the past 5-10 years that $200 has fallen to become an impulse purchase price. Which may have been the big deterrent in 1985, not ammunition or maintenance, since you can fire an auto, on semi, but you can't fire a semi on auto.
Also to turn your argument around, real demand for 50 BMG rifles (not the "I'd like" crowd, but real ownership) is tiny in comparison to other calibers. Does that mean that we shouldn't defend 50 BMG ownership?
Depending on the Ruling in McDonald, then it very well may be the time to go after Hughes. If this is a battle to repeal firearms controls then the next one will be the one that's most likely to be won, not necessarily the one that does most good to most people.
For instance, Concealed or Open carry, great love the idea of having it on a federal level, however it's not prohibited on a federal level, and there are places you can go that do allow for it, it's not prevented country wide it might help an awful lot of people who are stuck in a location (California, DC, Wisconsin, Chicago or New York) for family or work reasons. Now getting the benefit of "winning", to those people will take a huge amount of time.
I can see California, being sued, and enforcing a law that allows open and concealed carry, but only of unloaded firearms, there you go you can keep and bear firearms. Now how can you fight that one...? There's no constitutional right to keep and bear ammunition, or even a mention that arms can be loaded when carried. So even going after "return of gun rights" to anti-2nd states has risks how many states that currently "shall issue" will try to enact something similar, if something like that was enacted and was successfully defended in court, then we'd be back in this same situation, as far as Chicago/DC/NY/California is concerned but with less constitutional standing and more at risk of other states using that language in their own regulations.
Now going after federal restrictions, is completely different. If you win, you win. Sure states can enact their own restrictions subsequently and I'm sure that they'll try. However its reactive to the federal change and it's not entrenched in any of the state opinion, politics or courthouses.
Even then "most good" is debatable, currently 350M give or take are prevented from owning an entire class of firearms that as confirmed with Miller have a military application, and as we know from the intent of the 2nd amendment were fully intended by the authors to be protected by the 2nd. How many are completely prevented from concealed carrying? Especially to a law (of debatable democratic vote) enacted at the federal level in the 11th hour with a verbal vote in committee where the chair refused to take a recorded vote?
As far as firearms injustices go, I think you'd have a lot to prove that anything at State tops Hughes.
KBintheSLC
Member
Ditto. Having recently moved to CA, I am really seeing the "lower hanging fruit" you speak of. I think we will have to work our way up the tree, one law suit at a time... as long as McDonald goes our way that is. Around here, I would start with the lack of a "shall issue" CCW clause. Then work my way towards standard capacity mags and normal semi-auto rifles. I think those rights are far more immediate and effect our daily lives more than the belt-fed M240 you want for Christmas.
Not to say I don't support the reopening of the machine gun registry, just that I wouldn't go for that fruit first. Remember, we have almost a century of constitutional destruction we have to repair... one brick at a time.
Last edited:
StarDust1
Member
Just making an observation, as to an alternative, there is none, at least none we could hope to discuss here.
The reality is, when you have to submit to a background investigation to exercise a right, you're actually asking for permission, when you have to ask for permission you're not exercising a right, rather a privilege.
When certain special agents & agencies are afforded rights that are extra-constitutional, such as the ability to own and deploy weapons that are forcefully denied "We The People" though no such right is enumerated anywhere within the constitution, indeed is actually barred by it, it's not a right, rather it's a privilege.
Privileges are easily given, and taken away...
Interestingly, you'd be very hard pressed to find a citizen gun owner who would find fault with the current arrangement, which is a tragedy as it abominates the original intent of the 2nd Amendment...
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bart said:
No doubt. And in among those clues was the following statement:
The Hughs amendment is a ban, not a "condition" or "qualification" that must be met to own a new machine gun by someone who is not an employee of government.
