No reason why it couldn't be done.
I'd like to hear from the JD's out there on the pro's and con's.
We get lots of innuendo and hearsay about legal action but little follow up.
What's happening out there officers of the court?
-
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
No reason why it couldn't be done.
I'd like to hear from the JD's out there on the pro's and con's.
We get lots of innuendo and hearsay about legal action but little follow up.
What's happening out there officers of the court?
Kevlar,
Thanks for the Comm2A steer. I've signed up and even donated. It's been far too long.
Thanks for the Comm2A steer. I've signed up and even donated. It's been far too long.
One sure way to overturn the various laws that limit machine gun ownership is to build a solid legal base with many positive 2A legal case law to back up your arguments. We are not there yet. Once there is a case that specifically specifies what "common use weapons" really means and it includes machine guns, the other laws which limit machine guns will be much easier to overturn.
Also, as these legal battles go forward, the other side will not be sitting still. Sure Heller and Chicago were victories, but can the people in DC and Chicago easily get a pistol permit and the ability to find a local shop to buy one (that is approved by the state/town)? Each case which we win ends with the anti's throwing more trees into the road to slow us down. It is highly doubtful that SCOTUS would do what we wished they'd do and put an end to these ridiculous gun laws once and for all. In reality they simply rule on the case in front of them and kick many of the other 2A issues down the road to keep the game going.
If one really wants to end many of the onerous gun laws quickly than get a whole lot of solid 2A politicians elected into state legislatures and to congress who will start overturning many of the more restrictive 2A laws/statutes in our states and with federal law. Until then its going to be a long slow fight through the court system on many fronts.
The only easy pro 2A gun case argued was the last one that ended in a pro 2A decision.
Also, as these legal battles go forward, the other side will not be sitting still. Sure Heller and Chicago were victories, but can the people in DC and Chicago easily get a pistol permit and the ability to find a local shop to buy one (that is approved by the state/town)? Each case which we win ends with the anti's throwing more trees into the road to slow us down. It is highly doubtful that SCOTUS would do what we wished they'd do and put an end to these ridiculous gun laws once and for all. In reality they simply rule on the case in front of them and kick many of the other 2A issues down the road to keep the game going.
If one really wants to end many of the onerous gun laws quickly than get a whole lot of solid 2A politicians elected into state legislatures and to congress who will start overturning many of the more restrictive 2A laws/statutes in our states and with federal law. Until then its going to be a long slow fight through the court system on many fronts.
The only easy pro 2A gun case argued was the last one that ended in a pro 2A decision.
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
If anyone wants to own a nice shooting submachine gun, it can be done for about $3500. The recipe is simple:
1) Buy one M11/9 - which is in and of itself a terrible shooting piece of crap - for $2600. They can be had at that price if you wait for a used one without a lot of extra stuff you'll never use.
2) Buy one Lage Max11 upper for it at max-11.com. With this upper you will have the same setup that Richard Lage has used to beat MP5s and USPs in subgun matches.
It will still have that terrible M11 grip angle. It will still look ugly, but you will have a sweat shooting little gun.
If the price of ammo has you down, Mr. Lage will also sell you a .22 conversion for $500. (get in line)
Don
1) Buy one M11/9 - which is in and of itself a terrible shooting piece of crap - for $2600. They can be had at that price if you wait for a used one without a lot of extra stuff you'll never use.
2) Buy one Lage Max11 upper for it at max-11.com. With this upper you will have the same setup that Richard Lage has used to beat MP5s and USPs in subgun matches.
It will still have that terrible M11 grip angle. It will still look ugly, but you will have a sweat shooting little gun.
If the price of ammo has you down, Mr. Lage will also sell you a .22 conversion for $500. (get in line)
Don
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,556
It was easy, but not a slam dunk - 4 of 9 justices voted against us, and Sotameyer was intellectually dishonest enough to comment on not "finding a right to gun ownership" in the constitution even after her comment at the confirmation hearings that the concept was "settled law".
I'm no lawyer, but I played one in the Navy. It seems that in McDonald the hurdles Chicago is/has put in place amounts to a defacto ban. It gets us closer to what is going in Massachusetts.
I may run afoul of this board, however just like you can't use the First Amendment to justify yelling "fire" in a theatre I believe some common sense hurdles should be in place for gun ownership. Age restrictions, defined criminal priors restricting, taking a fire arms safety course. Nothing crazy.
