-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Theoretical lawsuit
- Thread starter mordeeb
- Start date
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
Sure. You can sue anyone and anything. Jack.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,140
- Likes
- 436
Yes and it has been done twice recently in two notable cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,409
- Likes
- 17,595
Feel free.
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
How are "automatics" not legal? Jack.
There is a defacto ban on full auto.
When you make the actual supply of something finite and fixed, and the possible demand is infinite and fluctuating, eventually there will be none left, or what is left will be priced out of existence for most people.
sorta like a 20k M-16 that should be worth about 2K.
When you make the actual supply of something finite and fixed, and the possible demand is infinite and fluctuating, eventually there will be none left, or what is left will be priced out of existence for most people.
sorta like a 20k M-16 that should be worth about 2K.
Automatics ( full auto ) are completely legal, if you want to jump through hoops and give up your first born in order to own. Just fill out all the paperwork, pay the tax, cough up 10k + for anything remotely decent in full auto world ( more like 25k ) and then feed the thing when you start shooting. If you can afford to buy full auto and feed it, you probably can afford the attorney to get the paperwork done for you.
June4th
NES Member
It might be cheaper to get pro 2A legislators elected so we can demolish NFA altogether.
The Repubcrats said in their 'Pledge to America' that they 'will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority'. I would say NFA wasn't constitutional and needs to be appealed. Of course, I'm not holding my breath.
The Repubcrats said in their 'Pledge to America' that they 'will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority'. I would say NFA wasn't constitutional and needs to be appealed. Of course, I'm not holding my breath.
Last edited:
The one area that probably would hold water is the fact that "new" full auto is banned from sale to the public, this is a ban. Its fine to have your license to shoot and own, but you can't buy any new guns, you can only use older, higher maintenance, and not as safe autos to shoot.
Of course, if just blowing piles of lead in a general direction is your way to have fun, so be it. I'll take that pile of money that would be spent on an auto and buy my Barrett 82, an AI AW 338 and a couple others that will put full auto to shame.
Of course, if just blowing piles of lead in a general direction is your way to have fun, so be it. I'll take that pile of money that would be spent on an auto and buy my Barrett 82, an AI AW 338 and a couple others that will put full auto to shame.
What is stopping someone from buying an automatic weapon today? The cost? Local or state laws prohibiting it? If its your local or state law than you can try and challenge them. If cost than save the money to be able to afford one.
There are a lot of little baby steps needed before we get around to challenging the the various bans/restrictions on machine guns. More important cases (for many people) to litigate are the ones concerning handguns; licensing/permit requirements, what kind can be purchased, where/how they can be carried, and if they can be carried across state lines. Next cases to litigate, arguably as important as litigating handguns, are the various state AWB's and magazine bans/limits. Lets not forget the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws also need to be added/litigated for a more 2A pro self defense approach. Each successful legal 2A victory paves the way to the challenge other gun restrictions like limits/bans on machine guns.
If one is talking about challenging the federal laws, one is perfectly free to sue or challenge in court the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and more specifically the Hughes Amendment within it which banned "a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986". One would also have to convince the courts that the United States v. Miller decision and the National Firearms Act of 1934 should be either over turned or modified so you don't have to pay a tax stamp on said automatic weapon. And one would probably have to argue that weapons in "common use" should be expanded to include machine guns/fully automatic weapons or weapons the military uses.
That's right because neither case was about "automatics". SCOTUS ruled on the issues presented in the cases before them, as such the decisions reflect that. Neither case was about "automatics" so they didn't rule one way or the other on them. One thing the Heller decision did say was that there are "some" limits on 2A rights and the courts will now draw the line on what those "limits" are with further court challenges.
There are a lot of little baby steps needed before we get around to challenging the the various bans/restrictions on machine guns. More important cases (for many people) to litigate are the ones concerning handguns; licensing/permit requirements, what kind can be purchased, where/how they can be carried, and if they can be carried across state lines. Next cases to litigate, arguably as important as litigating handguns, are the various state AWB's and magazine bans/limits. Lets not forget the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws also need to be added/litigated for a more 2A pro self defense approach. Each successful legal 2A victory paves the way to the challenge other gun restrictions like limits/bans on machine guns.