Another clue:
Times change. Not only that, considering the limited number of M-16s and other machine guns available to We the People, "common use" by anyone would necessarily encompass a very narrow segment of the population, making any use of those arms by that narrow segment "common use". One cannot judge by what ever use those limited number of arms is compared to the whole number of citizens. With the proper ratio of machine gun owners to gun owners who do not possess machine guns as a multiplier, the potential number and use of machine guns would certainly bring them into any legitimate definition of "common use".
Hell, would it then be necessary to ban Mares Legs when you consider the small number existing and being used? To follow that logic only brings you to the conclusion that "common use" is a fallacious parameter. I'd dare to say there are fewer Mares Legs than machine guns!
But to get back on course, it's undeniable that the Court in Heller - and I'll make the quantum leap to include McDonald - made or will make a big issue of how the law(s) amounted to a complete ban on a whole class of arms. That's a pretty good clue to me. And I don't see the Court striking down anything in the NFA by striking down the Hughes amendment in the FOPA (922(o)).
Taking on 922(o) at this time(after winning McDonald, of course) is logical. That's the big clue I'm getting. It's the last really big piece of crap - an outright ban - laid on our RKBA and needs to be the first flushed.
As I stated earlier, Congress and the several state's legislatures need to bite the big bullet and hold the violent criminals and lunatics till they can be trusted with arms out in society before we go after the NICS and all the other laws that require obtaining a permit or permission to buy, keep, and bear arms.
I've made the following contention to Congress before: Get off your butts and clean up all these infringements and maybe you might be able to preserve some of the things you consider "reasonable restrictions"(Not that I want you to keep any of them!). If you sit his one out, the Court just might dump everything off the books! ..................... On second thought, make yourselves comfortable. We'll be voting you out soon enough anyway!
Woody
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well Woody, once again we find ourselves in vast disagreement. Big shock.
Kpdpipes
Member
Despite what Scalia Said, and the fact that Alito is apparently NOT on the bad side concerning MG;s according to his case history. Roberts said pretty plainly to Gura that if he tried to include NFA/MG into Heller it would be a stone loser. 922(o) probably IS doable, eventually. Onr thing that should be kept in mind though is that the NFA tax hasnt changed since 1934. Do you REALLY want to bring Congress' attention to that?? A tax stamp now is $200.00 basically the same cost as a Thompson at the time IIRC. What would that equate to in Today's Money?? $10,000, $30,000?????
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bart,
Doesn't much matter. What ever happens will probably take us both by surprise!
What do you see as the next best move?
While I agree with Armed Bear that there is a lot of lower hanging fruit, that fruit exists in some of the several states. I'm looking more toward something that would clear the Union's infringements. There is no doubt - nor has there ever been as far as I can recall - that the federal government is not immune to the prohibition in the Second Amendment. Now that we've verified that the Second Amendment protects a right of the people, and that no ban on a class of arms will pass muster under the scrutiny of the Second Amendment, the stage is set.
It should also be noted that some of that low hanging fruit is on a sprig that was grafted onto those state law fruit trees by a 922(o) loving state legislature, and I doubt you'll be able to pick that fruit off the tree without first severing the sprig. If anything, taking on 922(o) IS picking low hanging fruit albeit from the federal tree. 922(o) can disappear without so much as an aphid licking a leaf on the NFA, and just think of all the new federal jobs that will be created by the flood of new machine guns to be registered ... And the revenue from all those tax stamps ... And that outright ban thingie can't be mentioned often enough ...
Don't get me wrong, Bart. I'm not looking to convince you otherwise. I'm just expressing my opinion. I'll close this post just as I opened it: What ever happens will probably take us both by surprise!
Woody
There is a current wave of freedom being expressed in this great country of ours. We can join that wave in the political arena now or be forced to join it on the battlefield later. B.E. Wood
Doesn't much matter. What ever happens will probably take us both by surprise!
What do you see as the next best move?