Does Massachusetts have due process protections in the state constitution?
I may run afoul of this board, however just like you can't use the First Amendment to justify yelling "fire" in a theatre I believe some common sense hurdles should be in place for gun ownership. Age restrictions, defined criminal priors restricting, taking a fire arms safety course. Nothing crazy.
Does Massachusetts have due process protections in the state constitution?
dcmdon
NES Member
Desertnavy,
Conceptually I'm not far off of your position. Shoot, the Swiss require all males to keep a select fire rifle in their home. But they all receive military training. I actually believe some length of mandatory military service is part of the answer.
But back to your point. The problem is that antis can put up administrative hurdles via the training, licensing, requirments. It cost about $400 to get a pistol permit in CT when you figure in the requirements. This is too much and removes the legal right to keep and bear a handgun for less financially secure people.
Conceptually I'm not far off of your position. Shoot, the Swiss require all males to keep a select fire rifle in their home. But they all receive military training. I actually believe some length of mandatory military service is part of the answer.
But back to your point. The problem is that antis can put up administrative hurdles via the training, licensing, requirments. It cost about $400 to get a pistol permit in CT when you figure in the requirements. This is too much and removes the legal right to keep and bear a handgun for less financially secure people.
I agree that it should not be cost prohibitive, but some common sense hurdles would be ok. I just don't want 18 year old kids walking in and buying a fire arm, especially in the northeast where we don't have a strong culture of hunting and fire arms. It is a slippery slope.
If they're 18, they're not kids. I agree it is a slippery slope—but the slope is in the opposite direction. If you're not old enough when the law recognizes you as an adult, then when are you old enough?
Alan Gura has even went out and said the current makeup of SCOTUS makes overturning the NFA of 1934 hard if not impossible.
Some people are impatient, one thing I took the most out of my Pre-Law classes, and talking with the lawyers and judges who spoke to us. Law is all about building a good solid foundation. If you lay a weak foundation and then try to put on the roof, its bound to crumble and you can lose everything.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a complete rework of the GCA of 85 to make full auto's easier and more affordable.
Some people are impatient, one thing I took the most out of my Pre-Law classes, and talking with the lawyers and judges who spoke to us. Law is all about building a good solid foundation. If you lay a weak foundation and then try to put on the roof, its bound to crumble and you can lose everything.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a complete rework of the GCA of 85 to make full auto's easier and more affordable.
Then you can get into the discussion of the 21 drinking age.
I know today I am more experienced and mature than I was as an 18 year old Midshipman. It's a double edged sword; if in the Northeast were we raised with fire arms it would be different.
My cousin grew up in an affluent liberal suburb of Boston. After she was married she moved to Scranton PA and has lived there for over 25 years. He dentist calls her to see if she can come in earlier in the week for her dental work. At the appointment she inquires as to why the day change. Seems deer season in PA that year was opening a couple days early. She freaked out. All those years she never noticed all the deer strapped to cars and trucks. She finds out that they are the only family in their neighborhood not to own any fire arms. It was no big deal to her kids (all girls). It's all about culture and in Mass I really don't want 18 year olds buying fire arms unfettered. Military service would be a valid exemption.
Firearms should not be regulated aside from a criminal check. The second amendment wasn't put in place so we could shoot paper, it was put in place so we could own weapons equivalent to our military, in the instance where our government took too much power. If the minds of our constitution were alive today, and the laws weren't restrictive, you can bet your ass B. Franklin, T. Jefferson, etc etc would be rolling up on D.C. in a M1 Abrams tank, and a medium sized brigade behind them with mortar fire and miniguns.
The reason we have these laws, is because we let them do it. WE let THEM. Notice I said we give them permission by not taking any major action. We're too concerned about "Oh jesus, they might repeal my license". Well sh*t you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet. If every single person on this forum woke up tomorrow and said "f*ck those laws, I'm doing what I want", they would be forced to repeal it, just like the civil rights movement....you get enough people together, REALLY together, and things do change. We're just too scared of law enforcement and the politicians to take it into our own hands.
The nra should grow a set and step in, forget the legislation steps and force a change in washington. I'm sick of listening to all these baby steps we take. I mean honestly, imagine if everything done in washington was done the way we're handing gun law opposition? We'd still be using lead paint and women wouldn't be voting.
This is taking too long, and it should be handled like any other major atrocity against the citizens rights in this country....it should be treated as a civil rights case, not a piece of technical court legislation movement.
