matterhorn762
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2004
- Messages
- 14
The 1986 "ban" on machine gun manufacturing was added to the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986" seconds before the bill was voted on, following nearly 7 years of debate. It was added so late to the bill, with no written record of approval, that there wasn't even any time to debate it.
At no point prior to this did the bill have anything to do with automatic weapons. In fact, the bill itself is extremely thorough and extensive in detail, yet its most consequential part is only 4 lines and very incomplete.
I'm not a lawyer, but after some detailed analysis and common sense, it seems quite obvious that the status quo interpretation makes very little sense. The actual law says:
(o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to:
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department,agency, or political subdivision thereof;or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
-------
The key words, which I put in bold, when read in plain English says that any agency or "political subdivision" can authorize an automatic weapon. This to me would include the ATF (in pursuant of the 1934 NFA), as well as your DMV (or any federal or state agency for that matter), and your local city council (a political subdivision).
The ATF however decided to interpret this law as saying that all new machine guns are illegal, even though the bill clearly cites that although it says an exception is made for MG's authorized by a federal agency (i.e. ATF). I find it very unlikely this bill was meant to really illegalize machine guns in replacement of the 1934 NFA, since the latter has a 10 prison term, and the former has only a 5 year prison term. It would therefore mean that Congress decided to both ban all machine guns, and also lower the penalty for it from 10 years to 5 years. It also makes no sense why they would write that phrase I put in bold above. The ATF has confusingly decided to interpret it as an exception which applies only for people working in the official duty of those agencies, but clearly that is NOT what it actually says, and frankly, I don't see how you can make that stretch. When laws are passed with the exception of use by federal agencies and/or LE, it clearly says that, not "possession under the authority of..."
The problem with the law was immediate. Because it was introduced in the last second, and tacked on to a massive law which was accumilating for 7 years, interpretation of the law went into effect almost immediately. I can't think of another time in modern history that federal law has to be "interpreted" as to what the hell its intent is, when so night and day of an interpretation can be made.
Can anybody give me some insight into all this?
At no point prior to this did the bill have anything to do with automatic weapons. In fact, the bill itself is extremely thorough and extensive in detail, yet its most consequential part is only 4 lines and very incomplete.
I'm not a lawyer, but after some detailed analysis and common sense, it seems quite obvious that the status quo interpretation makes very little sense. The actual law says:
(o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to:
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department,agency, or political subdivision thereof;or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
-------
The key words, which I put in bold, when read in plain English says that any agency or "political subdivision" can authorize an automatic weapon. This to me would include the ATF (in pursuant of the 1934 NFA), as well as your DMV (or any federal or state agency for that matter), and your local city council (a political subdivision).
The ATF however decided to interpret this law as saying that all new machine guns are illegal, even though the bill clearly cites that although it says an exception is made for MG's authorized by a federal agency (i.e. ATF). I find it very unlikely this bill was meant to really illegalize machine guns in replacement of the 1934 NFA, since the latter has a 10 prison term, and the former has only a 5 year prison term. It would therefore mean that Congress decided to both ban all machine guns, and also lower the penalty for it from 10 years to 5 years. It also makes no sense why they would write that phrase I put in bold above. The ATF has confusingly decided to interpret it as an exception which applies only for people working in the official duty of those agencies, but clearly that is NOT what it actually says, and frankly, I don't see how you can make that stretch. When laws are passed with the exception of use by federal agencies and/or LE, it clearly says that, not "possession under the authority of..."
The problem with the law was immediate. Because it was introduced in the last second, and tacked on to a massive law which was accumilating for 7 years, interpretation of the law went into effect almost immediately. I can't think of another time in modern history that federal law has to be "interpreted" as to what the hell its intent is, when so night and day of an interpretation can be made.
Can anybody give me some insight into all this?
Last edited:
