imported post
Ok, are you guys talking about challenging the NFA in it's entirety, or just taking on 922(o)? Taking on NFA entirely is much more difficult than taking on just 922(o) (which is a ban on civilian possession of select fire weapons made after May 19th, 1986), and even then, taking on 922(o) is a very tough proposition.
We have 4 SCOTUS justices for certain who would be for taking out 922(o). That's a minority, plus 1 Circuit Court of Appeal (the 8th Circuit) has already declared select fire weapons outside of the Second Amendment's protection. 6th Circuit also seems about to do the same thing. In both cases, these are convicted felons challenging the entirety of the NFA act due to their convictions for possession of unregistered machineguns, and their pompous self incompetence that think that merely them believing in their own minds that they are "right" would somehow convince judges that you'll win. The people to thank for these developments is Hollis Wayne Fincher and Richard Hamblen. These two jackasses might as well be working directly for the Brady Campaign for the damage that they are doing to the cause.
The facts of 922(o) are very similar to the DC v. Heller case, and similar in unregisterability, but at least they can still be transferred (which you couldn't do in DC from 1976 till 2008.
We are not ready for a challenge even to 922(o) at this point. Not even in the slightest. Folks, we need to rebuild the gun owners culture in the states where the most anti-gun madness has occurred. This includes ownership of non-Title 2 firearms, and carrying for personal protection nationwide.
Let's give a general timeline:
District of Columbia v. Heller protects handguns and presumably all non-title 2 firearms on the federal level. Destroyed any chance of an assault weapons ban on the federal level. Decided June 2008
McDonald v. City of Chicago will incorporate the 2A against the states, either via P&I or due process incorporation. Folks, pray for P&I incorporation, as this will apply ALL federal constitutional protections onto the States. This case will be decided by SCOTUS by June 2010. This case only took 2 years to reach from filing in District Court to SCOTUS decision. I have much appreciation to Gura's form of legal work, as it allows these sort of things to rocket up quick.
Nordyke v. King en banc will be heard next week in San Francisco by an 11 judge panel. This panel draw is very good for us. I predict that Alameda's ordinance will be struck down basically banning gun shows, and 2A will be incorporated, and the Nordyke panel may give some additional commentary on other things in CA law too.
Concurrently, there are two cases that will be affecting gun carry, Sykes v. McGinness and Palmer v. District of Columbia. Sykes is currently being held up by Nordyke going en banc and the judge deciding to wait until Nordyke or McDonald is finalized. A sound judicial decision given the fact that he doesn't want a hostile three-judge panel smacking him down on going ahead of Nordyke. Palmer is now ahead of Sykes and is not hobbled by incorporation issues, similar to Heller. A favorable ruling in SCOTUS (within 2-3 years from now) plus the McDonald case two years earlier will have a full effect nationwide, making may-issue carry and no allowed carry completely unconstitutional. Either Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Hawaii had better start issuing licenses to carry or allow OC, or they will be hit with lawsuits quickly, and their begging to the Courts of Appeal will fall in deaf ears.
Pena v. Cid is a lawsuit filed against California's handgun roster. Currently also being held up by the Nordyke en banc situation.
There will also be an challenge against California's AWB and High Capacity Magazine ban when Nordyke becomes final. Unknown who the plaintiffs are at this point.
So, in order to fully rebuild the gun culture, you need A) Full ability to carry firearms and reasonably be able to get enough ability to gain carry licensure or being able to travel across the entirety of 50 states. Without that ability to be able to carry in these high population states, the people of these states will continue to believe that the rest of the country is this unfathomable horde of "gun nuts" surrounding them, and believe themselves as a "sieged area" against that horde. Rebuild the gun culture in these states, and you won't have an issue getting 922(o) legislatively repealed, and getting these state level machinegun bans repealed by the state legislatures.
That being said, 922(o) must be saved for last. At that point, we'll have plenty of pro-2A individual right caselaw to draw on, instead of now where we have little to nothing outside of Heller.
