Want a NEW Machinegun? The ATF may have just allowed you to make one!**Update Post 72

[RG617]

Didn't Montana try something similar to this and get slapped down? I think they were going off the idea if it was made in the State and never left the state the feds should have no say

I'm curious about this as well, since I don't remember all of the details or outcome. I also wonder if applying now, even though you'll be denied, is a smart play just to mark a place in the timeline (applied before they change the language and close the door) should this work out by some miracle.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Didn't Montana try something similar to this and get slapped down? I think they were going off the idea if it was made in the State and never left the state the feds should have no say

I'm curious about this as well, since I don't remember all of the details or outcome. I also wonder if applying now, even though you'll be denied, just to mark a place in line should this work out by some miracle.

I am pretty sure what MT did was say that items manufactured in MT, with materials made in MT are not subject to federal regulation. This is something different.

 

[Da_lucche]

I hope this has been disseminated FAR beyond Arfcom and NES.

I ****ed the date up. It was supposed to be 9/12/14

Sent from my SCH-I415 using Tapatalk 2

 

[exo]

Badass:



- - - Updated - - -

OH SNAP!




Love it:

That is ****ing awesome.

 

[Terminator03]

Thing is, IMO, kids were more mature/responsible back in 1846 than they are today. Parents, far more often than not, did a proper job of raising their children too. Sadly, that's also not done these days. Back in the mid 1800's, I'm sure more people were raised around firearms.

Trying to use logic from over 150 years ago simply doesn't work. You might as well use it from 1500 years ago.

From what I've seen, parents have been hamstrung from actually being parents for at least the past 10-15 years. Not being able to discipline their own kids is total bullshit. If you don't make the consequence of doing something you're not supposed to do far worse than any 'pleasure' you may gain from doing it, the punishment is impotent. Parents getting jammed up for striking their child (when they seriously screwed up) is just wrong. I'm not advocating abuse, just discipline. I only ****ed up bad enough one time, growing up, to warrant being smacked. Guess what, I never did anything that bad ever again. Today, a parent that did that would probably be brought up on felony charges, convicted (especially in a nanny state) and then become a PP.

Exactly! rep inbound!

 

[drgrant]

Same goes for 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, and 95 year olds. I just don't want anyone to ever be making that call for anyone else.

The thing is with minors being involved, the parents/guardians own the kids, more or less, unless they're emancipated or something. Children are almost chattel, your example is kind of terrible/full retard, because even a very conservative, pro RKBA court would deem an age limit to be a reasonable restriction, and nobody would complain about it, either. (particularly given that parents could lawfully buy their kid an MG or whatever, by proxy, and still have things be legal, the way they are now with Title 1 long guns. ) .

-Mike

 

[browncoat]

The thing is with minors being involved, the parents/guardians own the kids, more or less, unless they're emancipated or something. Children are almost chattel, your example is kind of terrible/full retard, because even a very conservative, pro RKBA court would deem an age limit to be a reasonable restriction, and nobody would complain about it, either. (particularly given that parents could lawfully buy their kid an MG or whatever, by proxy, and still have things be legal, the way they are now with Title 1 long guns. ) .

-Mike

All I'm saying is "reasonable restrictions" are what got us into this mess, and there was a time when discriminating by age was considered unreasonable, as my quote of a state supreme court decision showed.

 

[browncoat]

Not too many people complained about the gca not allowing individuals to mail order guns either

 

[drgrant]

All I'm saying is "reasonable restrictions" are what got us into this mess, and there was a time when discriminating by age was considered unreasonable, as my quote of a state supreme court decision showed.

My point is that discriminating against minors really wouldn't be considered an infringement. We don't allow minors to vote, either. They're barely people, they're wards of their parents. If we were to place all gun laws on a spectrum of least to most offensive, some kind of federal or state based age restriction prohibiting a minor (under 18) from purchasing or owning a firearm (without parental consent) wouldn't even show up on the radar, it would be lost in the noise at the bottom somewhere.

Most of the bullshit we deal with (and usually complain about) eg, gun bans, evil feature bans, mandated background checks, etc, on the other hand, are clearly infringements, because under various circumstances they can lead to a stiff denial of rights.

