Challenge of the GCA,NFA and Hughes amendment in place DONATE TO THE CAUSE

[77zach]

Well I hope it goes like you believe it will, because if it doesn't the congress and any administration will have validated any bans on guns other than sporting use, and personal self defense use, probably forever.

IMO lobbying to change the laws makes a hell of a lot more sense than upsetting the apple cart FOREVER.

I won't waste my money on this, I can see a huge setback and victory for anti gunners with this attempt. YMMV though.

I understand, and if it weren't for the the 1986 ban on new full auto's I might be with you. I think the popularity of SBR's and suppressors will eventually be enough to get stuff done legislatively. Not so with machine guns. If this case fails, we also have semi auto ban cases working through the federal courts from laws passed in New York and Maryland. The argument for semi's is just as strong, if not stronger, than for machine guns.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I understand, and if it weren't for the the 1986 ban on new full auto's I might be with you. I think the popularity of SBR's and suppressors will eventually be enough to get stuff done legislatively. Not so with machine guns. If this case fails, we also have semi auto ban cases working through the federal courts from laws passed in New York and Maryland. The argument for semi's is just as strong, if not stronger, than for machine guns.

If this fails it will set back RKBA decades, if not more. If it fails the damage is catastrophic. And then there is the likelihood that Hillary will have appointed another anti gun judge by then.

 

[77zach]

If this fails it will set back RKBA decades, if not more. If it fails the damage is catastrophic. And then there is the likelihood that Hillary will have appointed another anti gun judge by then.

Maybe. I think it's more likely the legislative canoe just keeps gliding downstream on the river of the rising gun culture. With Kalifornia and New York and the like getting more and more Hitlerian.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Maybe. I think it's more likely the legislative canoe just keeps gliding downstream on the river of the rising gun culture. With Kalifornia and New York and the like getting more and more Hitlerian.

Maybe, but that is two states, in the meantime a bad ruling could affect every state.

Not only that this will take several years, maybe even a decade. And when it is said and done, and we have to live with the ruling. The congress majority that is now will be gone, and that money and effort will have been wasted. Congress could fix this one problem, but they will not touch it with this court case, they will wait it out, and follow the courts lead.

This lawsuit fails it is a huge, huge, huge failure. And I will not waste my money on something that is a pipe dream, no matter what some friend of a friend, of a relative of a friend claims.

Scalia is not an idiot, he knew what firearms were banned when he wrote the brief. Unless there is something far more substantial, this action is a fools folly. Sorry, but I can't sugarcoat the damage that can be done.

Add to that the lead attorney is spearheading name calling, gay bashing, and very unprofessional conduct does not bode well for his ability to pull this off. Just read back in this thread, take a trip to other threads where he condoned calling people **** for not supporting this.

The last person I want representing me on RIGHTS is a homophobe.

 

[Aknazer]

Justice Scalia, the most conservative of the judges, Heller brief.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

This all depends on how one defines "common use" though. Or rather, how the justices define it. Otherwise it is completely possible to ban any new weapon and then argue that the weapon in question isn't in "common use" regardless of how common the weapon or weapon-type is used by the government.

 

[WalkingWolf]

This all depends on how one defines "common use" though. Or rather, how the justices define it. Otherwise it is completely possible to ban any new weapon and then argue that the weapon in question isn't in "common use" regardless of how common the weapon or weapon-type is used by the government.

Even before the NFA machine guns were not even close to common use. Most people then owned a shotgun, some a rifle, some more both, and then some a pistol. Almost nobody accept for a very tiny percentage owned machine guns. Even today the public just does not give poop about machine guns, that is why media and politicians have used language to suggest NON machine guns were machine guns.

While I believe any infringement on guns is a infringement on 2A, the few here are not going to get sympathy from the judges, or the public. SCOTUS left themselves a out to placate both, and a bad ruling will cement that in the future, NO MATTER WHAT PUBLIC SENTIMENT OR THE MAKEUP OF THE COURTS.

As I already said Scalia is not an idiot, he is not stupid, not ignorant, he is a conservative progressive. As that he knew what was banned, he knew what challenges might follow Heller, and he nipped them in the bud EVEN though it was not part of the case. Nothing could be more clear.

 

[Aknazer]

Even before the NFA machine guns were not even close to common use. Most people then owned a shotgun, some a rifle, some more both, and then some a pistol. Almost nobody accept for a very tiny percentage owned machine guns. Even today the public just does not give poop about machine guns, that is why media and politicians have used language to suggest NON machine guns were machine guns.

While I believe any infringement on guns is a infringement on 2A, the few here are not going to get sympathy from the judges, or the public. SCOTUS left themselves a out to placate both, and a bad ruling will cement that in the future, NO MATTER WHAT PUBLIC SENTIMENT OR THE MAKEUP OF THE COURTS.

As I already said Scalia is not an idiot, he is not stupid, not ignorant, he is a conservative progressive. As that he knew what was banned, he knew what challenges might follow Heller, and he nipped them in the bud EVEN though it was not part of the case. Nothing could be more clear.

Yes but in Miller they looked at what was in use by the military, thus regardless of what I think, it will come down to how the justices define "common use" for if they can get the MG ban overturned imo.

 

[since9]

What modern sub machine gun would you guys get? SIG MPX has pretty good reviews. I know I want a full auto 10/22.

Something in a 9mm. Same ammo as my pistol.

 

[1245A Defender]

Wowwie!!!

Originally Posted by 77zach
What modern sub machine gun would you guys get? SIG MPX has pretty good reviews. I know I want a full auto 10/22.

This all depends on how one defines "common use" though. Or rather, how the justices define it. Otherwise it is completely possible to ban any new weapon and then argue that the weapon in question isn't in "common use" regardless of how common the weapon or weapon-type is used by the government.

Yes but in Miller they looked at what was in use by the military, thus regardless of what I think, it will come down to how the justices define "common use" for if they can get the MG ban overturned imo.

Something in a 9mm. Same ammo as my pistol.

Common use,,,,, Military?
9mm,,, oh come on.....

I will take a common use,,, military,,, same ammo as my handgun!!!
Yes that will be just fine!!

I choose a plain simple cheap, Thompson 45 cal sub machine gun!!!!

They were so common that you could order them from Sears Roebuck Catalogs!

 

[77zach]

Again I suggest reading all the docs associated with the case. I learned some things, some positive things. Yes the kourts are very corrupt. But they're really going to have to crap on the constitution and precedent more than even I thought. I'll put chance of success at 30%, up from 0% from before I read the case.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Again I suggest reading all the docs associated with the case. I learned some things, some positive things. Yes the kourts are very corrupt. But they're really going to have to crap on the constitution and precedent more than even I thought. I'll put chance of success at 30%, up from 0% from before I read the case.

They crap on the constitution more than they uphold the constitution. Terry V Ohio was a huge steaming pile dumped on the constitution. Have they fixed that? Or gone even further?

I would not care except for this case has HUGE NEGATIVE ramifications. But it is your money, spend it as you wish.

 

[Ezek]

I would like a belt fed 50 cal... those darn armored deer. :lol:

but seriously, while I would like an NFA full auto weapon, it would just bankrupt me with ammo costs to keep it fed.

 

[Aknazer]

Originally Posted by 77zach
What modern sub machine gun would you guys get? SIG MPX has pretty good reviews. I know I want a full auto 10/22.










Common use,,,,, Military?
9mm,,, oh come on.....

I will take a common use,,, military,,, same ammo as my handgun!!!
Yes that will be just fine!!

I choose a plain simple cheap, Thompson 45 cal sub machine gun!!!!

They were so common that you could order them from Sears Roebuck Catalogs!

I think you're missing what I'm saying. Regardless of what we think, until the politicians change the laws it is up to the courts to decide what is constitutional or not. In Miller they looked at military-grade weapons for their common use argument, and since no guns were submitted (since, you know, the lawyers weren't there to disprove the government's lies) they ruled that the NFA didn't cover common use weapons and thus they were subject to regulation.

Do I agree with this? No. But that doesn't matter. Again it all comes down to the courts. And we've already seen some state courts say that since so few citizens own X/Y/Z gun that it isn't common and thus the laws banning them are constitutional.

 

[georg jetson]

Agreed!
Frankly, with the speed that I can pull the trigger on my 10/22 and AK, I don't have a problem with "semi-autos". I can maintain better "on-target" control with the AK by pulling the trigger rapidly than the full-auto one I had a chance to shoot several years ago. That sucker almost got away from me as it recoiled more than I thought it would and had more muzzle rise, esp. as the 40-rd. banana emptied itself.

Hmmmm... I agree full-auto is expensive and I wish I had that problem, a problem feeding my machine gun. However, I can afford the ammo, I just cant afford the gun because of the Hughs Amendment.

I disagree with you're "speed" and "on-target" coments as they apply generally. Specifically, the AK is a poor choice for effective FA. Try an ar/m4 platform with a quality holographic site. The couple of opportunities I've had to do so, I found I can dump a magazine on target pretty darn effectively. Better yet, go watch you're local swat team practice with their MP5s. Scary amount of projectiles concentrated in the target area.

 

[Ezek]

Hmmmm... I agree full-auto is expensive and I wish I had that problem, a problem feeding my machine gun. However, I can afford the ammo, I just cant afford the gun because of the Hughs Amendment.

I disagree with you're "speed" and "on-target" coments as they apply generally. Specifically, the AK is a poor choice for effective FA. Try an ar/m4 platform with a quality holographic site. The couple of opportunities I've had to do so, I found I can dump a magazine on target pretty darn effectively. Better yet, go watch you're local swat team practice with their MP5s. Scary amount of projectiles concentrated in the target area.

ooh? well sicne you have so many loose bills lying around care to donate to the vacation fund? :lol:

just kidding. but seriously if you can't afford the weapon I doubt in all reality you could afford the ammo for any extended length of time.

it's like an adrenaline junky with a 200HP bike.. he's gonna crack the throttle every chance he can get. a weapons junky is gonna crack the trigger back and let it rain fire as much as he can at every chance he has.

 

[georg jetson]

ooh? well sicne you have so many loose bills lying around care to donate to the vacation fund? :lol:

just kidding. but seriously if you can't afford the weapon I doubt in all reality you could afford the ammo for any extended length of time.

it's like an adrenaline junky with a 200HP bike.. he's gonna crack the throttle every chance he can get. a weapons junky is gonna crack the trigger back and let it rain fire as much as he can at every chance he has.

I dont need it for an extended length of time. I wouldnt mind the investment in just a few minutes of fun with a real M2. Say 100 rounds in various bursts until the smile makes my face hurt. 100 x $3 round is somthing I could afford monthly. Heck, I could easily afford a splurge day once a year and deforest some of my acreage with 2 or 3 thousand rounds... I just cant budget the one time investment of $40,000 to make it happen.

 

[77zach]

Oral arguments are Thursday 4/23. It's not recorded but there will be a transcript available afterward. The government's "argument" will be shocking in its ridiculousness and dishonesty. lt matters not, as the truth is rarely a defense in Amerikan kourts. Usually I know how a kourt will lie, see my unpopular prediction of Norman vs Florida, where the 4th DCA just copied and pasted my posts but added their legal flourish. With this case I don't believe our side will prevail, but I'm not sure how the kourt will lie. It may just come down to what Representative Hughes said in 1986: "I don't see how anyone can be against banning machine guns", now go away tax cow, only your loving, caring, and kind government needs them to protect your freedom. If you want to play with machine guns you may serve the Empire and kill brown people cuz they hate us for our freedom.

 

[77zach]

Government's motion to dismiss and uphold unconstitutional "law" denied. It will be several months (most likely) before a decision is reached.