Repeal the machinegun ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y'know..922(o) reads:

(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.

Section 'A' says a transfer to /OR/ by. From reading the letter of the law, your local police department could transfer a machinegun to you if they wished.
 
Beren said:
Y'know..922(o) reads:

(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.

Section 'A' says a transfer to /OR/ by. From reading the letter of the law, your local police department could transfer a machinegun to you if they wished.
Click to expand...

Anybody want to try that out? :eek:

Or heck get your state to pass a law "An m-16 transfer for every citizen over 21"
 
The District Attorney of your County(head law enforcement),

The DA(head of prosecution for an area, or the guy you would face if you misuse the item) could sanction your building of a MG for private possession, and or transfer it for you, as stated by the under the authority of the United States, or any agency thereof...Seems to me like the language of the '86 FOPA, would destroyed the MG portion of the NFA as far as a FEDERAL regulation is concerned;). I mean if anybody at the state or local level(which is how I would read it) can transfer a MG, then they should also be able to allow for,"making"(as defined by the ammended NFA) of a MG. The bill says NOTHING about banning them from,"private production" or ownership, it simply asks for permission from a local authority...Still wrong, but I could live with that, as people could sue the crap out of a DA that still denied them this Right after following the letter of the law...

Will you guys help me disect this statement? "Lawful possession"? The bill says absolutely nothing about a private non-felon, non-prohibited citizen,from producing a post '86 MG for private use. No transfer, simple possession...How does the AG, arbitrarily close-off from the people the ability to access an item that is sold on the (semi)free market??????????????????????????????
 
Beren said:
Y'know..922(o) reads:

(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

Section 'A' says a transfer to /OR/ by. From reading the letter of the law, your local police department could transfer a machinegun to you if they wished.
Click to expand...
Wow. There is a loophole in the 86 ban. I have no doubt that there is some tiny PD or Sheriff's Dept somewhere that would be willing to try to transfer a MG to a person. From how the law is written, that looks ok. That MG would not be transferable after that! Only the original recipient could have it.

Also, interesting to note: this applies to any department or agency of the state or any political subdivision of a state. It does NOT say "law enforcement" department. Does the Los Angeles County Art Museum could buy brand-new M60s? What is the definition of "department or agency"? Or is that defined somewhere else to mean "law enforcement department or agency?"

I hope that Sammy gets confirmed. We might have a chance of throwing this out in the courts. We already know how Sammy would rule!
 
922(o)(2)(A) - allows BATFE to authorize transfer of post-'86 machineguns
311(a)+(b)(2) - non-NG able-bodied males between 17 and 45 are militia members
2nd Amendment - no infringmement on ownership of (at least) modern standard small arms
NFA law - ownership of military-grade arms upon payment of $200 tax plus paperwork

Ergo,
Ask the US Attorney General to direct the BATFE to accept $200 tax payment plus paperwork for transfer of a new M4 to a healthy male citizen between ages 17 and 45, or explain the legal basis for them not to.
Failing the AG & Chief Executive directing BATFE to authorize what is lawful, sue - hundreds of us, individually, simultaniously, until the courts unavoidably push it to SCOTUS.

Any ideas on how to get the US AG to respond to a letter to this effect?
 
TMC,
The "homemade for personal use machinegun" theory is already in the works. Go look up the "Stewart" case (felon makes machineguns for personal use, gets convicted under 922(o), 9th Circuit (!) says it's not "interstate commerce" and remands it to lower court for re-evaluation).
 
ctdonath,

You are of course correct, but what do you think the 9th circus will do with Stewart now,"in light of Reich(sp?)" and the F'd up ruling that Non-interstate production, and consumption of Marijuana that never was bought or sold in a commercial fashion and is allowed by the STATE of California's People(Compassionate Use Act), is or substantially effects, interstate commerce? Do you have that much faith in them getting this correct with a previously convicted felon as the test case for private MG production/ownership, when they(SCOTUS) wouldn't even allow a sick and dying woman to smoke some(state sanctioned) refer, because it would upset a previously instituted,"Regulatory Scheme"(interesting word choice for it, no?)?! I mean come on, of all the legally possessed firearms, and their upstanding owners, the best we can get before the SCOTUS is a convicted Felon for a test case, TWICE(Stewart and Miller) :uhoh:....If I was a betting man, I would say something don't smell RIGHT...Hell I am so tired of this crap, if Johny Cochran offered his services, I'd be the test case:cuss:...

