National Feds insist Second Amendment doesn't protect machine guns

[The Heretic]

Feds insist Second Amendment doesn’t protect machine guns

A man who pleaded to guilty to possession of a machine gun argues the criminal statute is unconstitutional because the weapons are not

www.courthousenews.com

Read More

 

[CamoDeafie]

Since the Glock Switch is apparently in widespread use even if it's illegal for unlicensed people to possess (1986 MG ban); the SCOTUS ought to revisit the premise of "dangerous and unusual" weapons not being protected by 2A. I can see this specific route being taken eventually; that the Hughes Amendment itself is unconstitutional, but that the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA are still "good laws/constitutional", thereby opening the MG registry and keeping the NFA intact with only Congress having the right to decide whether to keep or toss these laws.

 

[The Heretic]

Since the Glock Switch is apparently in widespread use even if it's illegal for unlicensed people to possess (1986 MG ban); the SCOTUS ought to revisit the premise of "dangerous and unusual" weapons not being protected by 2A. I can see this specific route being taken eventually; that the Hughes Amendment itself is unconstitutional, but that the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA are still "good laws/constitutional", thereby opening the MG registry and keeping the NFA intact with only Congress having the right to decide whether to keep or toss these laws.

"Dangerous & unusual" is bovine fecal matter.

As far as I am concerned, only NBC weapons should be restricted and the Second Amendment covers everything else.

 

[CamoDeafie]

"Dangerous & unusual" is bovine fecal matter.

As far as I am concerned, only NBC weapons should be restricted and the Second Amendment covers everything else.

I agree. It's just the SCOTUS have decided things this way, and that the US Congress have never had the spine to actually repeal gun control laws. They were content to let the 94 AWB sunset but GW Bush did say he would have signed to renew it if it came across his desk.

 

[The Heretic]

I agree. It's just the SCOTUS have decided things this way, and that the US Congress have never had the spine to actually repeal gun control laws. They were content to let the 94 AWB sunset but GW Bush did say he would have signed to renew it if it came across his desk.

I don't think it is a matter of courage or principle (after all, we are talking about politicians are we not?).

I am pretty sure that Congress, both sides of the aisle, simply does not want guns in civilian/private hands.

 

[Explorer1]

"Dangerous & unusual" really means politicians who claim to be working for the best interest of those who pay for their salaries and perks.

 

[Mark W.]

The second does not protect anything the second is a restriction on actions of the government. Which covers arms.

 

[Alexx1401]

Again 2A is no longer a "right" because a LOT of gun owners decided it was not. A LOT of gun owners for a long time were fine with this "right" becoming a privilege. Genie is long out of the bottle on this and is not going back in.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The second does not protect anything the second is a restriction on actions of the government. Which covers arms.

Technically, it protects arms from being restricted by the government but.....

Again 2A is no longer a "right" because a LOT of gun owners decided it was not. A LOT of gun owners for a long time were fine with this "right" becoming a privilege. Genie is long out of the bottle on this and is not going back in.

Indeed. Short of a massive paradigm shift, we can expect 2A to be further chipped away in specific States, and more of the status quo to continue in the Federal government (one party proactively, aggressively all in on gun bans/removal, other party aggressively neutral on protecting 2A, and reactive instead of proactive)

 

[Koda]

Again 2A is no longer a "right" because a LOT of gun owners decided it was not. A LOT of gun owners for a long time were fine with this "right" becoming a privilege. Genie is long out of the bottle on this and is not going back in.

Most gun laws are passed in the legislative sessions by representatives not citizen initiatives.
Most gun owners are not even aware that happens.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Most gun laws are passed in the legislative sessions by representatives not citizen initiatives.
Most gun owners are not even aware that happens.

He's got a point. I've said this before, most people seem to only vote for the letter by the name, regardless of their actions, or their messaging.


Elections indeed do have consequences, and most people don't bother to watch what their elected Representatives and Senators are doing, at the State level, much less the House.


They complain only when it directly impacts them, or when it's made public, or when they learn that there's consequences to their pocketbooks but they can't seem to make the mental connection that who they voted for, and what they do are linked.

 

[Alexx1401]

Most gun laws are passed in the legislative sessions by representatives not citizen initiatives.
Most gun owners are not even aware that happens.

I have been saying this for years. I have had a LOT of gun owners tell me this is NOT true for years. I keep going back to one of the most recent examples, I1639 and Sporting Systems. This proves why we keep losing as a LOT of gun owners scream its not true
We get the government we deserve.

