Could This Lawsuit Strikedown the Federal Ban on Machine Guns?

[Ares]

NEW TWIST IN MACHINE GUN SUIT

A new twist has emerged in a lawsuit challenging the 1986 ban on the registration of fully-automatic firearms. The suit challenges a provision that anti-gun lawmakers inserted into the Firearms’ Owners Protection Act.

According to a report by National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, the lawyers for Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, who set up an unincorporated trust that had initially received a tax stamp for a fully-automatic firearm before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) tried to revoke the stamp, have filed what is known as a sur-reply.

The sur-reply, delivered in response to a motion to dismiss offered by the Justice Department, is before federal district judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, argues that both the 2008 Heller case, as well as the 1939 case known as U.S. v. Miller and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Peruta v. County of San Diego, which struck down California’s application of its law regarding concealed carry permits, require that the ban on fully-automatic firearms manufactured after 19 May, 1986, be tossed out. Judge Lynn was appointed to the court by former President Bill Clinton.

The sur-reply also cited last month’s decision tossing out the ban on interstate handgun sales from the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. In that ruling, United States District Judge Reed O’Connor applied a standard known as “strict scrutiny” to the interstate ban, and proceeded to strike it down.

The federal government has until 11 March to respond to the sur-reply.

http://www.sofmag.com/new-twist-in-machine-gun-suit/

[midnight rambler]

A step in the right direction but still way short of the objective. NFA '34 and GCA '68 both need to go, not to mention NICS.

[Ares]

A step in the right direction but still way short of the objective. NFA '34 and GCA '68 both need to go, not to mention NICS.

All in due time. I'm just glad someone is using the unincorporated trust loophole and is now suing them over it. Hopefully a judge rules to trash the entire process, as we should be able to acquire the same weapons that is commonly available to the military. If I have the money to buy an M1 Abrams tank and the 120mm shells I should be able to buy the damn thing, and arm it.

[Shami-Amourae]

If only...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8

[BrewTech]

If only...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8
Don't try that at home, he is a professional Russian... lol

[mick silver]

Military Police System Co(Tennessee, USA) that offers the slightly modified AA-12 selective fired shotgun for authorized military and police users in USA. It is possible that AA-12 will be used in limited numbers by some US agencies, but so far we have no information on actual use of this awesome weapon, which traces its ancestry to late days of Vietnam war. Call me Jack 541-280-9503 .... http://www.gunsandweapons.com/index.php/post/city/ad/view/15

[BarnkleBob]

What is more dangerous and likely to be used in a crime, 11" bbl AR Pistol or 16" AR Rifle or a 12" AR Riifle.

Lets also consider a non-criminal person qualified by NCIS to purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun from a BATFE FFL licensee must remit a $200 tax penalty to own & possess a short barreled rifle or an accessory such as a gun muffler (suppressor/silencer)..... Does the shorter bbl on the rifle make it more dangerous? Does a muffler create an advantage to a criminal? No & No!

If the NFA is constitutional, and its not, why then is a person required to wait 6 months to a year to receive "permission" in the form of a tax stamp to own a muffler or short bbl? If the FFL is licensed to sell short bbl weapons & mufflers, and the person is qualified to own & possess a firearm, why then isnt the stamp tax collected at the counter by the FFL at purchase? After all the FFL is licensed to possess and sell machine guns, suppressors, short bbl weapons, etc.... Evidently, these NFA Tax Stamps themselves are much more dangerous than the guns themselves that they must be directly issued by BATFE.....


The First Circuit Court of Appeals 1942 understands all to well the EXACT meaning of the Second Amendment.... READ THIS CASE!

Cases v U.S., 131 F. 2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndc...deral/7fed.htm

Snippet:

*****In the case last cited the Supreme Court, after discussing the history of militia organizations in the United States, upheld the validity under the Second Amendment of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, 48 Stat. 1236, in so far as it imposed limitations upon the use of a shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches long. It stated the reason for its result on page 178 of the opinion in 307 U.S., on page 818 of 59 S.Ct., 83 L.Ed. 1206, as follows: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. However, we do not feel that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases. The rule which it laid down was adequate to dispose of the case before it and that we think was as far as the Supreme Court intended to go. At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called "Commando Units" some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,--almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,--is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result. Considering the many variable factors bearing upon the question it seems to us impossible to formulate any general test by which to determine the limits imposed by the Second Amendment but that each case under it, like cases under the due process clause, must be decided on its own facts and the line between what is and what is not a valid federal restriction pricked out by decided cases falling on one side or the other of the line.***** Cases v U.S., 131 F. 2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

Oh the horror of interpretting the 2A as intended by the framers of the constitution.... The Judiciary then begins to empower their opinions rather than opine the FACTS... " It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result." This was the actual intent in toto.... Duh!