And yes, my Righteous Indignation is showing, and no this is not posturing or Patriotic Rhetoric... This crap has to stop:( ...A gun is a gun....No matter how big, how small, how fast, or how slow; they all possess the means to cause severe injury or harm. To draw arbitrary lines(at the Federal Level) between firearms, is as UnConstitutional as the Bill of Rights is/was necessary....

PS- You guys start a fund, and when it reaches a few million, I'll take one for the home team...I already qualify to own NFA items and weapons, as Texas allows NFA(specifically MG), and I am not a prohibited person. So then, by what logic/reasoning(or lack there of) does the AG/BATFE, take away my State's Sovereignty?...If Texas passed something like Cali(compassionate production of Militia Hardware or something), would the US AG, come down and try to prosecute, what is legal in that state...Didn't the (un)Civil War start over Federalism issues? Doomed to repeat history of Prohibition(s), 'til people mind their own business:(, especially the ones in the Capitol..Your moral impetus, stops at my front yard/door....
 
Doh!

Forgot about that little factoid, but forgetfullness hasn't stopped me before:) , way to watch my six... I wonder if there's any Pro 2nd attorney that would take a,"good case", on contingency basis:rolleyes:...How about we start a smear campain with," Got Guilt" as the catch phrase, and a pictured BATFE agent, with a little Hitler Mustache...It would atleast make me less fuming if we got some word out about the agency that was labeled,"rouge", verging on adversarial, to it's constituency...

PS-Sesame street time kids:)... Which two of these four things, does not follow the pattern; Alcohol(luxury item/drug), tobacco(luxury item/drug), firearms(fundamental protected liberty), and explosives(arguably the exact type of arms the Second was discussing)?...Can I have my frag grenades and M4 with underbarrel M203 now Mr. Faceless Nameless Unaccountable Agent of the Beauracracy, pretty please with sprinkles on top?
:evil: ...What, I can have an atleast almost 20 year old one for mear DOLLARS on the PENNy, after paying you $400 dollars in fees or "Taxes",(plus $200 a shot for the M203) you say, never mind:cuss:...
 
Why is a "sacrificial lamb" necessary for fundamental rights?

One should be able to declare standing by noting
- lawful (even compulsary) US militia membership (USC 311(a)+(b)(2)),
- uninfringeable right to militia arms (2nd Amendment),
- Founding Fathers' specific intent of self-arming (Militia Act of 1792, required arms & registration),
- lawful process for purchasing & registering militia-suitable machinegun (rejected BATFE NFA Class III application and attempted $200 tax payment).

Should the court attempt to reject standing based on lack of indictment (a growing and unConstitutional requirement for "standing": only criminals have standing), one can come back with 922(o) being heavily reinforced by other laws which are not being challenged in this case; violating 922(o) via any means of possession involves:
- not paying a $200 NFA tax
- not filing registration paperwork
- illegal interstate commerce
- state-level illegal possession (most allow NFA arms only if federally registered)
to wit, one cannot "get standing" by violating 922(o) because one simply cannot do so without violating other laws which are not being challenged, and which would result in failure of the 922(o) challenge.

I'd like to see someone write up a simple straight-up lawsuit package whereby any of us can, for basic filing fees and without criminal acts or millions of $$$ in legal support, simply:
- announce petitioner's standing as law-abiding US militia member
- present attempts to exercise 2nd Amendment rights re: obtaining standard militia arms (M4 preferred)
- present BATFE rejection of tax payments
- identify gov't authorization clause of 922(o)
- identify Founding Fathers intent precident of Militia Act of 1792
- indicate either 922(o) is unConstitutional or BATFE must accept tax payment per NFA and per 922(o)(2)(A)
- recall prior NFA challenges ruling gov't must accept tax payments
This should be enough, clearly stated.
Packaged so those who have never filed lawsuits can navigate the path, dozens (hundreds?) of suits could be filed, getting some petitioners past the automatic "no" judges and inducing inconsistent rulings which can be capitalized on by the "equal protection" clause.

