Discussion in 'Legal' started by DKSuddeth, May 12, 2006.
....and in the real world media propoganda and polls dictate policy. Perception is everything.
That Act is sooo unconstitutional..... If the NRA or the GOA had any balls....
If anybody ever asks "why would anybody need a machine gun?" Then Its clear to me that the education system has failed them(by design). A Militia is the only way a country will ever be free. When citizens have the same guns as the military, its a check on the "state". The military may have tanks but 60+ million men with guns is a force!
Look at History: 1775 american farmers chase the red coats (at that time the best army in the world) in to Boston at Lexington.
1941-1943 Warsaw Getto Uprising. Very small group of Jews with less than 20 guns held off the German army for 27 days and nights before their defeat. German TOOK Poland in 1939 in 16 days!
History is full of examples like these. Govts dont want militias. Even the U.S. Govt is reframing the debate (if there even is a debate) on militias. Hell look at how the Bush Admin. treats the Minutemen on the Border issue.
Citizen Militias are a threat to Govt control. Period.
I'd give it no chance .
Ok , You're a member of Congress . Ask yourself "What's in it for me" besides a deluge of negative spin from the media telling my constituants that I'm for "WMD's" ? ... It's much easier for them to ignore NFA . imo
Why not use Supreme Court legal precedent? The 1939 case of United States vs. Miller effectively banned sawed-off shotguns and the reasoning was this:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Now back then, the Court was twisting the language to ban non-military standard firearm. Today however, couldn't this precedent be used to argue that a "well regulated militia" using "ordinary military equipment" should be allowed to own FULL-AUTO AR15/M16 and the like. Furthermore, that being restricted to (obsolete) bolt action, lever, semi-auto, etc. represents a violation of the precendent that "its use could contribute to the common defense" since owning anything less than full-auto would render one grossly inadequate when facing off a threat armed with full-auto.
Just my $.02
Interesting, and a position I'm sure many have thought of. My own problem with it (and I'm sure it's probably niggling and will be laughed at by the law-folk) is that if one challenges that, and loses, what's to keep them from saying that those "(obsolete) bolt action, lever, semi-auto, etc." aren't "needed" any longer either? So, no full-auto stuff, but no other arms either, because they serve no purpose in a well-regulated militia.
What is the flaw in my reasoning? I don't want to have to be worried that something like this could happen some day.
...and before you say that a "well regulated militia" does not mean you or me, the weight of Supreme Court precedent is overwhelmingly behind the "Standard Model" that the right to bear arms applies to individual citizens.
Well, banning everything certainly runs afoul of the '39 precedent. Going strictly by that case I could envision a scenario where everything BUT standard military issue is banned.
The 1939 Supreme Court was a liberal court trying to use the language of the 2nd Amendment to deny private citizens access to a firearm that was deemed especially dangerous. But in so doing they reinforced that private citizens represent a "well regulated militia", and established that as a militia they should have a right to bear "ordinary military equipment" for the "common defense"......which is the flip side of their argument.
They never argued that the militia should be abolished, which is what an all out ban would accomplish, only that, in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, a firearm not deemed to have military use had no place in the "militia". They also were not trying to abolish all sporting arms, which is how most obsolete firearms could be categorized, only the one they tagged as dangerous.
Now I'm certainly not in favor of banning obsolete weapons, just pointing out how the language of past precedents could be used to promote lifting the FA ban.
It's treading on a razor's edge for sure and I'm no lawyer.
full auto vs. legal responsible gun owners
It doesn't matter if the government makes laws to restrict or ban firearms the criminals will still have them they do not respect or abide by the laws I do and I choose to be able to have protection for myself and my family hitler once said ,in 1935, "This is the first time a nation has had full and complete gun control in history" Then we defeated them and found the concentration camps. I for one don't want history to repeat itself. If the law say's I can't own a firearm my little wooden stick won't help much if a crack smoking theif with a stolen gun busts through my door!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
any body can get a parts kit and receiver flat in the mail to make their own. It doesn't make me feel any safer to know that I have a license
ok, after doing alot of research on this particular issue, here is why it's 'technically' not a ban.
