PDA

View Full Version : This New Lawsuit May Strikedown the Federal Machinegun Ban that has Lasted since 1986



Cebu_4_2
21st November 2014, 04:33 PM
BREAKING: This New Lawsuit May Strikedown the Federal Machinegun Ban that has Lasted Since 1986 October 31, 2014 By Greg Campbell (http://www.tpnn.com/author/gregc/)

http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ZTommygun.jpg (http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ZTommygun.jpg)For those who believe that gun violence is caused by individuals and not firearms themselves, a new lawsuit filed in court on Friday may provide a legal remedy to the unconstitutional machinegun ban that has existed since 1986.

First, a little backstory… (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/foghorn/breaking-lawsuit-filed-allow-registration-new-machine-guns/)

Since 1934, it has been illegal to possess a full-automatic weapon without having paid the proper taxes on it and without having it properly registered. In 1986, however, the task of obtaining a full-auto firearm became infinitely more difficult when lawmakers sneakily enacted legislation that would close-down the machinegun registry and not permit any new approvals for registrations.

Courts later ruled that corporations and trusts are not people and thus are unable to purchase firearms as there is no one person on which to run a background check.

However, when the government closed the registry, they maintained that no person could own a new machinegun- but previously noted, corporations and trusts are not people.

With that in mind, citizens have already attempted to file for new registrations and one even succeeded; however, when the ATF caught-on to their bureaucratic snafu, they quickly revoked the first authorized registration of a machinegun seen in nearly 30 years.

Using that incident, a lawsuit has been filed in Dallas, Texas, (http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/Hollis-v-Holder-Complaint) in federal court challenging the ATF statutes and naming Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones as defendants.

Citing the famous Heller case that affirmed the right to use commonly-used weapons such as the weapons issued to our troops, the lawsuit appears designed to chip-away at the shoddy legal justification for prohibiting the registration of full-auto firearms.

This lawsuit is likely not designed to put the latest-and-greatest full-auto weapons into the hands of each and every America; it is, however, a terrific step towards restoring the uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms afforded to citizens over 200 years ago and an affirmation of the belief that whatever the weapon, whatever the rate of fire, guns are neither good nor bad, but tools that can be used for good or bad regardless of how they operate.

midnight rambler
21st November 2014, 05:48 PM
What's needed is a full restoration of rights, i.e. turning back the clock prior to 1934.

Ares
21st November 2014, 06:41 PM
What's needed is a full restoration of rights, i.e. turning back the clock prior to 1865.

Fixed it for ya.

midnight rambler
21st November 2014, 07:03 PM
What's needed is a full restoration of rights, i.e. turning back the clock prior to 1860.

Fixed it for you. lol

Ares
21st November 2014, 07:55 PM
What's needed is a full restoration of rights, i.e. turning back the clock prior to 1860.

Fixed it for you. lol

Touche` ;) lol

Ponce
21st November 2014, 08:46 PM
If you need a machine gun to fight a war you then should not fight a war.....I never, never, never, use a so called machine gun.....just give me a good old M-1 and I got it made in the shade......my first rifle (war rifle) was a British 303 Jugle Carabine.

"Have more, waste more"..... :)

V

crimethink
21st November 2014, 09:34 PM
What's needed is a full restoration of rights, i.e. turning back the clock prior to 1934.

Every "judge" who has ignored the plain English of the Second Amendment, and approved infringements thereof, is guilty of making war on the Constitution.

"Shall not be infringed." That means any weapon, any time, everywhere, by any one. Yes, that includes "felons," and no, I'm not a felon. A mental case is "dangerous"? Lock him up, for cause, not for "he might do something." We already have a mental case with a direct line to Offutt in the White Hut, yet there's no "concern" about that.

crimethink
21st November 2014, 09:35 PM
If you need a machine gun to fight a war you then should not fight a war.....I never, never, never, use a so called machine gun.....just give me a good old M-1 and I got it made in the shade......my first rifle (war rifle) was a British 303 Jugle Carabine.

"Have more, waste more"..... :)

V

I, too, have "no need" for full-auto, since I depend on normal capacity magazines, not belts. However, "shall not be infringed" means just that, and if someone wants full-auto, it is their right.