I just don't know how to file a lawsuit petitioning for redress of grievances (to wit: gov't agency won't let me do what I have a plain legal right to). I've asked THR before about how to file suit, but got laughed off the thread. This can't be hard, I just don't know what the exact process is, and only recently moved to a NFA-friendly state.

Ideas, anyone?
 
What I can't understand is this:

It seems that every Presidential candidate that comes up says the normal buzz words about "respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms", yada, yada, yada, et cetera, ad nauseam...:barf:

I know that if I happened to be elected President, I would make a campaign promise, and keep that promise. It goes like this:

The Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was enumerated to ensure that citizens of this great Nation had unrestricted access to arms, for the defense of liberty and the Republic, for defense, for hunting and for sport.

Since the Sullivan Law, some people have taken it upon themselves to engineer restrictions of the people to keep and bear arms. Let us make no mistake--all of the weaseling and sniveling about the "distinctions" that are supposedly meant in the Second Amendment are simply engineered to restrict access to firearms.

Thus, my first Executive Order, executed within 7 days of taking the Oath of Office, would do the following:

1. Remove ALL restrictions by citizens of the United States, not convicted of criminal activity, concerning the ownership of firearms.
2. Remove ALL restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic and military pattern firearms.
3. Allow for the petition of the applicable Court, upon the completion of correctional activity, for full restoration of civil rights, to include the ownership of firearms, after the completion of sentencing restrictions. This would also allow for the automatic restoration of civil rights after five years of good citizenship and positive presence and activity in your respective community. (This would apply to non-violent misdemeanors and non-violent felony crimes ONLY.)

4. Remove ALL restrictions of law abiding citizens of the United States concerning the carry of firearms, concealed or otherwise.

5. There would also be specific pre-emptive language, stating that no law would be passed that is more restrictive than the example given in the Constitution of the United States.

One thing I would let stand, though, is the restriction of ownership of firearms for those convicted of violent felonies or assaults. Sorry, but people who tend to attack others should not possess lethal weapons.

I think that all we need is someone with some cojones to do it. What say you?
 
ctdonath said:
Why is a "sacrificial lamb" necessary for fundamental rights?
I just don't know how to file a lawsuit petitioning for redress of grievances (to wit: gov't agency won't let me do what I have a plain legal right to). I've asked THR before about how to file suit, but got laughed off the thread. This can't be hard, I just don't know what the exact process is, and only recently moved to a NFA-friendly state.

Ideas, anyone?
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a criminal defendant to challenge this law. You could challenge by trying to get a court to order the BATF to accept the $200 and put the gun in the registry.

You are right. Someone putting together a lawsuit-in-a-box package like that would be helpful because I'm sure we would get hundreds of them filed. It would be a fairly big legal expense to get that written up, and each individual filing would still have legal expenses because he would need to go over it all with his lawyer (even if everything is pre-written).

It is a good idea and I think this thing can be won in court. The two new members of the SCOTUS are more likely to take a correct stand on this. It sill may not be a majority on SCOTUS but it improves the chances.


Basically, the problem with all the legal challenges so far is that they have not been done with good challengers and they have never had proper funding or legal representation. Even going back to Miller: he was defended by a public defender, he was a criminal, and by the time his case made it to SCOTUS, he was dead. Stewart had similar problems. He had attempted to hire someone to kill a judge. That's not a good defendant. He was broke and he had a public defender I believe. You just can't win in a situation like that.

Someday if I ever sell my company and get rich, I WILL set up a multi-million dollar legal fund for working on tough issues like this. Maybe the BATF or the powers-that-be might be willing to do some negotiation if they preceived a credible (legal) threat. How about a 90-day amnesty, for example?
 
ElTacoGrande said:
You don't have to be a criminal defendant to challenge this law. You could challenge by trying to get a court to order the BATF to accept the $200 and put the gun in the registry.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you become a criminal defendant the moment that you tried to do this?
 
No.

You do all the NFA paperwork, attach $200, send it to the BATFE.
They send it back saying "denied".
You then explain to a judge that you have the right to own a machinegun, the BATFE does NOT have the right to deny the application (gov't cannot refuse to accept a legally paid tax; only reason the NFA is legal is it's a "tax"), and ask the judge to direct the BATFE to accept tax payment and register the transfer.