...and.......end rant.
The reason we have these laws, is because we let them do it. WE let THEM. Notice I said we give them permission by not taking any major action. We're too concerned about "Oh jesus, they might repeal my license". Well sh*t you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet. If every single person on this forum woke up tomorrow and said "f*ck those laws, I'm doing what I want", they would be forced to repeal it, just like the civil rights movement....you get enough people together, REALLY together, and things do change. We're just too scared of law enforcement and the politicians to take it into our own hands.
The nra should grow a set and step in, forget the legislation steps and force a change in washington. I'm sick of listening to all these baby steps we take. I mean honestly, imagine if everything done in washington was done the way we're handing gun law opposition? We'd still be using lead paint and women wouldn't be voting.
This is taking too long, and it should be handled like any other major atrocity against the citizens rights in this country....it should be treated as a civil rights case, not a piece of technical court legislation movement.
...and.......end rant.
You're right, and I disagree with that too. But it's neither here nor there.
That's probably true of just about everyone. The whole point of growing older is that you're supposed to take your accumulated experience and use it to inform your future actions. Pushing back the age at which you can possess just pushes back the time when you start having those experiences.
Okay. Just so we're clear, then.
That was a qualified ". . . I don't want 18 year olds buying fire arms unfettered." If I still lived out West I wouldn't have a problem with it; out there. I can't even go into my back yard and shoot a BB gun for fear of my neighbors freaking out.
Heck my 23 year old, just graduated from college and can't land a job nephew (on the wifes side), would scare me if he had a gun. I can't convince him to even speak with a Navy officer recruiter, but that's neither here not there.
Heck my 23 year old, just graduated from college and can't land a job nephew (on the wifes side), would scare me if he had a gun. I can't convince him to even speak with a Navy officer recruiter, but that's neither here not there.
You're right, it was unfair to chop off the qualification. I apologize.
However, it still amounts to disenfranchising a whole class of people based on their age and where they live.
Some people are losers. But some people are also extremely mature at 18. How is that fair to them?
P.S. I don't know if your nephew is a loser, and I'm not saying that he is. Lots of people (particularly young people straight out of school) are having trouble finding work. That's not necessarily a reflection on them.
It's ok. In my book he is! He blew off job interviews set up by his parents and other relatives. Instead of saying thanks but no thanks, we get phone calls asking why he didn't show.
I knew a lot of 18 - 21 year old Marines who prior to joining the Corps didn't know the first thing about fire arms. Now they do and I have no issue extending to them an exemption.
However, in this state you can have a 21 year old who has never held a hand gun in their lives apply for an LTC-A unrestricted in Quincy and get it, while a 48 year old combat veteran, with a clean record, gets an LTC A restricted in places like Newton, Brookline, and Watertown. That has to stop!
I have an LTC-A No restrictions. I am looking to move to another town. My wife asks why we can't look in Brookline or Newton. I have to give her a lame reason that my LTC-A No Restrictions could be down graded in the new town.
Let's start with some uniformity in the application of the state law. Heck with machine guns, I'd just like to be able to move to a town I like without having to worry about the COP at renewal time. On that point I'd like to know how Comm2A is going to handle that?
There has got to be a squeaky clean guy or gal out there with an LTC-A No Restrictions who has renewed at least once who is willing to move to Watertown to get the downgrade to challenge this. If they lose they can always move to NH
I knew a lot of 18 - 21 year old Marines who prior to joining the Corps didn't know the first thing about fire arms. Now they do and I have no issue extending to them an exemption.
However, in this state you can have a 21 year old who has never held a hand gun in their lives apply for an LTC-A unrestricted in Quincy and get it, while a 48 year old combat veteran, with a clean record, gets an LTC A restricted in places like Newton, Brookline, and Watertown. That has to stop!
I have an LTC-A No restrictions. I am looking to move to another town. My wife asks why we can't look in Brookline or Newton. I have to give her a lame reason that my LTC-A No Restrictions could be down graded in the new town.
Let's start with some uniformity in the application of the state law. Heck with machine guns, I'd just like to be able to move to a town I like without having to worry about the COP at renewal time. On that point I'd like to know how Comm2A is going to handle that?
There has got to be a squeaky clean guy or gal out there with an LTC-A No Restrictions who has renewed at least once who is willing to move to Watertown to get the downgrade to challenge this. If they lose they can always move to NH
I agree. But instead of restricting the 21 year old, let's not allow local CLEOs to arbitrarily and capriciously restrict applicants simply because he or his boss doesn't like guns.
