[quote]Filed yesterday in Dallas, the lawsuit of Hollis v. Holder is suing the U.S. Department of Justice to allow legal entities such as trusts and corporations to legally register new machine guns. As you probably know, machine guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act, and in most states (as well as on the federal level) possession of an item regulated under that act is a felony unless it is properly registered. However, starting in 1986 the U.S. Government declared that they would no longer approve new registration applications for machine guns — they “closed” the registry. The newly filed lawsuit is seeking to change that.
It all started with a ruling by the ATF that declared trusts and legal corporations were not people. Previously it was possible for someone to use a trust or other legal entity to purchase firearms, and because there was no one to perform a background check on there was no need to perform a NICS check or do most of the paperwork for the ATF form 4473. The ATF wanted to force people to go through the NICS check, but they made a mistake.
When the feds “closed” the registry, they didn’t do a very good job. The specific regulation stated that no person could register a new machine gun. But trusts, as the ATF just declared, are not people.
Following the discovery of that possible wrinkle in the bureaucratic fabric of the NFA, there were a flood of people sending in applications to make and register new machine guns. One person momentarily succeeded — they were issued a proper and valid registration for a brand new machine gun — but the ATF quickly reversed itself and issued a revocation of the registration.[/quote]
[url=http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/foghorn/breaking-lawsuit-filed-allow-registration-new-machine-guns/]Truth About Guns[/url]
How to win this legal case in five minutes flat...
- US vs. Miller states that short-barreled shotguns have "[url=http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/c/ce/Sawed_off_exposed_hammers.jpg/400px-Sawed_off_exposed_hammers.jpg]never been used[/url]" by the US Military therefore it's not legal. With the change in recent military hardware, it can be proven that most of NFA 34 has been invalidated by technological progress in the US Military. Switchfire Rifles are now common place, silencers are used quiet frequently, shotguns are used for house entry, and numerous other "not used by us military!" is invalidated.
- Heller v. District of Columbia, found that the 2nd Amendent exists so that citizens may arm themselves with weapons that are capable of being used in a military situation.
Effectively, this case is hopefully in the bag. The fact it's going up in the Texas Supreme Court districts should mean smooth sailing, and god I fucking hope so.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/PeUuocn.png[/t]
soon™ from RR_Raptor
The NRA won't back this. The board of directors don't want to devalue all of their expensive pre-86 NFA items.
I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46383919]This. The NRA isn't as pro-gun as everyone makes them out to be. They merely pursue lawsuits when it's convenient for their members, not for the betterment of the 2nd amendment.[/QUOTE]
Well, then they're a bunch of hypocrites.
I hope this happens. We need to reopen the registry and repeal the NFA.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46383974]I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.[/QUOTE]
But having automatic guns to play with is far more important than some kids dying!
[sp]You'll never manage to convince Americans that automatic guns could be a problem, just be happy that you live in Sweden.[/sp]
[QUOTE=SHIG;46384204]I hope this happens. We need to reopen the registry and repeal the NFA.[/QUOTE]
I hope they at LEAST reopen the registry, it's not even an option to register a new MG anymore, if you want one you have to either be rich as fuck or a corrupt politician buying new MGs from the factory and getting them registered under the table for sale to the public at a 1000% profit. The ATF is still unwilling to explain how the machine gun registry has GROWN since 1986 when it was made illegal to register new MGs.
The guy has said he intends to go after the NFA itself if this succeeds.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46383974]I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.[/QUOTE]
Dood, fully automatic firearms already exist in pretty large numbers as it is in the US. The removal of the Hughes amendment is just going to allow the manufacture of post-1986 automatics. Registration with the BATFE would still be required (along with extensive background checks and the like), unless the NFA gets repealed too (but thats never going to happen with the NRA in power)
IIRC, to date theres been 2 homicides with registered fully-automatics, and one was with a police-owned assault rifle.
[editline]1st November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=paul simon;46384279]But having automatic guns to play with is far more important than some kids dying!
[sp]You'll never manage to convince Americans that automatic guns could be a problem, just be happy that you live in Sweden.[/sp][/QUOTE]
You'll never manage to convince a Eurobro how safe guns can be, I'm just happy that I live in the US where I can have fun with my hobby without being crucified.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46383974]I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.[/QUOTE]
You can already get a hold of them, It just requires some time, and some money.
And it is stupidly easy to convert semi-auto to full-auto, as is.