922(o) prohibits civilian ownership on autos manufactured AFTER may 1986. This means that because there are still automatics out there 'pre-ban', that that particular class of weapon isn't banned, as congress has no power to actually ban firearms. What they've done is used the commerce clause to make automatics almost impossible to acquire for law abiding people.
It's most definitely an abuse of the constitution. the founding fathers would have shot or hung the politicians of today who do this crap.
Its not an issue of "why do you need a machine gun", its "why does the government need to dictate what you can buy". What is it about owning this kind of weapon thats morally incorrect or more hazzardous to the public than owning another device (like an aircraft or heavy truck).
You worked for your money and now you cant get what you want or keep it in your family despite going the extra mile to prove you are good people. We are being told this is an ownership society but we are not allowed to own things?
Err... its not a matter of owning "any" machine gun.
If I go to a forign country and see some recent model weapon, made this year, and I want to own that, then how do I make it happen with this law?
I can own this weapon in another nation but I cant come home with it?
Sounds like a ban to me.
I agree that the ban should be repealed, and since I cannot buy one (I just don't have that kind of money) the 'not really banned' nature of the tax stamp effectivly prevents me from having one.
machine guns in the hands of citizenry are not weapons of oppression or tyrany, when terrorists attacked us they used a plane, what stops them from hijacking tanker trucks? what stops them from hijacking trains full of nasty chemicals? it sure as heck ain't the department of Home land Security, those jokers are too buisy restricting the rights of the citizenry to pay any real attention to the preservation of american freedom and liberty.
Weapons in the hands of the masses is excelent means of protecting america from enimies both foreign and domestic. Weapons should not be restricted just to the extremly wealthy.
Just my two cents.
If that machine gun was manufactured BEFORE the effective date in May 86, you can own it. Anything AFTER May 86 is prohibited.
effectively, it is a ban, but legally, it's not.
if you can't buy them, either because they've been taxed to the point of rediculousness, or they've restricted sales to the point where you can't obtain them in certain places.
the only cost effective option is to manufacture one (openbolt guns are rediculously simple) and that is compleatly banned.
I want to be able to legally make my own, without going to jail for it. or buy one cheep.
Untill the laws unravel to the point where I own one free and clear, there is an effective ban. maby not a ban in the strictest sense, but if the majority of the populace is prevented from owning one, then it would seem that ownership is an exception to a majority exclusion.
I hope not. I can't afford 1000 rounds a minute.
good post AJAX22.
Either way the Govt is Controling this issue. Either buy a direct in your face ban, or by less dircet means like by taxing and restricting beyond reason.
Either way its still the Govt controlling the issue, and the rest is just word games.
If "that machine gun" defined a specific weapon then I would not disagree.
Since there are a number of guns designed and built within the last 20 years that you cannot own, and ones from before that you cannot replace, "Machine gun" obviously covers a growing list of weapons you will never be allowed to own despite meeting all other requirements.
Guns dont last forever, so if this "not a ban" ban is not lifted then we'll be seeing the end of civilians with full auto over time.
We laugh at how communist nations make their soldiers fight bloody wars with weapons they could never own as civilians... but arnt we doing the very same thing?
If that machine gun was registered BEFORE the effective date in May 86, you can own it. Anything not registered until AFTER May 86 is limited to dealers.
Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, the law is flat out wrong.
Personally a one shot one kill at 600 yards is better that 30 near misses up close with others firing back at you in fa. At least you can watch the fire fight in a much safer place and make a shocking exit if necessary.
You mean like the North Hollywood shootout in '97? Good thing we had the '86 ban to keep those crazies from getting their hands on auto weapons!
And the assault weapons ban!! Don't forget how effective that was'nt!!
What we needed was a ban on bank robbery. . .
So who in this thread has contacted their reps about repealing the ban?
NOT: repeal the machine gun ban
RATHER: reinstate the pre-19 May 1986 Machinegun Registration Law.
Reinstate the taxing and registration and BATFE oversight of machineguns made after May 19, 1986
I sent one to mine about 3 weeks ago.
Separate names with a comma.