While I agree with Armed Bear that there is a lot of lower hanging fruit, that fruit exists in some of the several states. I'm looking more toward something that would clear the Union's infringements. There is no doubt - nor has there ever been as far as I can recall - that the federal government is not immune to the prohibition in the Second Amendment. Now that we've verified that the Second Amendment protects a right of the people, and that no ban on a class of arms will pass muster under the scrutiny of the Second Amendment, the stage is set.
It should also be noted that some of that low hanging fruit is on a sprig that was grafted onto those state law fruit trees by a 922(o) loving state legislature, and I doubt you'll be able to pick that fruit off the tree without first severing the sprig. If anything, taking on 922(o) IS picking low hanging fruit albeit from the federal tree. 922(o) can disappear without so much as an aphid licking a leaf on the NFA, and just think of all the new federal jobs that will be created by the flood of new machine guns to be registered ... And the revenue from all those tax stamps ... And that outright ban thingie can't be mentioned often enough ...
Don't get me wrong, Bart. I'm not looking to convince you otherwise. I'm just expressing my opinion. I'll close this post just as I opened it: What ever happens will probably take us both by surprise!
Woody
There is a current wave of freedom being expressed in this great country of ours. We can join that wave in the political arena now or be forced to join it on the battlefield later. B.E. Wood
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Woody, you are reading what you want to hear into Heller and not what was actually said. The holding from Heller is:
"In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
Concerning the standard of scrutiny, Heller says very little; but where it does speak, it says only:
"Under any standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home, "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family (citation omitted) would fail constitutional muster."
As you can see, the holding in Heller does not apply to all arms, nor does it state that a ban on an entire class of arms is unconstitutional. it only says that banning "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family (citation omitted) would fail constitutional muster."
Further Scalia goes on to say (cites omitted)(bolded emphasis is my own):
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, tha the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'
It may be objected that if the weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from its prefatory clause.... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Does that sound like someone who is going to overturn 922(o) to you? He is saying that the "protected right" described by Heller no longer fits well with the prefatory clause (the part regarding the militia). What does the above passage suggest to you?
Speaking of fallacious, you seem to confuse the ideas here. If a Mares Leg is not considered a protected arm under the Second Amendment because it is "not in common use", that does not require that Mares Legs be banned. It merely means that states can ban them if they choose to do so.
Heller tells us that a handgun is protected under the Second Amendment. Everything else is still up for debate at this point. So I would concentrate my efforts on handgun restrictions - I would establish that restrictions against semi-automatic handguns are invalid. I would go after California's "Handgun List" that prohibits handguns based on their color or feature and establish that those were invalid restrictions. This way we don't have to refight the whole protected "arm" issue and we can concentrate on specific issues - such as bans on cosmetic and technical features in an already protected class of arm.
Considering the number of states that have shall-issue concealed carry laws and the racist nature of many may-issue laws, I would start targeting those laws as well.
In each case, I would want to have good, upstanding plaintiffs and have the issues fairly narrowly targeted so that the decision cannot be sidetracked down another line of legal reasoning. So that will also be a limiting factor on how fast we can move.
Well it is good you weren't looking for that; because you'd have been looking awhile. I get discouraged when I see posts like yours, Woody; because from my perspective there is a great volume of information suggesting that going after 922(o) anytime in the next year or two would be a big mistake. Yet at the same time, I know that there are people out there who share your views and I fully expect some of them to try a lawsuit anyway. I just don't grasp people who think that we are going to go from a 5-4 split on whether the strictest, most ridiculous, gun law in the nation is constitutional to repealing 922(o) a few years later.
At the end of the day, you still need five votes on the Supreme Court and if those five votes are there right now, then there is sure a lot of curious dicta in the majority opinion of Heller.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bart,
I understand. This is the "what::
And this is the why:
"(T)he most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family..." would certainly qualify as a class of arms. DC effectively banned it.
