SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by LiveLife, May 8, 2022.

  1. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Virginia
    Regardless of the flawed process up on Capitol Hill, the bill was presented to Reagan to sign, or to veto. He consulted with the NRA as to what to do. The NRA told him to sign, because they had too much political capital invested in McClure-Volkmer (FOPA) and they thought they could get the Hughes part overturned. Boy, were they wrong on that! I personally feel that the FOPA reforms were marginal and were outweighed by the machine gun freeze. Reagan should have vetoed. The reforms could have been enacted later, without Hughes. This is when I started to sour on the NRA.
     
    illinoisburt and CapnMac like this.
  2. stillquietvoice
    • Contributing Member

    stillquietvoice Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages:
    2,814
    Location:
    Upstate ny
    That long some already have one foot in the grave as it is.
     
  3. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,155
    While I understand the Construct under which all these points are being made, and hope that we are successful, in reality, categorizing weapons as “in common use” and suitable for militia / military use is silly. Who cares about what “kind” of weapons we have? Or whether they are in “common use”. So what?

    That doesn’t matter one whit. Technology marches on. All that does is play into the hands of those who try to parse words and define what the meaning of “is” is.
     
    Demi-human and 230RN like this.
  4. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    18,547
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Because it's not about whatever you mean by "in terms", it's about the entire law. There is no prohibition against machineguns--there is no machinegun ban. There is only registration, fees and background checks. SCOTUS seems to be fine with all those things--they specifically avoiding dealing with registration in Heller.
    I understand that perfectly. But what they meant it to be and what it ended up being are two different things.
    Yes! Yes! You've got it. They wanted a prohibition but they knew they couldn't do it. So they didn't pass a prohibition.
    It's very obviously not an outright prohibition because there are hundreds of thousands of privately owned machineguns. That would clearly not be possible if there were an "outright prohibition".

    The Hughes Amendment really didn't change anything from a legal standpoint. The process for taking possession of a machinegun is exactly as it was before. It's just no longer possible to add to the stock of transferable machineguns. It might be possible, at some point in the future when the number of transferable machineguns wanes significantly and/or the demand becomes much higher and/or the prices for even the "bargain machineguns" get into the stratosphere, to make the argument that the Hughes Amendment amounts to a defacto ban, but right now I can't see how that would be possible.

    But, yes, I definitely think it should be struck down.
     
  5. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN I keep pushing that pendulum back.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,546
    Location:
    Colorado
    Apt analogy with "is," per President Clinton, but the real problem is the constant morphing with time and viewpoint of so many words in the firearms discussion.

    "Control the language, and you control the issue."

    Consider "assault weapon." How did that morph semantically, and then technically, from full-auto individual "walking fire" battle weapons to any AR-style "ugly" black rifle?

    And I, for only one native English speaker, do not understand how "registration" is not an infringement. Even if it is supposedly only for taxation purposes. I sometimes wish they'd added "or abridged," as in the First Amendment.

    So, after constant use and misuse, the terms "registered," etc., have become normalized in the firearms discussions. I still cringe when I hear "registered" or "registration" with respect to firearms in TV and movie scripts... as if it were a normal and expected thing everywhere in the US.

    Truly: "Control the language, and you control the issue."

    Terry, 230RN

    NOTE: The $200 tax stamp of 1934 would be equivalent to somewhere between $2600 and $4,100 nowadays. You think you'd buy a suppressor if you had to buy a $2600 tax stamp for it? Let alone $4100?

    That, my friend, is proscriptive taxation... therefore prohibition.... I call that an infringement. What would you call it?

    3% overall annual inflation, 88 years = $2696
    3.5% overall annual inflation, 88 years =$4128

    Pick your favorite overall annual inflation (OAI) rate.
    Present cost = ((1+OAI as a decimal)^88) X $200
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2022
    theotherwaldo, Demi-human and kwguy like this.
  6. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,155
    Exactly!
     
  7. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    32,590
    Location:
    Florence, Alabama
    I believe there once was a proposal to index the transfer tax. It got quietly dropped.
     
  8. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Virginia
    We have to build upon the existing gun jurisprudence. These terms are important because they are used in the leading Supreme Court gun cases, and, indeed, in the 2nd Amendment itself. These things are not being argued in a vacuum.
     
  9. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Virginia
    That would be an element if the NFA were ever legislatively "fixed." It would not be an element in a Supreme Court case examining the NFA.

    The reason the NFA is relevant to this thread is that "assault weapons" and machine guns are intimately related. I don't see how the Supreme Court can rule on "assault weapons" without also considering the NFA.
     
  10. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,155
    Yeah I get that, but arguing about the difference between an AR and M4 as it pertains to the 2A is silly. I can’t wait until energy weapons or rail guns become practical, so we can blow off these “firearm” laws, that way every little parsed “wordy word” and legally contrived concept about sears, full auto blah blah can go the way of the dodo.

    The 2A says nothing about guns, only “arms”. It’s almost like those who wrote it meant to leave room for improvement, as well as maintaining the ability to keep old stuff.
     
    Demi-human and 230RN like this.
  11. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,492
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    The definition of firearm will be changed by congress to include electromagnetic and direct energy weapons the moment somebody uses one to commit a murder
     
  12. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,155
    Well, not the “moment”, hopefully. Seeing as how it took almost 100 years for us to get to the point of picking the pepper out of flypoop with conventional firearms, discussing stupid nonsense like sears, handgrips, and shoulder things that go up, maybe their inefficiency will translate to that, and legislatively they won’t be able to differentiate between a rail gun and a remote control.