You made the argument before, that:
This was because of the allegedly different gun culture out there. Under that argument, CLEOs could just as easily say that the culture in Quincy is different from that in Newton, Brookline or Watertown, and as such restrictions in those three towns are warranted. You obviously don't agree with that; why would you agree with allowing a person to possess "out west" but not here in Mass? It's basically the same argument.
Furthermore, this is not actually the case. To apply for any class of LTC you have to take a Mass State Police–approved course. When I took my course with MFS back in May, there was a very substantial hands-on component with respect to safe loading/unloading, handling, and also use of the range simulator. I couldn't say authoritatively that the hands-on component is required by the curriculum in order to be MSP-compliant, but I'm pretty sure that it is.
dcmdon
NES Member
An 18 year old in CT can currently walk into a gun shop and buy a long gun with no wait if he has a valid hunting license or (I believe) military ID.
This is the quandry. how to prevent a bureaucracy from having a chilling effect on our rights. One idea I've played with in my head i that once you get your cert from a state accredited trainer, you use that cert to exercise your rights.
Thats the way it worked when i got my pilots license. I took off after the check ride with a license in my pocket. Either way there is no easy answer. Like you, I think some reasonable process is good for the individual and society. However, I'm uncomfortable trusting my government to administer it fairly.
Don
Even that is a violation of rights. I shouldn't have to ask the "state" for permission to exercise a right.
I doubt there was a 10 year felony / $250,000 fine at stake for being the wrong color and sitting at the front of the bus. Civil disobedience in that realm was a lot easier to pull off. (Note: I'm not saying the civil rights movement was "easy" just the implementation was a lot less dire, legally speaking. )
-Mike
Last edited:
That's a valid point. I'll agree. People may argue that criminals would be able to get guns easier, but so would legal citizens, which means one thing for criminals: There may be one of you with a gun, but there's a group of us over here with better guns....still wanna try to rob us? An armed population is a polite population.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 96
- Likes
- 15
Have any of you ever heard that the hughes amendment never had the majority vote? I read about it on another forum months ago.
dcmdon
NES Member
Hughes was voted down, but Charlie Rangle deemed it passed and it was included in the final bill. Where was the NRA? Oh yeah, I forgot, they don't really support Class 3 issues.
Don
Don
The classic argument is that if you're out of jail, you've paid your debt and are no longer too dangerous to be out in society. The caveat here is that we need to be infinitely stronger in sentencing criminals. Some puke that bumps over a liquor store at gunpoint needs to do 25 years, not 25 months. If we can accomplish this, then the background check becomes moot and we can have actual freedom to keep and bear arms, rather than "freedom to keep and bear arms except..."
DesertNavy said:
First, thanks for your service! My grandfathers were both Navy Men.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
As for 18yr olds not owning handguns, it's absurd. At 18 you can vote, but not protect your own life? You can enlist and fight on foreign soil? Frankly, the idea of lots of 18 year olds driving a car scares the bejeezus out of me.. But that doesn't mean I think we should legislate away their freedom to do so.
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
18 year olds are idiots.
I was an idiot at 18.
Most of you were idiots at 18.
There isn't much dumber than an 18 year old boy. (The vast majority are not yet men)
But we draw the line somewhere and it should be consistent. If you can serve, then you should get the rights that come along with it.
I was an idiot at 18.
Most of you were idiots at 18.
There isn't much dumber than an 18 year old boy. (The vast majority are not yet men)
But we draw the line somewhere and it should be consistent. If you can serve, then you should get the rights that come along with it.
Sorry for coming into this a little late, but was out of state w/o computer for a bit...
Honestly I am not coming down on you for your excitement, simply suggesting you need to do a bit more reasearch before you get too excited about it all...Go to some shoots, hang out with MG'rs, subcribe to SAR (Small Arms Review) if nothing else spend some time on some internet NFA boards (subguns.com, northeastmachinegunfun.com, uzitalk.com, sturmgewehr.com)...
Lets be honest if the suit you think would be so easy was that easy, it would have happened, the NFA community certainly could afford it if it was just as easy as that...
As you have to know by now (as a result of this tread) MG's are legal, and considering how "anti" MA is we actually have a pretty large NFA community in Mass...
