Repeal the 1986 machine gun ban!

[CollinLeon]

Wouldn't this instantly depreciate the value of rifles that people spent a lot of money on? Some might not be so happy about repealing the 1986 ban.

Some might be willing to take a loss on the existing FA firearms in their collection just so that they could buy more FA firearms to add to their collection. Although I don't really have a need for an M60 in my collection, a select fire M4 / M16 might be nice as long as it just cost me a new sear or trigger group...

 

[lilguy]

Has anyone challenged the constitutionality of Hughes? All one would need to do is try to buy a new machine gun.Being denied would give you standing and then get someone with DEEP POCKET to push it through the courts.

I don't see it ever being repealed legislatively. No ones going to fall on that sword for Machine Gun collectors. You have to make the case that FA arms are included in the mix of generally recognized civilian defense arms of the period you live in. The second amendment is not open ended.

 

[AlexanderA]

Has anyone challenged the constitutionality of Hughes? All one would need to do is try to buy a new machine gun. Being denied would give you standing and then get someone with DEEP POCKET to push it through the courts.

I don't see the present Supreme Court touching the machine gun issue. In the Heller case, Justice Scalia even went out of his way to list machine guns among examples of things that could be reasonably restricted. It would take at least a couple more pro-gun Supreme Court appointments before the issue could plausibly be taken before the Court.

I don't see it ever being repealed legislatively. No ones going to fall on that sword for Machine Gun collectors. You have to make the case that FA arms are included in the mix of generally recognized civilian defense arms of the period you live in. The second amendment is not open ended.

A repeal of Hughes, perhaps combined with an amnesty, could be attached as a rider to some other piece of pro-gun legislation. There are lots of ways it could be framed so as to make sense to the broader public (revenue-raising, legalizing family-heirloom veteran bring-backs, etc.).

Let me repeat again that the 2nd Amendment is not about "sporting uses." The arms protected by the 2nd Amendment are first and foremost military-style arms, suitable for use against a tyrannical invader or domestic usurper. That was clearly the theory behind its original enactment. It's unfortunate that Justice Scalia, in writing the opinion in the Heller case, chose to negate the importance of the militia clause. Rightly interpreted (that the militia includes the body of the whole people, not just the organized militia), the militia clause would reinforce the right to own things like machine guns.

 

[CollinLeon]

Let me repeat again that the 2nd Amendment is not about "sporting uses." The arms protected by the 2nd Amendment are first and foremost military-style arms, suitable for use against a tyrannical invader or domestic usurper. That was clearly the theory behind its original enactment. It's unfortunate that Justice Scalia, in writing the opinion in the Heller case, chose to negate the importance of the militia clause. Rightly interpreted (that the militia includes the body of the whole people, not just the organized militia), the militia clause would reinforce the right to own things like machine guns.

As a general principle, I do not believe that the government should be able to have any arms that the people are prohibited from having. Of course the obvious response by those who do not believe in the absoluteness of the 2nd Amendment is, "Well, what about nuclear weapons?"... Considering the cost of nuclear weapons, that's probably not a major issue, but one could argue that those concerns could be addressed by restricting the access to all nuclear materials... Just look at it this way -- fuel oil and fertilizer are considerably cheaper and we don't see a rash of bombings that utilize it, do we? And as the OK City incident proved, it can be a rather effective tool to use against a single building.

 

[lilguy]

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on FA arms. What is done now would need more bodies to process the expected increase in acquisitions. I live in Illinois and we would need an overhaul of our state gun laws to collect NFA devices.

 

[CollinLeon]

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on FA arms. What is done now would need more bodies to process the expected increase in acquisitions. I live in Illinois and we would need an overhaul of our state gun laws to collect NFA devices.

So, in other words, you're well down that slippery slope and enjoying the ride?

Our enemy's goal is a complete repeal of our 2nd Amendment rights. THAT is the only result that they will consider "reasonable" and they will not stop until they achieve it. We have tried compromising with these leftists and all it has done is give them yet another base upon which to start asking for even more restrictions. We need to TAKE BACK our rights and quit compromising. Repeal NFA34 and GCA68 to start with!