For those who don't know what this specific lawsuit is targeting, here's the text:
[quote]18 USC 922(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
[/quote]
Basically it would allow people to [b]register[/b] new machine guns and you'd still have to pay $200 for the tax stamp.
I've actually got a deactivated machine gun in my shop, if this goes through I'll be applying for a stamp and repairing it straight away. Probably have my AR-15 converted to select fire as well. Eventually I'd make my own SMGs from scratch, something I've wanted to do for a long time.
Personally, I'd rather they stayed as illegal as possible.
But, allowing post-86 weapons with the same licensing and background check requirements probably wouldn't be the end of the world. By and large, it seems like automatic weapons are mostly toys for rich people. They cost a ton to buy and a ton to keep fed with ammunition. As said above, they've been used in virtually zero homicides since the law was passed. That could change if they become as cheap and accessible as semi-autos, but that's a long way away.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46384686]Personally, I'd rather they stayed as illegal as possible.
But, allowing post-86 weapons with the same licensing and background check requirements probably wouldn't be the end of the world. By and large, it seems like automatic weapons are mostly toys for rich people. They cost a ton to buy and a ton to keep fed with ammunition. As said above, they've been used in virtually zero homicides since the law was passed. That could change if they become as cheap and accessible as semi-autos, but that's a long way away.[/QUOTE]
That's about as likely as a short barreled rifle or shotgun being used in a crime, and those aren't exactly uncommon, the catch is you have to file and pay for a tax stamp to do it to an existing rifle/shotgun or have one transferred to you.
To be clear on this, it's extremely easy to just lop the end of the barrel off with a saw or an angle grinder to make a short barreled rifle or shotgun, yet no one is doing that either. You could also buy a 'pistol' version of an AR-15 or an AK, illegally attach a shoulder stock to it and that makes it an SBR.
[QUOTE=paul simon;46384279]But having automatic guns to play with is far more important than some kids dying!
[sp]You'll never manage to convince Americans that automatic guns could be a problem, just be happy that you live in Sweden.[/sp][/QUOTE]
There have been 2 deaths from legally automatics since the nfa was enacted, in 1934, one of which was from a police officer. They're so heavily restricted, expensive, and take a long time for background checks to go through, people aren't going to shell out thousands of dollars and wait 6-12 months to shoot up a place with an automatic rifle.
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;46384294]I hope they at LEAST reopen the registry, it's not even an option to register a new MG anymore, if you want one you have to either be rich as fuck or a corrupt politician buying new MGs from the factory and getting them registered under the table for sale to the public at a 1000% profit. The ATF is still unwilling to explain how the machine gun registry has GROWN since 1986 when it was made illegal to register new MGs.
The guy has said he intends to go after the NFA itself if this succeeds.[/QUOTE]
He better go after the NFA if this succeeds. I want a silencer on my .22 without have to wait a year for the ATF to approve a tax stamp. Also want an Obrez mosin.
Personally, I'm fine with the NFA still existing, but the registry should be reopened, and suppressors and SBRs/SBSs should be taken off it.
It's silly to claim that making a gun's barrel shorter makes it more deadly.
[QUOTE=darunner;46385061]Personally, I'm fine with the NFA still existing, but the registry should be reopened, and suppressors and SBRs/SBSs should be taken off it.
It's silly to claim that making a gun's barrel shorter makes it more deadly.[/QUOTE]
It makes it more concealable, I guess? IMO barrel length requirements are silly as long as you still allow people to own handguns. Or allow people to own hacksaws.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46383698]silencers are used quiet frequently[/QUOTE]
I see what you did there
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46383974]I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.[/QUOTE]
I don't think this is a problem at all. The only people who could get a machine are the ones who pass a background check. The background check doesn't stop first time offenders, but it's the best system in world of guaranteed unalienable rights endowed by a creator.
Gun crime is a problem, but lets not forget that it affects less than 1% of the American population on a yearly basis. From a statistical standpoint, it's not worth wasting fear mongering, knee jerk legislation on.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;46385483][highlight]I don't think this is a problem at all. The only people who could get a machine are the ones who pass a background check. The background check doesn't stop first time offenders, but it's the best system in world of guaranteed unalienable rights endowed by a creator.[/highlight]
Gun crime is a problem, but lets not forget that it affects less than 1% of the American population on a yearly basis. From a statistical standpoint, it's not worth wasting fear mongering, knee jerk legislation on.[/QUOTE]
The best system would be to disallow the ownership of firearms, but since how everyone and their dog owns a gun over in burgerland; you have a problem that wont go away no matter how you shape your laws.