There already is... http://www.nfatca.org/
Honestly I am not coming down on you for your excitement, simply suggesting you need to do a bit more reasearch before you get too excited about it all...Go to some shoots, hang out with MG'rs, subcribe to SAR (Small Arms Review) if nothing else spend some time on some internet NFA boards (subguns.com, northeastmachinegunfun.com, uzitalk.com, sturmgewehr.com)...
Lets be honest if the suit you think would be so easy was that easy, it would have happened, the NFA community certainly could afford it if it was just as easy as that...
dcmdon
NES Member
security boy,
I'm going to play devils advocate for a moment. Most people with large investments in Class 3 firearms would probably not like to see the NFA overturned. Why? Because with the scarcity gone and transferable MGs able to be manufactured new the value of their collections would collapse.
A pristine M16 A2, currently worth $18,000 would be worth the same, or only slightly more than a standard AR15. So lets call it $1000.
Some of the .50 cal belt feds that are worth $50,000+ would be worth no more than $5000 if they could be manufactured new.
Nope, I think if there is going to be a push to legalize the manufacture of new, transferable MGs it will have to come from those who do not have large investments in keeping he NFA in place.
Don
p.s. the only other hope is the states that are asserting their 10th Amendment rights and declaring that any gun made and used within the state borders is not bound by the commerce clause of the Constitution and is therefore not bound by the NFA.
I'm going to play devils advocate for a moment. Most people with large investments in Class 3 firearms would probably not like to see the NFA overturned. Why? Because with the scarcity gone and transferable MGs able to be manufactured new the value of their collections would collapse.
A pristine M16 A2, currently worth $18,000 would be worth the same, or only slightly more than a standard AR15. So lets call it $1000.
Some of the .50 cal belt feds that are worth $50,000+ would be worth no more than $5000 if they could be manufactured new.
Nope, I think if there is going to be a push to legalize the manufacture of new, transferable MGs it will have to come from those who do not have large investments in keeping he NFA in place.
Don
p.s. the only other hope is the states that are asserting their 10th Amendment rights and declaring that any gun made and used within the state borders is not bound by the commerce clause of the Constitution and is therefore not bound by the NFA.
I've heard that arguement before and it simply doesn't hold water. 1st off the prices you are using are pretty high but ignoring that, it still doesn't hold true. Plain and simple fact is sure if you could start building today you could build a brand new 50 for around 3-4K, but that brand new 50 will never be the orignal colt water cooled 50's that go for close to 50K, same with thompsons, MP40's, sturmgewehr's, etc. You might be able to make new ones, but thier will always be a premium for original pieces. look at west hurley thompsons, even though they are all C&R now, they are still no where near the prices of similar model original thompsons of similar condition...The NFA as "investment" is a fairly "new" thing, most people in with the sizable collections are either collectors or shooters, both of which would love to see new MG's or lower priced MG's
Now take your run of the mill transferable M16's "current market" at about 10,000-12,000. I know I speak for myself and likely most other MG'rs would happily sacrifice 10-12K this year to be able to by 10-12 NIB factory 16's next year...Further if the prices drop the SOT's (of whom most of the "big names" are) will see a lot more business, not only because those of us already in will be buying our 10-12 new 16's but because people who couldn't afford even entry level MAC's will be now invited back into "the game"...
PS. Don't read too much into the above, I don't see much through rose colored glasses, while I don't rule out another amnesty or even over turning the hughs ammendment, I am not exactly holding my breath. Simply meant to point out that if it was as simple as "lets file suit" my newest MG would have been made yesterday not in 1986...
Mass-diver
NES Member
I only wish there was a lawsuit in the works to challenge all the NFA stuff
As much as I love my Ak and my AR - they are neutered (not FA), which is wrong on so many levels.
I have a ALP, but, when I mentioned a green card to my chief, he flatly said "no way." They are certainly banned for me.
As much as I love my Ak and my AR - they are neutered (not FA), which is wrong on so many levels.
I have a ALP, but, when I mentioned a green card to my chief, he flatly said "no way." They are certainly banned for me.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
I only wish there was a lawsuit in the works to challenge all the NFA stuff
As much as I love my Ak and my AR - they are neutered (not FA), which is wrong on so many levels.
I have a ALP, but, when I mentioned a green card to my chief, he flatly said "no way." They are certainly banned for me.
Your chief and anyone who thinks like him are intellectually challenged criminals......depriving themselves of the facts about NFA ownership and depriving YOU of your rights.
Similar threads