If one is talking about challenging the federal laws, one is perfectly free to sue or challenge in court the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and more specifically the Hughes Amendment within it which banned "a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986". One would also have to convince the courts that the United States v. Miller decision and the National Firearms Act of 1934 should be either over turned or modified so you don't have to pay a tax stamp on said automatic weapon. And one would probably have to argue that weapons in "common use" should be expanded to include machine guns/fully automatic weapons or weapons the military uses.
Last edited:
Good luck with that. Read up on "reasonable regulations."
Have fun with that. Hint: It's not happening, at least not in the legal and political environment we have today.
BTW, as others have stated, machine guns are legal. They're just stupidly regulated to the extent that the supply of unrestricted transferables is limited, which drives up the price for the average buyer.
-Mike
BTW, as others have stated, machine guns are legal. They're just stupidly regulated to the extent that the supply of unrestricted transferables is limited, which drives up the price for the average buyer.
-Mike
You could potentially argue that there aren't enough legal automatics in circulation for every potential owner to be able to buy one, therefore breaching the 2nd amendment. And the reason for the limit... the government.
This is equivalent to saying "you can say what you want but only 1 out of 10 people can say what they want any given day" by giving out a limited quantity of "1st amendment licenses".
This is equivalent to saying "you can say what you want but only 1 out of 10 people can say what they want any given day" by giving out a limited quantity of "1st amendment licenses".
You're dreaming. You don't.
You think that because you have several things most people don't. First, a grasp of the constitution. Second, common sense. Third, you aren't afraid of inanimate objects. Fourth, you blame horrible acts on the people committing them, not on the hardware they used. If everyone thought like this a court case wouldn't be needed.
There's a large difference between what should be and what is, particularly when talking about our justice system.
My point is that, while I completely agree that the NFA is crap, and the 1986 limitations even worse, mordeeb's theoretical lawsuit doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It isn't a good case.Completely agree, maybe I didn't spell that out enough in my post.![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
I'm more interested in why in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts we are not challenging the subjective use of power by the chiefs in granting LTC-A unrestricted.
I read on this board all the people who have been wronged in places like Brookline, Newton, and Watertown. When someone questions whether to sue, like was asked in this thread, some of the replies come across as "I don't care, I've got mine, why even try".
I've read on this board about members offering to contribute to legal defense funds so that the laws in Massachusetts can be challenged. What has happened to the people who were aggrieved? Did they just roll over? Were they not good cases to use as a legal challenge?
There has got to be a Heller or a McDonald in Massachusetts to challenge the laws and get it up to the US Supreme Court. The NRA, GOAL, and this forums membership should be putting pressure on the General Court through legal action and at the ballot box. Thus far I don't see anything happening.
Some kid wants to pray to God for help on a school exam and the ACLU swoops in with a lawsuit and puts the fear of God in local elected officials. Why aren't we doing the same thing?
This is a time of change. We won't get a chance like this again.
God Bless the United States!
I read on this board all the people who have been wronged in places like Brookline, Newton, and Watertown. When someone questions whether to sue, like was asked in this thread, some of the replies come across as "I don't care, I've got mine, why even try".
I've read on this board about members offering to contribute to legal defense funds so that the laws in Massachusetts can be challenged. What has happened to the people who were aggrieved? Did they just roll over? Were they not good cases to use as a legal challenge?
There has got to be a Heller or a McDonald in Massachusetts to challenge the laws and get it up to the US Supreme Court. The NRA, GOAL, and this forums membership should be putting pressure on the General Court through legal action and at the ballot box. Thus far I don't see anything happening.
Some kid wants to pray to God for help on a school exam and the ACLU swoops in with a lawsuit and puts the fear of God in local elected officials. Why aren't we doing the same thing?
This is a time of change. We won't get a chance like this again.
God Bless the United States!
And for those of you who don't care; read the following we are not that far away:
As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
And as Pastor Niemoller is attributed as saying,
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
And as Pastor Niemoller is attributed as saying,
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
It's happening as we speak...
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/105446-Announcing-Commonwealth-Second-Amendment
Similar threads
