Wanna stimulate the economy? Ask for a new machine gun amnesty.

[CDignition]

Why is this even a topic?? Why even talk about something that will never, ever, ever happen.. its pointless really, just frustrates you for nothing.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Why is this even a topic?? Why even talk about something that will never, ever, ever happen.. its pointless really, just frustrates you for nothing.

Optimism, Optimism,

That's what is needed.

 

[CDignition]

Misplaced optimism is a mistake and a waste of time. Optimism is healthy unless you are optimistic about walking on the moon , or some nonsense like that.

 

[General Geoff]

Optimism is healthy unless you are optimistic about walking on the moon , or some nonsense like that.

I'm sure someone said the exact same thing fifty years ago. Nothing is impossible.

 

[ctdonath]

With the final Heller verdict coming, eliminating 922(o) is realistic.

 

[roscoe]

First get nationwide CCW. Then worry about dessert.

 

[ctdonath]

Not everyone sees priorities the same.
Methinks toppling 922(o) is a key (and easier) step in making nationwide CCW moot.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

optimistic about walking on the moon

Two words: Spaceship One.

First get nationwide CCW

922o is more likely.

 

[Vegaslaith]

I think 922(o) is more likely because of its undeniable similarities to the Heller case. Plus its a Federal, not State law so the subject of incorporaton is irrelevent. I'll bet the day after the Heller verdict (ok maybe a week) there will be a serious legal challange. Watch.

 

[the naked prophet]

would clamor to crank out as many auto sears and selector switches as possible, in the short period of time the amnesty went on.

NOT HAPPENING. PERIOD.
922(o) forbids, without allowance for "amnesty", possession of post-'86 MGs.

It was my understanding that 922(o) does not forbid possession of anything. It simply stops any new MG registrations, and possession of unregistered MGs is already forbidden. If an amnesty was granted which allowed for registration of new MGs, then there would be no problem.

 

[PTK]

No, it specifically forbids possession of post-1986 MGs.

 

[ctdonath]

Section 922(o) states:

(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.