You asked me what the above passage suggests to me. It says that if machine guns(M-16s) are banned, and they effectively are, then the Second Amendment right IS completely detached from preserving a well regulated militia. Though not stated specifically, what I get from what was said about the incongruous fit between the right protected and the prefatory clause(the preservation of a well regulated militia) dealing with modern developments would be a reference to nukes and other WMDs. And further, what I get from "...cannot change our interpretation of the right," is a statement that weapons that ARE splined to the preservation of a well regulated militia(machine guns) cannot be banned. That tells me the Court - in a round-about way - said that the Hughes amendment must go, so someone please challenge it! There is no doubt that the Court in Heller not only recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense, the Court also recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms to preserve a well regulated militia. And, as the Court said, there is a degree of fit to be considered, meaning though we probably wouldn't recognize any viability to keeping and bearing nukes and WMDs, those M-16s would be recognized.
I particularly like the following excerpts from DC v. Heller:
Never underestimate the power of the people and their thirst for freedom - especially when some of those people are on the Supreme Court.
Yes, there certainly is a lot of "curious" dicta in Heller. I wish the Court would write as succinctly as the Founding Fathers did!
Woody
I understand. This is the "what::
And this is the why:
"(T)he most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family..." would certainly qualify as a class of arms. DC effectively banned it.
You asked me what the above passage suggests to me. It says that if machine guns(M-16s) are banned, and they effectively are, then the Second Amendment right IS completely detached from preserving a well regulated militia. Though not stated specifically, what I get from what was said about the incongruous fit between the right protected and the prefatory clause(the preservation of a well regulated militia) dealing with modern developments would be a reference to nukes and other WMDs. And further, what I get from "...cannot change our interpretation of the right," is a statement that weapons that ARE splined to the preservation of a well regulated militia(machine guns) cannot be banned. That tells me the Court - in a round-about way - said that the Hughes amendment must go, so someone please challenge it! There is no doubt that the Court in Heller not only recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense, the Court also recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms to preserve a well regulated militia. And, as the Court said, there is a degree of fit to be considered, meaning though we probably wouldn't recognize any viability to keeping and bearing nukes and WMDs, those M-16s would be recognized.
I particularly like the following excerpts from DC v. Heller:
Bart said:
Never underestimate the power of the people and their thirst for freedom - especially when some of those people are on the Supreme Court.
Bart said:
Yes, there certainly is a lot of "curious" dicta in Heller. I wish the Court would write as succinctly as the Founding Fathers did!
Woody
legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
legaleagle_45 said:
Gura has to move fast or someone less capable will be leaving wrecked precedent in his path
ConstitutionCowboy said:
For a group that was so succinct, we spend a lot of time, effort and money arguing about what they meant. I suspect the Heller decision is less succinct than you would like for the same reason the Founders were often vague - whenever you have to get a certain number of votes in order to move forward, it is best not to be too specific if you want to get the maximum number of votes.
The fact that Scalia even felt a need to write those passages should make it pretty clear that one of those five votes is concerned about overturning 922(o).
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bart said:
The argument is with those who, for what ever agenda they represent, wish to spin the Constitution to fit that agenda. I don't have a problem with anything in the Constitution beyond the Sixteenth and Seventeenth amendments. (Even those two amendments don't present a problem for me to understand, I simply disagree with the alterations they made to the Constitution and the destructive effect they've had.)
Bart said:
I can't buy that. There is no doubt in my mind that the narrowness of the ruling in Heller was to secure that fifth vote, but I find it very hard to believe that whomever that "fifth vote" might have been regarding the non-issue vis-a-vis machine guns, that fifth vote wouldn't have been naive enough to be fooled by what Scalia wrote. If I can see the hint, surely the Justices on the Court can see it and may have in fact helped craft it. As was mentioned in Heller, the question of the infringements on machine guns wasn't brought up as an issue to be resolved and really didn't need any mention other than in passing. More was said about machine guns than was necessary to resolve the issue of keeping hand guns in the home.
Woody
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