Not too many people complained about the gca not allowing individuals to mail order guns either

Even that, at least, is a far bigger infringement than restricting sales to minors.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

Not too many people complained about the gca not allowing individuals to mail order guns either

IMHO, the only reason they didn't complain is it became poltiically incorrect to support 2A and guns in the wake of the Kennedy assassination(s).

We had decades of collective insanity from that event. Though I cannot excuse it, I can understand it, but the damage done by the combination of fear mongering and lapping up that mongering is incalculable.

This, I believe is a HUGE part of what the NRA went down the "hunter's rights" rat-hole. They didn't want to be seen as defending the indefensible, but could not or did not know to articulate that the actions of Oswald or Ruby or don't reflect on gun owners any more than the actions of one criminal of a particular color, ethnicity reflect on that color or ethnicity.

We see the same thing happening in Australia after their massacre that caused their great gun-grab. The imposition of and acceptance of guilt of all gun owners in the actions of a madman are a vile expression of bigotry of the highest order.

 

[jar]

IMHO, the only reason they didn't complain is it became poltiically incorrect to support 2A and guns in the wake of the Kennedy assassination(s).

We had decades of collective insanity from that event. Though I cannot excuse it, I can understand it, but the damage done by the combination of fear mongering and lapping up that mongering is incalculable.

This, I believe is a HUGE part of what the NRA went down the "hunter's rights" rat-hole. They didn't want to be seen as defending the indefensible, but could not or did not know to articulate that the actions of Oswald or Ruby or don't reflect on gun owners any more than the actions of one criminal of a particular color, ethnicity reflect on that color or ethnicity.

We see the same thing happening in Australia after their massacre that caused their great gun-grab. The imposition of and acceptance of guilt of all gun owners in the actions of a madman are a vile expression of bigotry of the highest order.

I wasn't around to see it, but as I understand it, a big reason the NRA didn't fight GCA '68 as hard as they could have was that they weren't really a political organization because there hadn't been a major assault on gun rights since the NFA in 1934. There was dissension in the organization between being a political group or just supporting marksmanship activities that wasn't definitively resolved until the Cincinnati Revolt in 1977 (where the 2A focused faction definitively took over the Board)

From a comment at PAGunBlog:

I was there in ’68, and fought CGA ’68 until its final passage on September 12, 1968. It was not a matter of the NRA being complicit, it was a matter of the NRA of that time being utterly unsuited for the sort of fight we suddenly found ourselves in.
At the time the NRA was a primarily a ready reserve/national guard organization. Police officers with no military connections had just been allowed to join, grudgingly. Many of the NRA officers and directors thought the organization had no business at all “doing politics.” The result was utter confusion at NRA HQ.
Eventually, the pro 2A faction prevailed, but most of the heavy lifting was done by the people who caught their Senators and Representative on their August break, shook hands, and talked sense.
By the 1970 elections the NRA was well up to speed on the program. But 1968 was hairy, to say the least.

More interesting backstory at the post: http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/08/24/were-nra-manufacturers-complicit-in-the-gun-control-act-of-1968/

 

[skeetshooter]

Here in idaho we have the firearms freedom cast. As long as all parts are made in idaho. G2G

 

[warwickben]

Here in idaho we have the firearms freedom cast. As long as all parts are made in idaho. G2G

What dose that mean?
My dad told me there are a few states in the Midwest that you can make a mg but it can never leave the state . But he also thinks normal gun smithing is illegal in mass lol ....

 

[knfmn]

Here in idaho we have the firearms freedom cast. As long as all parts are made in idaho. G2G

How's that working out for you guys? Anyone been busted for failing to comply with NFA r/e a supressor yet? I wouldn't want to risk the possible jail term, but I would love to see this law accepted.

 

[knfmn]

What dose that mean?
My dad told me there are a few states in the Midwest that you can make a mg but it can never leave the state . But he also thinks normal gun smithing is illegal in mass lol ....

It's illegal to manufacture a MG for a private person *anywhere* in the US post Hughes act in 86. The firearms freedom acts basically state that the federal government can't regulate one person arms with bores <1.5", supressors and other goodies as long as they are manufactured within and stay in the respective states. They don't include MG's, unfortunately and the supreme court has yet to decide to hear the lawsuit that will resolve the issue. I think it will have to wait until a couple of people get popped for having non-registered NFA items, as the courts have essentially said there is no basis for the lawsuit as of yet. They also threw in some crap about how it could be "reasonably expected" for these items to make their way out of the state. I'm watching closely to see what happens. If the lawsuit gets decided favorably, there is about a 98% chance that I will drop the keys to my condo on the front mat and drive west. I'm deadly serious about that, BTW.