The best would just be a very general ban on guns and let people hand over their shooters to the police. And those who dont, well those guns arent going to be useable forever, for those its just a matter of waiting.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;46385483]I don't think this is a problem at all. The only people who could get a machine are the ones who pass a background check. The background check doesn't stop first time offenders, but it's the best system in world of guaranteed unalienable rights endowed by a creator.
Gun crime is a problem, but lets not forget that it affects less than 1% of the American population on a yearly basis. From a statistical standpoint, it's not worth wasting fear mongering, knee jerk legislation on.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention, nowhere in the US can you walk into a gun shop and buy a machine gun on the spot even in places that do sell machine guns.
You have to first express your intent to purchase it, file the paperwork and wait for it to go through, then you pay for the gun and take it home. That wouldn't change as a result of this lawsuit.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46385573]The best system would be to disallow the ownership of firearms, but since how everyone and their dog owns a gun over in burgerland; you have a problem that wont go away no matter how you shape your laws.
The best would just be a very general ban on guns and let people hand over their shooters to the police. And those who dont, well those guns arent going to be useable forever, for those its just a matter of waiting.[/QUOTE]
says the guy that threatened to kill his brother because he was transgender lol
[QUOTE=Garb;46385644]says the guy that threatened to kill his brother because he was transgender lol[/QUOTE]
"Oh I cant even make a good comeback to his reasoning and proposal, better attack him on a soon 2 year old incident instead"
That's what I hear from you.
you're not in a healthy mental state
I have a question for pro-gun people. If you lived in a country which banned guns and had a low gun crime rate, would you be for the legalization of firearms even then?
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46383974]I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.[/QUOTE]
Because a disgruntled kid is gonna cough up $10,000+ and go through months of paperwork, background checks and waiting to hurt someone.
[QUOTE=Garb;46385644]says the guy that threatened to kill his brother because he was transgender lol[/QUOTE]
dont forget that he wanted to send someone a letter bomb because the person mentioned that fatfatfatty was into inflation and vore
[editline]1st November 2014[/editline]
also hey garb
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385751]I have a question for pro-gun people. If you lived in a country which banned guns and had a low gun crime rate, would you be for the legalization of firearms even then?[/QUOTE]
safety.
[QUOTE=Adlertag1940;46385837]safety.[/QUOTE]
so would you? I'm not pro or anti gun control because I think it's an issue for an economist, but I don't believe ownership of guns to be a basic human right, so in a country like Japan with low gun crime and no legal ownership of guns, I would be against introducing them into that country. I'm just trying to categorize if people are anti-gun control because they don't think it would be effective in removing guns, or if they honestly believe guns are a human right
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46385573]The best system would be to disallow the ownership of firearms, but since how everyone and their dog owns a gun over in burgerland; you have a problem that wont go away no matter how you shape your laws.
The best would just be a very general ban on guns and let people hand over their shooters to the police. And those who dont, well those guns arent going to be useable forever, for those its just a matter of waiting.[/QUOTE]
300 million guns in the US with 300 million citizens. Around 1/4th of households have a firearm in them and everyone inside is trained to use it/them. A mass ban/confiscation wouldn't work, and it's absolutely laughable that anyone think it would. It would be like if someone banned cigarette lighters; theres no way you can safely and effectively enforce laws like that.
[editline]1st November 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;46385858]so would you? I'm not pro or anti gun control because I think it's an issue for an economist, but I don't believe ownership of guns to be a basic human right, so in a country like Japan with low gun crime and no legal ownership of guns, I would be against introducing them into that country. I'm just trying to categorize if people are anti-gun control because they don't think it would be effective in removing guns, or if they honestly believe guns are a human right[/QUOTE]
When an American says he has a right to own a firearm, he doesn't he has a Natural Right to own a firearm, he mans he has a [b]Legal Right[/b] to do so. It's stated in our constitution that we have the Legal Right to own a firearm.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46383974]I dont think letting people run around with automatics is a good idea, that could make school-shootings even bloodier. we could go from 10 victims to 50 easily.[/QUOTE]
Yaaay, more irrational fear!
Having an automatic does not guarantee a greater death toll. If anything it lessens the toll, since automatic weapons are harder to control and require more skill to effectively use. Not only that but a good semi-auto will fire just as fast if your trigger finger were somehow super-human enough to rattle the rounds off at that kind of rate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.