    Or, we’ll be prosecuted for having a gun shaped pop tart. We really are that dumb, so who knows?
     
    230RN and Demi-human like this.
  13. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN I keep pushing that pendulum back.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,546
    Location:
    Colorado
    Well, seems to me, right or wrong, that there was a "vacuum" around the 2A. At least until people started parsing "well-regulated" from "well-trained and equipped" (as in "the Regular Army") to mean "well-trammeled and restricted."

    It's that kind of lingo-tinkered stuff that changed the entire meaning of "militia" to the nonsense we have today, where the meaning of "militia" got changed legislatively.

    It's the accumulation of these kinds of legalistic tinkering which has destroyed the beautiful "vacuum" surrounding the Second Amendment, as well as some of the others.

    As I've said before, the Second Amendment is one of the shortest and most concise proscriptions in the Constitution, which makes me believe they really, really meant it, no kidding parsing around.

    "Control the language and you control the issue."

    Terry, 230RN

    REF (Preamble to the Bill Of Rights, in part):

    "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

    Parse that.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2022
    DoubleMag, Demi-human and kwguy like this.
  14. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,155
    Perfect!!!
     
  15. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    29,389
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    US Supreme court justices will vote on May 19th on Bianchi v Frosh whether to take the case (requires at least 4 votes) and will review Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine capacity ban) on May 26th whether to take the case or put on hold like ANJRPC v. Grewal (NJ magazine capacity ban).

    CA attorney Anthony Miranda does an overview of Duncan v Bonta case and current status of these 2A cases.

    "Supreme Court Deciding 'Large Capacity Magazine' Ban Sooner Than Expected?

    In this video I discuss the California magazine ban case Duncan v. Bonta which is now up for Supreme Court consideration."​

    https://rumble.com/v14a9vc-supreme-court-deciding-large-capacity-magazine-ban-sooner-than-expected.html
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2022
  16. Appalachiannative

    Appalachiannative Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2021
    Messages:
    770
    Location:
    NC
    I'm under the impression that the latter is 3 rnd burst fire so that makes it an NFA thing
     
  17. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Virginia
    The 3-round burst has nothing to do with the NFA definition. The original M16 didn't have it. The question is whether more than one shot can be fired with a single function of the trigger.

    Remember, the semiautomatic AR-15 came on the market (and was approved by the ATF as not being a machine gun) in 1964. That was before the Gun Control Act of 1968, which redefined machine guns by inserting the "readily convertible" language.

    I have no doubt that if the AR-15 came before the ATF for approval today, it would be ruled to be a machine gun, because of the ease of conversion. (All that is needed is to slightly widen the fire control pocket, drill one hole, and install a few readily available parts.) But the ATF is bound, at least politically, by its prior holding. Suddenly declaring millions of guns to be contraband simply won't fly.
     
  18. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    18,547
    Location:
    DFW Area
    As mentioned, NFA doesn't differentiate between fully automatic and 3rnd burst. If it does more than one with a single function of a trigger, it falls under the NFA.
    They have shown themselves to be willing to reverse previous opinions at the drop of the hat. The AR-15 may be "easy" to convert, but it's hard enough to satisfy the BATF. That's not to say that one couldn't build an AR-15 differently to make conversion easier and get into BATF trouble.
     
  19. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    32,590
    Location:
    Florence, Alabama
    This may be a Hold My Beer event. Consider the bump stock, pistol brace, and forced reset trigger. True, all are accessories that can be removed and still leave you with a functioning gun, but I don't think they are afraid of broad prohibitions.
     
    I6turbo and Demi-human like this.
  20. Appalachiannative

    Appalachiannative Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2021
    Messages:
    770
    Location:
    NC
    They managed it with bump fire stocks but no with binary triggers. Although here in NC those are band
     
  21. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    9,141
    Location:
    Virginia
    Colt started assembling guns with full-auto bolt carriers, and that was OK. Then certain lower-receiver manufacturers started making their lowers with the wide FCG pocket, and that was OK. Now the only marker of an NFA lower is the existence of the "third hole." The conclusion that I take from this is that the ATF is very hesitant to rock the boat.
     
  22. N555

    N555 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2022
    Messages:
    1,116
    Location:
    New Mexico and Texas panhandle
    2022-05-12 07.53.08.png
    These are not the magazines you are looking for. Move along.
     
    Barbaroja and Demi-human like this.
  23. GeoDudeFlorida

    GeoDudeFlorida Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2020
    Messages:
    7,669
    I think the only way any Article Four, pro-Freedom, Bill of Rights for The People rulings will end is with court-packing. If the courts side with The People, then the political classes will pack them with anti-Constitution communists and political elitists.
     
    kidneyboy likes this.
  24. lsudave

    lsudave Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    992
    If/when we change over to a new system like that, I suspect the thing that will go the way of the dodo will be civilians having modern/contemporary weapons. We will be allowed to keep centerfire weapons (but will not be allowed to purchase ammo components, due to environmental concerns etc). Lethal EM weapons will be off-limits, and converting a non-lethal to lethal will be highly illegal.

    The Powers That Be will figure out a way to word things, so it happens seamlessly... we will never have a chance to get one, so it's easier to make illegal. You're not taking something away from a citizen, just preventing them from having it. The general public doesn't fight that nearly as hard.
     
    Demi-human and 230RN like this.
  25. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,263
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    One part of the Heller decision I don't like is the "in common use" test. Moving forward, how does something new become "in common use" if it can be banned while still "novel"?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice