86 MG Ban Challenged in Tx Fed Court: Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis v AG Holder and ATF

[Boris]

You mean like the Gun Free School Zones act?

Congress could always pass a law changing the transfer fee for new machine guns to $200,000. Remember, the original $200 tax was an attempt at a ban (the fee was cost prohibitive at the time), since congress "knew" it did not have the authority to ban any type of gun.

And this is the reason why we need to fight tooth and nail any attempt to step back, no ****ing compromises with mafia.

I'm totally on the freedom side of this, believe me. But i do believe collectors would be fighting this all day long.

CETME Ameli would be my first purchase.

Do you know where to find a kit for that? It's not exactly available as is today.

If availability was no issue, I'd please Frenchman and get a FAMAS, hairy armpits and all.

 

[Lank]

I still don't know where the ATF got its legal authority to exist. the national congress has no authority to regulate firearms.

 

[Smokewagon]

MG42s will not sell for $10K. They are a WWII collectible. You might see the price drop a little (like $10K) but not as much as you suggest IMHO.

However, this will cause a new (or old) company to manufacture NEW MG42's to the public. Those ones will be far cheaper since they do not have the "physically rare and collectible" aspect.

There is potential that when truly rare things are easier to buy/sell/trade their value goes up. The fact that they would be easier to acquire since you don't have to go through the hoops and year long wait to actually legally own one might help raise their prices. Full auto AK's and AR's on the other hand will take an absolute nosedive, as they should.

 

[rkwjunior]

Do you know where to find a kit for that? It's not exactly available as is today.

If availability was no issue, I'd please Frenchman and get a FAMAS, hairy armpits and all.

I have no idea where to get a kit, don't know much about them other than watching youtube videos. Pipe dream??

 

[schnips]

I'm not going to hold my breath, but it's nice to think that some day I could afford an MP5.

 

[The5thDentist]

You mean like the Gun Free School Zones act?

Congress could always pass a law changing the transfer fee for new machine guns to $200,000. Remember, the original $200 tax was an attempt at a ban (the fee was cost prohibitive at the time), since congress "knew" it did not have the authority to ban any type of gun.

Look, I know that this has been an uphill battle. Heck, in a perfect world this wouldn't be a discussion, because there would be no restrictions. But the national momentum is on OUR side. We beat back the worst gun ban bill ever seen, most states are loosening up gun laws, more people are becoming gun owners every day, and more people these days understand the real reason for the 2A.

Call me a glass-half-full kind of guy, but ridding ourselves of this crap is more than just a remote possibility. Do you really think congress will reban new FA if Huges is struck down? They wouldn't dare. It would be political suicide.

I understand where you are coming from, but the rest of the country ain't Assachusetts, and the Demanding Morons are a joke.

 

[knfmn]

There is potential that when truly rare things are easier to buy/sell/trade their value goes up. The fact that they would be easier to acquire since you don't have to go through the hoops and year long wait to actually legally own one might help raise their prices. Full auto AK's and AR's on the other hand will take an absolute nosedive, as they should.

Your statement that prices could be raised because "you don't have to go through the hoops and year long wait to actually legally own one" is based upon a misunderstanding of the case, apparently. They are not challenging the 1934 National firearms act, but the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The 1934 NFA would still stand if this case was decided in gun owners favor, meaning you would still have to register machine guns, you would still be stuck with the $200 tax and you would still have to wait for the ATF to send you your tax stamp. All this case would do would be to invalidate the part of FOPA that prohibits the transfer of machine guns that were not on the registry as of 5/19/1986.

 

[General Ordnance]

I would gladly forfeit the "investment" I've made into my two happy switches in exchange for the ability to buy as many new MP5s as I want.

 

[cekim]

I would gladly forfeit the "investment" I've made into my two happy switches in exchange for the ability to buy as many new MP5s as I want.

I've always viewed part of the "investment" as maintaining visibility and relevance to people so that they might question not only this ban, but all bans.

I am not just willing to forgo the gains to get other fun stuff, but to get the even more awesome freedom that comes with a society that understands what this nation is all about and that bans have no place in it.

 

[willbdavis]

It's just money, the freedom is far more valuable.

This. I'll gladly take the loss on my existing MG to restore some of the rights we have all had compromised.

Plus, a flood of new MGs would be awesome.

Of course, ammo won't be getting any cheaper. So actually shooting them would still be a challenge.

 

[Smokewagon]

Your statement that prices could be raised because "you don't have to go through the hoops and year long wait to actually legally own one" is based upon a misunderstanding of the case, apparently. They are not challenging the 1934 National firearms act, but the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The 1934 NFA would still stand if this case was decided in gun owners favor, meaning you would still have to register machine guns, you would still be stuck with the $200 tax and you would still have to wait for the ATF to send you your tax stamp. All this case would do would be to invalidate the part of FOPA that prohibits the transfer of machine guns that were not on the registry as of 5/19/1986.

I did misunderstand it. I need to learn to read more gooder...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

hoops and year long wait

You think the year long wait is long... just wait and see what happens if the Hughes amendment is overturned.

 

[June4th]

You think the year long wait is long... just wait and see what happens if the Hughes amendment is overturned.

Indeed. Better get rid of NFA as well then. We can dream, can't we?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

All that money people have wrapped up in MG's.... Geezus that would be devastating.

Then i could actually afford one.

Sort of like those poor taxi medallion owners in Boston who are seeing the value of their investments freefall due to services like Lyft and Uber. Call out the whamulance.

Seriously, this is an ill-conceived effort. We really need to get the courts up to speed on the idea that the Second Amendment protects the possession of 'common' firearms.

 

[cekim]

Sort of like those poor taxi medallion owners in Boston who are seeing the value of their investments freefall due to services like Lyft and Uber. Call out the whamulance.

Seriously, this is an ill-conceived effort. We really need to get the courts up to speed on the idea that the Second Amendment protects the possession of 'common' firearms.

But, it doesn't say anything of the sort - it says "arms". Nothing about "common", or "ineffective against government", or anything like that. There is no textual or common-law justification for Scalia's "reasonable restrictions". None at all. It is a whole cloth puddle of nonsense.

The one and only way that the government can strip a right of a free person is INDIVIDUAL DUE PROCESS. The rest is excuses for tyranny.

I am quite sure you are right that this is asking the courts to go from slavery to freedom without the intermediate heavy taxation and "mother may I" step, but just because they are incapable of understanding the form of government they serve doesn't change what is right. The courts are in the way of where society needs to be. If it can help get them out of the way by fighting and even losing, then so be it.

 

[cekim]

Knuckle, I think part of this nation's problem - one of the reasons we are in this progressive mess - is over-reliance on government to answer the big questions of society.

We've grown up in a century where a large portion of our society - a runaway majority - on both sides - believe that the only way to change society for the better is to force "the other side" to your way of thinking with government.

Rather than "winning" the civil rights battle and convincing people discrimination was a bad idea and hurts everyone on the long timeline, we traded state racism in for federal racism. Rather than stripping government of the power to define marriage, we've now imposed a belief system on people that marriage means what federal law says it means.

We have a century of people making ridiculous dissembling arguments to slow the erosion of 2A rights. Hunters and sportsmen, this gun, not that gun, guns in the home, but not outside. Concealed, not open, etc....

This battle is much more about getting people to stop apologizing for their love of freedom and the tools required to keep it than it is about what old guys in funny robes have to say about the process. To that end, attacking the Hughes amendment and raising awareness of this - removing the stigma of getting your 'merica on is a good thing.

When you are a lawyer, every problem looks like a legal one...

 

[June4th]

We have a century of people making ridiculous dissembling arguments to slow the erosion of 2A rights. Hunters and sportsmen, this gun, not that gun, guns in the home, but not outside. Concealed, not open, etc....

This battle is much more about getting people to stop apologizing for their love of freedom and the tools required to keep it than it is about what old guys in funny robes have to say about the process. To that end, attacking the Hughes amendment and raising awareness of this - removing the stigma of getting your 'merica on is a good thing.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I have a dream that one day on the sandy coast of Massachusetts, a man can get his machine guns and suppressors without the constraints of unconstitutional laws and bureaucratic red tapes.

I have a dream today!

 

[jron]

even IF (BIG IF) the 86 ban is somehow reversed the market would not drop everyone who has cash will be lining up to throw there cash at owning a automatic weapon rather then risk waiting for more new ones to be produced and an overturning of the overturned 86 ban.

 

[exo]

even IF (BIG IF) the 86 ban is somehow reversed the market would not drop everyone who has cash will be lining up to throw there cash at owning a automatic weapon rather then risk waiting for more new ones to be produced and an overturning of the overturned 86 ban.

Why, when everybody and their brother (and mother, sister, cousin...) could Form 1 all their AR15's and then turn them into live MGs as time and money allowed? Once you've got your tax stamp, there's no requirement to build it out within any particular timeframe.

 

[DarthRevan]

Subscribed, goddamn, could I throw a happy switch into my colt hbar sp2?
Someone pinch me!

 

[snd1t]

Guys, if it's overturned as unconstitutional, and it sticks all the way to the Supreme Court, congress then isn't going to turn around and pass another unconstitutional law. They may try, but they won't be successful, unlike the MA House and Senate.

Just like Gun Free Schools Zone Act right?

I expect Congress will take a stab at it as part of some omnibus....but the follow up will not be a ban.....it will simply make it painful to obtain

/sarcasm

 

[willbdavis]

the fullauto crowd have medium income over $250K/year

Probably so, but not me, which is probably why I'm only a fringe member of the FA crowd.

 

[rivet_42]

You mean like the Gun Free School Zones act?

Congress could always pass a law changing the transfer fee for new machine guns to $200,000. Remember, the original $200 tax was an attempt at a ban (the fee was cost prohibitive at the time), since congress "knew" it did not have the authority to ban any type of gun.

For starters, they could adjust the 1934 $200 transfer fee for inflation, which, according to the BLS's CPI calculator[1], makes it worth $3,488 today. Not unattainable, but still pretty onerous.

[1]I don't want to start a flamewar over whether the CPI reflects the "true cost of living" or not...at this point I'm only using it for a first approximation.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Don't get too exited. The full auto thrill wears of in about 30 years. Jack.

 

[namedpipes]

Don't get too excited. The full auto thrill wears off in about 30 years. Jack.

Sure it does. Sure it does.

 

[June4th]

Don't get too exited. The full auto thrill wears of in about 30 years. Jack.

That's helluva more potent than any blue pills!

 

[chris_1001]

I can see my ad now...

WTB Glock 18 and pre ban 33 round mags...

All NEW laws to be followed.

 

[PaulD]

Congress could always pass a law changing the transfer fee for new machine guns to $200,000. Remember, the original $200 tax was an attempt at a ban (the fee was cost prohibitive at the time), since congress "knew" it did not have the authority to ban any type of gun.

The cognitive dissonance applied to make them believe it's not a de facto ban amazes me.

Since we're all dreaming, put me down for a FA Tavor or SCAR.

 

[Mr Weebles]

There is no question in my mind that Congress would pass new laws if a court overturned this.

It would happen for the same reason no politicians have tried to overturn the Lautenberg Amendment .... because they live to be reelected.

And not one of them would want their potential opponent to say they didn't do everything they could to keep machine guns off the streets.

 

[willbdavis]

There is no question in my mind that Congress would pass new laws if a court overturned this.

Who knows? While politicians will never run out to publicly DEFEND the 2A right to keep and bear machine guns, you may find a lot of politicians are happy to take no stance whatsoever on the issue of creating additional/new bans. Safer that way. They can't be accused of being on one side or the other.