Nothing criminal about it.
 
ctdonath said:
No.

You do all the NFA paperwork, attach $200, send it to the BATFE.
They send it back saying "denied".
You then explain to a judge that you have the right to own a machinegun, the BATFE does NOT have the right to deny the application (gov't cannot refuse to accept a legally paid tax; only reason the NFA is legal is it's a "tax"), and ask the judge to direct the BATFE to accept tax payment and register the transfer.

Nothing criminal about it.
Click to expand...
Not to put to fine a point on it, but would you let us know when you're going to try that so we can contribute to your legal defense fund? :)
 
HonorsDaddy said:
Not to put to fine a point on it, but would you let us know when you're going to try that so we can contribute to your legal defense fund? :)
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be a DEFENSE fund. In this case the BATF would be the defendant and ctdonath would be the plaintif.
 
I'm still lost. If you have an un-papered machinegun of any vintage in this country, and you attempt to register it, aren't the ATF agents going to come knocking on your door to haul you off to jail?
 
Finally - somebody gets it.

Everything is legal. We just need to spell it out to the bureaucrats, via a judge if need be.

As the federal government has declared me (and you) a member of the US militia in defense of the nation, and the 2nd Amendment declares a right of citizens to own arms to that end, and the NFA declares a Congressionally-mandated manner of registering those arms (reflecting the Militia Act of 1792), and SCOTUS has declared the government may not levy a tax on an activity yet refuse payment, the BATFE is in error in refusing acceptance of registration and tax payment for a post-'86 machinegun suitable for military use by a militia member.

Got that? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY DECLARED US MILITIA MEMBERS - YET REFUSES TO LET US OWN MODERN STANDARD SMALL ARMS (to wit M4) PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORIZATION - and 922(o)(A) grants that authorization.

As of today I am officially a resident of an NFA-friendly state (Georgia).
I can, with a little effort, find a Class 3 dealer willing to sell me a new M4 - if the BATFE will approve the transfer.
I've got enough money to pay the various court administrative fees.
I just don't know how to file suit.
HOW DOES ONE WORD A PETITION OF GRIEVANCE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT AGENCY???
 
I'm still lost. If you have an un-papered machinegun of any vintage in this country, and you attempt to register it, aren't the ATF agents going to come knocking on your door to haul you off to jail?

Simple: you don't have it. You tell a judge the BATFE refuses to authorize the LEGAL transfer, in violation of what is legal and what is required.

SCOTUS has ruled that the NFA is only legal because it's a TAX (not prohibition).
SCOTUS has ruled that if someone is willing to pay a tax, and the receiving agency has the resources to process the tax, the agency (in this case, the BATFE) MUST accept the tax and approve the activity.
Find a dealer of new machineguns, pay for a new M4 - exactly the kind the standard grunt Army soldier gets - and submit the paperwork to BATFE.
Under NFA law, you cannot take possession of the machinegun (regardless of having paid for it) until the tax is paid and the application approved.

What you're confused about:
You think you get the gun, THEN register it. You don't.
You register the gun, THEN receive it from the prior legal owner.
Find a lawful dealer (say, one that supplies police), pay for the gun, file the paperwork & tax, get approved, THEN get the gun.
They can't bust down your door for trying to lawfully buy something you don't have yet.
 
I have it now. I thought, based on earlier posts, that we were talking about the situation where you presented an application to add a previously un-papered machinegun to the list. You are talking about making application to have transfer made of a gun that is already in the system

Do you think that you are going to be able to find a Class 3 dealer willing to take on the hassle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
NFA Owners Association going political
Replies
7
Views
484
boofus
B
J
  • Locked
wast of money by army
Replies
6
Views
714
Kaylee
K
N
  • Locked
Bill introduced to ban the FN FiveseveN & 5.7x28mm
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
John Hicks
J
B
  • Locked
ATF on Shotguns, Pistol-Grip Shotguns, and Short-Barrel Shotguns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
33K
Nickel Plated
N
C
  • Locked
Should the 2007 NRA be in Louisiana?
Replies
23
Views
704
DeseoUnTaco
D
Back
Top