 

[nwslopoke]

I'm getting sick of the word "ban" being in place for unregistered. People were able to register machine guns throughout any so called ban. I think the arguments are wrong. Yes, many people are guilty of unlawful firearms but to say they were banned suggest they were not available legally.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'm getting sick of the word "ban" being in place for unregistered. People were able to register machine guns throughout any so called ban. I think the arguments are wrong. Yes, many people are guilty of unlawful firearms but to say they were banned suggest they were not available legally.

Yes but you need a Special Occupancy Tax FFL, and be in the business of selling them to LEO/Mil to be able to have post-1986 Machine Guns. That's why theres been an increase in Federal prosecution of FFLs for things like this.

Edit. For all practical purposes, there is a post-1986 MG ban in place for peons like you and me who don't possess SOT FFL licenses.

Most recent

Macomb County gun dealer convicted of buying machine gun conversion devices from Russia

He reportedly tried to hide his purchases from authorities by making the orders under an alias and falsifying the details in his PayPal payments to Russia.

www.clickondetroit.com

Gun Trafficker Convicted of Unlicensed Firearms Dealing and Machine Gun Possession | ATF

MIAMI – Yesterday, Johnny Matthew Battle Jr., 30, of Miami, was convicted at trial before U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom of dealing firearms without a license and possessing a machine gun. Battle operated an illegal firearm dealing business since at least 2017, selling guns without a...

www.atf.gov

Possession of Machine Guns Results in Federal Prison Sentences for Two Men | ATF

SHREVEPORT, La. – United States Attorney Brandon B. Brown announced the sentencing of two men for illegally possessing machine guns. Tedric Deshun Ratcliff, 30, of Shreveport, and Elijah D. Brown, 24, of Fort Worth, Texas, have been sentenced by United States District Judge S. Maurice Hicks, Jr.

www.atf.gov

Police illegally sell restricted weapons, supplying crime

These high-powered weapons are only meant for police. How are they ending up in criminals' hands?

www.cbsnews.com

Man faces 190 years for illegal machine gun sales

PENSACOLA — A 29-year-old Pensacola man could be sentenced to up to 190 years in prison for possessing and selling unregistered machine guns. Gregory Williams, of Pensacola, was convicted this week…

www.newsherald.com

Ffl Holder Sentenced To 15 Weekends In Jail For Machine Gun Possession :: Firearms Owners Against Crime ILLEA

Firearms Owners Against Crime ILLEA

foac-illea.org

 

[nwslopoke]

Acknowledging all that, they want to treat it as something not available. In general conversation, I'll allow it. But otherwise I don't agree.

 

[Koda]

If the average person cant own it, its a ban.

 

[CamoDeafie]

If the average person cant own it, its a ban.

This. Also I don't know of any credit companies willing to finance pre-86 transferable MGs, not saying that there aren't, just that I don't know of any.

Over 2 million registered suppressors. A good number of registered short barreled weapons not counting the pistol brace ones

A simple $5 transfer fee for AOWs, $200 transfer fees for SBR,SBS, and suppressors. $200, transfer fee for transfers MGs but prices on those MGs are in new truck territory due to lack of supply and a high demand.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Nothing will change for the better until We the People stop allowing legislatures, Gov'ners and other beurocrats to walk all over our rights. No state, no gov. No attorney general, no mayor, no bureaucrat, and no legislators have the right to change a constitutional right, not even Congress or POTUS or even SCOTUS, no, there is a process for that, so every single law, rule, or other restriction is in fact illegal!
We the People need to DEMAND that SCOTUS take up the 2nd and force the gooberment to back off, that you cannot bring a right to a vote of the people, nor can you legislate it, or otherwise by edict or command, change or alter it, Period, Hard Stop!

Unless and until SCOTUS grows a pair and steps in and puts a stop to all the illegal bullbubblegum!t, it will never stop!

 

[CamoDeafie]

Nothing will change for the better until We the People stop allowing legislatures, Gov'ners and other beurocrats to walk all over our rights. No state, no gov. No attorney general, no mayor, no bureaucrat, and no legislators have the right to change a constitutional right, not even Congress or POTUS or even SCOTUS, no, there is a process for that, so every single law, rule, or other restriction is in fact illegal!
We the People need to DEMAND that SCOTUS take up the 2nd and force the gooberment to back off, that you cannot bring a right to a vote of the people, nor can you legislate it, or otherwise by edict or command, change or alter it, Period, Hard Stop!

Not happening at least for the duration of these Legislatures. Too many voters in too many States just want Government to take care of them.

Unless and until SCOTUS grows a pair and steps in and puts a stop to all the illegal bullbubblegum!t, it will never stop!

It won't ever stop because of the SCOTUS keeping 1934 NFA and 1968, GCA as "good law"s.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Feds insist....well they are ...wrong.

The Second Amendment does not state what Arms that one may keep or bear...
It does say , in part...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing there at all...about limits or what one can own.
Andy