In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

When will someone standup for the black rifles

wipalawipala Member Posts: 11,068
edited June 2010 in General Discussion
and the Class III guns. I mean take this issue to the supreme court.
Miller V US the Court held that lacking evidence that SBS Sawed offs) were used by the militia they were not protectected by the 2nd Amendment. The evidence was lacking because nobody showed up to argue the case. So by this ruling the only arms covered are those types used by the militia. When is someone going to argue the Reagan MG ban on new ones for the public is unconstitutional?

Comments

  • Options
    DocDoc Member Posts: 13,899 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think it can be argued that Monday's ruling strikes down all prohibitions against any firearm that amounts to a ban on possession. The ruling seems to state that only laws governing who may own guns (like barring felons) or where they may be carried are enforceable. I see challenges to all state laws banning types of guns (and maybe the federal prohibition on full auto guns) coming as a result.
    ....................................................................................................
    Too old to live...too young to die...
  • Options
    trapguy2007trapguy2007 Member Posts: 8,959
    edited November -1
    Before this is over we are going to have Free States and Slave States again .
    More and more States are going to tell the Feds to stuff it .
    Going to be interesting to watch .
  • Options
    MossbergboogieMossbergboogie Member Posts: 12,211
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by trapguy2007
    Before this is over we are going to have Free States and Slave States again .
    More and more States are going to tell the Feds to stuff it .
    Going to be interesting to watch .


    In some cases thats a good thing in others it is a bad thing.



    Federalism is a good thing, but I am not casting a blind eye on the tenth amendment either.
  • Options
    cccoopercccooper Member Posts: 4,044 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Banning guns from prisoners t hat are in prison forever seems like a good thing, right?[:p][:p][}:)]
  • Options
    CLINTFCLINTF Member Posts: 735 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It will take an organization or a bunch of people with deep pockets and a considerable determination for it to be possible. If anyone starts the ball rolling tens of thousands of gunowners will jump on the bandwagon and it could be a reality.
  • Options
    trapguy2007trapguy2007 Member Posts: 8,959
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cccooper
    Banning guns from prisoners t hat are in prison forever seems like a good thing, right?[:p][:p][}:)]


    As long as there are no guards in the prison ,why should we care ?
    Throw a few cheap guns over the fence .[}:)]
    That would at least have an affect on overcrowding .[}:)]
  • Options
    mark christianmark christian Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 24,456 ******
    edited November -1
    The 86 ban has actually been to court a few times and failed to be overturned each time because the so called ban is not a gun issue, it is a tax issue. If you read the actual legislation it does not prohibit the manufacture of new machine guns, it simply prohibits the BATFE from collecting the NFA tax and entering them in the registry for transfer. If the new MGs are not registered then they cannot be transferred and you can't register a new MG for transfer without paying the tax...Which no one by statute can collect. Brilliant in it's simplicity, but nothing really new at all. This all goes back as far as the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 which made it unlawful to possess narcotics which had not been properly taxed. Naturally no such taxes were ever collected, nor was there ever any mechanism enacted to collect such taxes from private citizens, so you have a de facto ban on the sale of narcotics to individuals. The Harrison Act went up before federal courts and the US Supreme Court numerous times and the government won each and every time because the government has the power to levy taxes. The Harrison Act was eventually replaced by even more comprehensive narcotics laws, but it's track record in court was perfect. To win on the 86 ban someone must demonstrate that firearms, particularly machine guns, are of such importance that they cannot be subject to taxation of any kind. No one has managed to accomplish this, at least not yet. Miller would seem to leave the door open for an approach along these lines...Time will tell

    In order to avoid a potential run in along the lines that I encountered yesterday on an unrealated subject: I am not saying that the laws and regulations are correct and justified, I am simply telling you what the law says and not saying that I agree with it (because I don't).
  • Options
    guntech59guntech59 Member Posts: 23,187 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mark christian
    The 86 ban has actually been to court a few times and failed to be overturned each time because the so called ban is not a gun issue, it is a tax issue. If you read the actual legislation it does not prohibit the manufacture of new machine guns, it simply prohibits the BATFE from collecting the NFA tax and entering them in the registry for transfer. If the new MGs are not registered then they cannot be transferred and you can't register a new MG for transfer without paying the tax...Which no one by statute can collect. Brilliant in it's simplicity, but nothing really new at all. This all goes back as far as the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 which made it unlawful to possess narcotics which had not been properly taxed. Naturally no such taxes were ever collected, nor was there ever any mechanism enacted to collect such taxes from private citizens, so you have a de facto ban on the sale of narcotics to individuals. The Harrison Act went up before federal courts and the US Supreme Court numerous times and the government won each and every time because the government has the power to levy taxes. The Harrison Act was eventually replaced by even more comprehensive narcotics laws, but it's track record in court was perfect. To win on the 86 ban someone must demonstrate that firearms, particularly machine guns, are of such importance that they cannot be subject to taxation of any kind. No one has managed to accomplish this, at least not yet. Miller would seem to leave the door open for an approach along these lines...Time will tell

    In order to avoid a potential run in along the lines that I encountered yesterday on an unrealated subject: I am not saying that the laws and regulations are correct and justified, I am simply telling you what the law says and not saying that I agree with it (because I don't).


    Thank you for this terrific reply, Mark

    This is why I still hang around these forums. I learn some new and interesting stuff from time to time.
  • Options
    mark christianmark christian Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 24,456 ******
    edited November -1
    That is a very simple over view of a very complex subject. New machine guns can be produced, Manufacturers (who along with Class 3 dealers pay their own special taxes that make them exempt from the standard transfer tax a private party has to pay) still make them for police, military and export, but these are sold only on tax free transfers, either between dealers or through police and military procurement channels. You, as a private person cannot acquire a new production machine gun because you (the individual) have to pay a transfer tax and the law does not allow for this tax to be collected. You also cannot make your own machine gun (you can in fact build your own silencer, short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun) because you have to pay a tax on any National Firearms Act items you make for your own use and, once again, the BATFE is not allowed to collect that tax from you. No payment of tax equals no new machine guns for private parties. Machine guns already registered before the 1986 cut off are of course uneffected
Sign In or Register to comment.