 

[warwickben]

It's illegal to manufacture a MG for a private person *anywhere* in the US post Hughes act in 86. The firearms freedom acts basically state that the federal government can't regulate one person arms with bores <1.5", supressors and other goodies as long as they are manufactured within and stay in the respective states. They don't include MG's, unfortunately and the supreme court has yet to decide to hear the lawsuit that will resolve the issue. I think it will have to wait until a couple of people get popped for having non-registered NFA items, as the courts have essentially said there is no basis for the lawsuit as of yet. They also threw in some crap about how it could be "reasonably expected" for these items to make their way out of the state. I'm watching closely to see what happens. If the lawsuit gets decided favorably, there is about a 98% chance that I will drop the keys to my condo on the front mat and drive west. I'm deadly serious about that, BTW.

Yeah I read about the law , but it basically seemed like they told the Feds to foaeabod..
So it reads like and thing legal there .

 

[browncoat]

It's illegal to manufacture a MG for a private person *anywhere* in the US post Hughes act in 86. The firearms freedom acts basically state that the federal government can't regulate one person arms with bores <1.5", supressors and other goodies as long as they are manufactured within and stay in the respective states. They don't include MG's, unfortunately and the supreme court has yet to decide to hear the lawsuit that will resolve the issue. I think it will have to wait until a couple of people get popped for having non-registered NFA items, as the courts have essentially said there is no basis for the lawsuit as of yet. They also threw in some crap about how it could be "reasonably expected" for these items to make their way out of the state. I'm watching closely to see what happens. If the lawsuit gets decided favorably, there is about a 98% chance that I will drop the keys to my condo on the front mat and drive west. I'm deadly serious about that, BTW.

It is interesting, because some of the same reasoning behind federal authority to ban guns is also used to justify federal authority to ban drugs (commerce clause stuff). If we get a court(probably a left leaning one) to strike down Federal drug laws that could give us ammunition against the amended GCA

 

[knfmn]

Yeah I read about the law , but it basically seemed like they told the Feds to foaeabod..
So it reads like and thing legal there .

You need to re-read, then. The law specifically states that it doesn't apply to anything that fires more than one round per trigger squeeze.

My guess is that there probably are folks running around in Montana and Idaho with unregistered supressors right now, but they're being quiet about it and the feds don't want to push it too hard for fear of another nasty situation like Ruby Ridge or Waco.

 

[soloman02]

It's illegal to manufacture a MG for a private person *anywhere* in the US post Hughes act in 86. The firearms freedom acts basically state that the federal government can't regulate one person arms with bores <1.5", supressors and other goodies as long as they are manufactured within and stay in the respective states. They don't include MG's, unfortunately and the supreme court has yet to decide to hear the lawsuit that will resolve the issue. I think it will have to wait until a couple of people get popped for having non-registered NFA items, as the courts have essentially said there is no basis for the lawsuit as of yet. They also threw in some crap about how it could be "reasonably expected" for these items to make their way out of the state. I'm watching closely to see what happens. If the lawsuit gets decided favorably, there is about a 98% chance that I will drop the keys to my condo on the front mat and drive west. I'm deadly serious about that, BTW.

There is zero chance it will be decided favorably. SCOTUS already ruled against it in 1942 in Wickard v Filburn and they Re-affirmed this infringement on the tenth amendment in 2005 with GOlzales v Raich.

Prepare to throw up:

The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

 

[OfficerObie59]

The Canadians, eh? have a curious system for prohibited but grandfathered weapons (full auto; 25cal handguns; handguns with < 105mm bbls) - in order to legally possess, it must be a grandfathered weapon and a grandfathered owner - but grandfathered owners are free to trade among themselves. Inside on generation, one person will (by definition) have all the legal machine guns and another (or same) will have all the prohibited caliber/bbl length handguns.

