The defendant in this case is on trial for attempting to manufacture a machine gun. The defendants lawyers are filing a motion that asserts their client’s case should be dismissed based on a recent supreme court case. Effectively, their argument is that the NFA ban on machine guns is unconstitutional, so the case should be dropped and the law overturned.
Page 5 of the motion to dismiss is really interesting.
I’m not big on spraying bullets, but this would be cool if they stand a chance.
“attempting to manufacture”?? If you don’t succeed, how can you have done anything illegal? Any convictions I’ve seen before involved the gooberment making sure the gun fired more than one round per squeeze.
I was wondering how long this would take. I can’t even imagine being able to walk into an LGS and walk out with a full auto MK18 and can.
Not getting my hopes up of course.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I dream about it every night.
Page 5 of the motion hits at the regulatory heart of the atf’s ability to violate the 2nd amendment.
I’m with Wake; I’m far too blackpilled to ever believe it’s possible.
I would love to read a Clarence Thomas majority opinion and hear the wails and gnashing of teeth from all the liberal ****sticks.
They are doing this backwards.
Even if they get a win, they will be subject to the 1968 GCA which regulates what firearms are acceptable for domestic production and the Hughes amendment of FOPA 1986 which closed the registry. If they do this wrong, and changes are made to the 1934 NFA by the supreme court, we could lose everything.
The NFA didn’t ban the manufacture of new machine guns for private use, the Hughes amendment did.
I’m with Steyr. This is a loser case. The cleaner case is opening the registry. I have a feeling that a majority of SCOTUS even now would allow the tracking of the things like cans and machine guns.
Also, the current value of a 1934 $200 tax stamp with inflation?….
I’m with Steyr. This is a loser case. The cleaner case is opening the registry. I have a feeling that a majority of SCOTUS even now would allow the tracking of the things like cans and machine guns.
Also, the current value of a 1934 $200 tax stamp with inflation?….
I think the timeline for that will coincide with Hell freezing over! Best guess anyway…
He was selling “autokeycard” it was a piece of metal with laser outline of a drop in auto sear. It is hardly a machine gun, it merely artwork. Cutting it out and i stallong it would be the felony. Its the ATF precrime division teyi g to remain relevant.
Interesting summary
https://youtu.be/ImF-9GR9rpc
I think some or most in here are missing the point.
This is ATF prosecuting citizen not the other way around.
$4428.73 by the CPI inflation rate.
Same here brother, same here.
We even have to be careful with the Hughes amendment to FOPA, the original version did not allow for the transfer of any NFA items. That means all the machine guns, SBRs, suppressors, etc. would be grandfathered to their owner in 1986 but couldn’t be transferred after that.
Before we go screwing around with the 1934 NFA, we better have ALL of our legal safety nets in place. If we removed the NFA right now, the ban on foreign machine guns (1968 Gun Control Act) and the ban on domestic machine guns (FOPA 1986) would still be in place. And that would put every NFA item in very precarious legal territory.
The “starting point” for any serious talk about reversing any gun control would be the “sporter clause” within the 1968 Gun Control Act which allows ATF to decide if a firearm is “particularly suitable for sporting purposes”, get rid of that and you get rid of ATFs power to decide what guns you can own or import based upon a “sporting application.”
That alone would undermine the Hughes amendment and the ban on semi auto imports and machine guns regulated by the 1968 GCA and open them both up to challenges without risking updates to the 1934 NFA. And if we did pull that off, the registry would be open and you’d be able to buy new machine guns at current “real world” prices and honestly who gives a shit about a $200 tax that barely pays for the background check at that point.
It is whatever ATF decides it is, because we have allowed them to change their own definitions when it suits them.
It’ll never happen. Props to those fighting it though.
But the basis for their defense, if successful, could create lots of problems.
In the Heller case, Heller was being prosecuted.