You would not need more bodies to process the expected increase in acquisitions if you completely repeal NFA34 and GCA68.

 

[zignal_zero]

I'm with Collin Leon - we don't need ANY gun laws OR anybody to sort throuh them. In fact, I've said this before, but there is only ONE gun law I would CONSIDER getting behind and that would be - if you have ever been convicted of (not just charged with) violent felony involving a weapon, then no more weapons for you.

 

[CollinLeon]

I'm with Collin Leon - we don't need ANY gun laws OR anybody to sort throuh them. In fact, I've said this before, but there is only ONE gun law I would CONSIDER getting behind and that would be - if you have ever been convicted of (not just charged with) violent felony involving a weapon, then no more weapons for you.

Well, you're nearly a true conservative, but you've got one step down that slippery slope... What you're saying is that if a person shoots (but does not kill) another (and it is not a justified shooting), then they would lose their 2nd Amendment rights, but if someone attacks someone with an axe, chops off a body part, and doesn't kill that person, then they would still have their 2nd Amendment rights. A firearm is nothing more than a tool used to facilitate an action. It should not be treated any differently than any other tool used to facilitate the action. Punish the action, not the tool... I just don't have a problem with criminals still having their 2nd Amendment rights. I have a problem with them doing violent things or even property crimes. If a drug dealer shoots another drug dealer, I really don't have a problem with it and do not think that his 2nd Amendment rights should be taken away.

I have never been charged or convicted of a felony. In fact, I have never even been incarcerated for a misdemeanor... I've paid my share of speeding tickets and such, so I guess you could have called me a "serial speeder" at one point in my life... So, it's not like I'm arguing for something that affects me directly. I'm a Strict Constitutionalist and as such, it's the principle of the matter... The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct and not subject to reinterpretation or revision...

 

[lilguy]

Sorry, but you are wrong. None of our right are unlimited. I do not want every crank bait on weekend leave from at state mental facility to be able to walk in and buy a machine gun. If your are inferring that then you are also a threat to social order.
Have you been keeping abreast of gun rights events lately, our enemies on the left are loosing 10 to 1 in the courts. Even Illinois courts are deciding in our favor, we are on the offensive, no sense in allowing the extremes to derail our train.

 

[CollinLeon]

Sorry, but you are wrong. None of our right are unlimited. I do not want every crank bait on weekend leave from at state mental facility to be able to walk in and buy a machine gun. If your are inferring that then you are also a threat to social order.
Have you been keeping abreast of gun rights events lately, our enemies on the left are loosing 10 to 1 in the courts. Even Illinois courts are deciding in our favor, we are on the offensive, no sense in allowing the extremes to derail our train.

We need to take back our 2nd Amendment rights. We have lost so much since NFA34 and GCA68. They both need to be recognized as the unconstitutional infringement upon our 2nd Amendment rights that they are and repealed. The Founding Fathers did not provide for any exceptions with respect to whom the 2nd Amendment applies. Is it so difficult to think that just maybe they knew what they were saying and said what they meant?

 

[sturmgewehr]

I don't see the present Supreme Court touching the machine gun issue. In the Heller case, Justice Scalia even went out of his way to list machine guns among examples of things that could be reasonably restricted. It would take at least a couple more pro-gun Supreme Court appointments before the issue could plausibly be taken before the Court.

While Scalia did make that statement, he didn't say they should be banned - only that they can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Many would argue that a total ban on ownership isn't reasonable.

 

[Quaamik]

I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on FA arms.

The first problem I see with this is who gets to decide what's "reasonable"?

- Is it hundreds of dollars in fees and background checks including interviews with your family and friends plus a signoff by the local LEOs to bless your exercising of your rights?

- Is it a simple straightforward background check with a prohibitions on felons owning weapons? Note: Vandilism (painting on a building) is a felony in California.

- Is it a prohibition on violent felons owning arms?

What you think is reasonable the guy next to you might not. And what the guy down the street thinks is "resonable" might be that only the police and military have access to arms.

Personally I think the restrictions on FA firearms, and any others, should be as simple as possible. The existing laws that say it's illegal to use one in a crime. When someone uses one for a crime, prosecute them. Otherwise leave them alone.