It's worth noting that there is SCOTUS case law that says legislation that prevents bequeating property via a will or letting property lapse intestate is also a taking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodel_v._Irving

 

[cekim]

I wasn't around to see it, but as I understand it, a big reason the NRA didn't fight GCA '68 as hard as they could have was that they weren't really a political organization because there hadn't been a major assault on gun rights since the NFA in 1934. There was dissension in the organization between being a political group or just supporting marksmanship activities that wasn't definitively resolved until the Cincinnati Revolt in 1977 (where the 2A focused faction definitively took over the Board)

Indeed, had seen all that before, I wasn't bleeting the usual "NRA was complicit", but that their approach after that time was a campaign of "Hunter's Rights" who's vestiges are still with us today.

"Under the radar" came to typify the "pro-gun" approach. HIding in the closet, not discussing guns or our undertanding that they are simply tools that at worst can be credited with increasing our individual freedom drastically.

TV/Media pushed from their side as well to drive out the gun from our daily lives and create an association with evil.

 

[browncoat]

There is zero chance it will be decided favorably. SCOTUS already ruled against it in 1942 in Wickard v Filburn and they Re-affirmed this infringement on the tenth amendment in 2005 with GOlzales v Raich.

Prepare to throw up:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

So I just got back from throwing up. I've read about that case before, it kills me every time. The way the commerce clause has been misconstrued abused and extended is ridiculous. First of all, it was only intended for interstate regulation not intrastate regulation, which is obvious from the text. Second, as an amendment, the 2 a supersedes any conflicting part of the constitution

 

[xtry51]

Wickard is way up there in the top shitty cases of all time. The conclusion of that case is ludicrous.

 

[soloman02]

Wickard is way up there in the top shitty cases of all time. The conclusion of that case is ludicrous.

Oh I know. It is right up there with Dredd Scott in terms of egregiousness.

 

[01SVTvert]

What dose that mean?
My dad told me there are a few states in the Midwest that you can make a mg but it can never leave the state . But he also thinks normal gun smithing is illegal in mass lol ....

Gunsmithing in MA requires a license from MA....... Thats how bad it is.

 

[browncoat]

Gunsmithing in MA requires a license from MA....... Thats how bad it is.

Holy crap. Every time I think I have discovered them all and adjusted to how terrible MA's gun laws are, I get forcefully disabused of that notion.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What dose that mean?
My dad told me there are a few states in the Midwest that you can make a mg but it can never leave the state . But he also thinks normal gun smithing is illegal in mass lol ....

Some states have declared federal gun laws don't apply to guns made in state (due to a lack of interstate commerce), however, the feds have said "yes they do".

The interstate commerce clause is a joke - there is always some interstate connection. It could be that the gas used to deliver the parts to make the MG traveled in interstate commerce; that the raw materials were made out of state; or even that the money you spend making a MG will reduce the amount you spend in interstate commerce.

 

[warwickben]

Gunsmithing in MA requires a license from MA....... Thats how bad it is.

He just thought that any mods to guns in mass is illegal . He has a 1911 with m1912 style tiny sights I told him to bring it to a smith to get better sights and he thought it was illegal lol.

He's a fudd when it comes to the laws . But he owns some pretty cool toys.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Some states have declared federal gun laws don't apply to guns made in state (due to a lack of interstate commerce), however, the feds have said "yes they do".

The interstate commerce clause is a joke - there is always some interstate connection. It could be that the gas used to deliver the parts to make the MG traveled in interstate commerce; that the raw materials were made out of state; or even that the money you spend making a MG will reduce the amount you spend in interstate commerce.

Troof.

Lest anyone forget the tenuous argument the government tried to make with a straight face in Lopez:

The government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.

It's like law applied to a Rube Goldberg machine. That's what happens after using legal fictions for 72 years to let the government run rampant over the 10th Amendment.

 

[OfficerObie59]

If I could, any libertarian with the most passing interest in how our courts today treat the Constitution need to read Clark Neily's book. Other than your green membership, it will be best $20 you've spent all year. Focuses on the Commerce Clause and the Rational Basis Test, and how BS they both are.

I've met Clark a number of times, had him speak at my school, and even had drinks with him at the SCOTUS building. He's the man and knows what he's talking about.



http://www.amazon.com/Terms-Engagement-Enforce-Constitutions-Government/dp/1594036969