Originally Posted By Ben:
Goodness gracious some of you don't have enough patience to make it through March Madness, much less wait through the setup and execution of a legal fight.

https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/72384/Form_1_Submitted-2811829.jpg

Originally Posted By carl1000:
Do you think the manufacturers would actually sell us machine guns if they all of a sudden become legal? I don't think they would. Do you really think FN and their legal team would think it was OK to put some M249's for sale at bass pro shop lol?

Originally Posted By carl1000:
One thing people don't think about… Do you think the manufacturers would actually sell us machine guns if they all of a sudden become legal? I don't think they would. Do you really think FN and their legal team would think it was OK to put some M249's for sale at bass pro shop lol? As soon as some gangbanger got a hold of one of those legally or illegally, they would just ban machine guns all over again. We're having to fight 24/7 just to keep what we have right now much less making machine guns totally legal to buy. And as far as larger weapons like grenades, tanks etc., those manufacturers would never sell those to everyday Americans because of insurance and liability reasons. The insurance they would have to keep to sell some of those weapons would be unbelievable.

In the end, I don't think any of this is going to happen because we don't have a conservative utopia in this country. We can barely keep what we have right now. The stars would have to lineup so perfectly to get rid of the ATF in the NFA, that it's literally impossible. Now, if we get invaded by another country or something crazy like that, maybe we would see things loosen up as far as the second amendment.

Originally Posted By carl1000:
One thing people don't think about  Do you think the manufacturers would actually sell us machine guns if they all of a sudden become legal? I don't think they would. Do you really think FN and their legal team would think it was OK to put some M249's for sale at bass pro shop lol? As soon as some gangbanger got a hold of one of those legally or illegally, they would just ban machine guns all over again. We're having to fight 24/7 just to keep what we have right now much less making machine guns totally legal to buy. And as far as larger weapons like grenades, tanks etc., those manufacturers would never sell those to everyday Americans because of insurance and liability reasons. The insurance they would have to keep to sell some of those weapons would be unbelievable.

In the end, I don't think any of this is going to happen because we don't have a conservative utopia in this country. We can barely keep what we have right now. The stars would have to lineup so perfectly to get rid of the ATF in the NFA, that it's literally impossible. Now, if we get invaded by another country or something crazy like that, maybe we would see things loosen up as far as the second amendment.

Originally Posted By carl1000:
One thing people don't think about  Do you think the manufacturers would actually sell us machine guns if they all of a sudden become legal? I don't think they would.

Originally Posted By carl1000:
One thing people don't think about… Do you think the manufacturers would actually sell us machine guns if they all of a sudden become legal? I don't think they would. Do you really think FN and their legal team would think it was OK to put some M249's for sale at bass pro shop lol? As soon as some gangbanger got a hold of one of those legally or illegally, they would just ban machine guns all over again. We're having to fight 24/7 just to keep what we have right now much less making machine guns totally legal to buy. And as far as larger weapons like grenades, tanks etc., those manufacturers would never sell those to everyday Americans because of insurance and liability reasons. The insurance they would have to keep to sell some of those weapons would be unbelievable.

In the end, I don't think any of this is going to happen because we don't have a conservative utopia in this country. We can barely keep what we have right now. The stars would have to lineup so perfectly to get rid of the ATF in the NFA, that it's literally impossible. Now, if we get invaded by another country or something crazy like that, maybe we would see things loosen up as far as the second amendment.

Originally Posted By DoubleTaps:
Que up the Well  We're waiting meme

Originally Posted By Ben:


Probably didn't help that I'm a Russian speaker capable of being mistaken for a native speaker.

Originally Posted By bmarshall1:
I'm watching this thread.  I also want to know what became of the $2,500 loadout idea thread (rifle, plates etc...) @Ben

Originally Posted By bmarshall1:

@Ben

I had no doubt you could pull it off and damn glad you were able to but very disappointed that our own .Gov decided to do what they did, no surprise there.

I'm sure this isn't a new idea, but is there a chance to either source this from sources already inside the US, domestic, or even 'on credit' from overseas?

I would guess you have moved on and I don't blame you.  Thanks for trying though.

Originally Posted By Ben:


It isn't over. I'm working on it, just at a snails pace since my attention is primarily elsewhere.

Originally Posted By peachy:
Alito's concurring opinion in Garland v. Cargill is not encouraging news for this cause. In its entirety:

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring.......

Per my read, it seems at least one conservative vote is happy to keep MGs regulated.

Originally Posted By jbntex:


i was all happy with the decision until I got to that part.  My first thought was did I read that right... did one of the most gun rights friendly justices on the court basically just add a concurring opinion that does nothing other than implores Congress to ban bumpstocks legislatively because the Court couldn't do it for them.

I guess you could argue its some sort of 3D chess ploy to goad Congress to ban them so SCOTUS could smack down a bumpstock case a second time on 2A grounds or a 4D chess move to try and weaken the whole construct of 922(o) or the NFA via some future bumpstock case.  
However, that seems a bit far fetched to me, especially in light of the fact that they still have not taken up a single AWB or Mag Ban case yet.

I am kind of inclined to take him at face value that bumpstocks are "effectively" machineguns (even if they don't meet the current statutory definition) and the law needs to be updated by Congress to include them into the definition of a machinegun, along with all of the resultant 922(o) restrictions that come with it.    If that is his opinion on bumpstocks it doesn't seem to bode well for a SCOTUS case ruling that current machinegun restrictions are unconstitutional.

I am sort of curious what happens with all of the bumpstock owners that had to destroy their property.   Is there any precedent where the government has banned a consumer product via a regulatory update, required its destruction under threat of criminal prosecution, then lost in court that the former regulatory ruling was illegal/unconstitutional.   I would think there would be a civil  lawsuit to compensate owners of illegal or unconstitutional regulations that resulted in destruction of property and  that there must be some precedent for this type of scenario outside of firearms.

Originally Posted By Ben:


I think  you misunderstand what he intends to convey.  The point is directed towards the fact that congress can't hide behind ambiguous wording and let regulatory agencies do the dirty work.

Originally Posted By Ben:


Here is the thing;

He doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute without limitations. That doesn't mean he believes MGs are completely out of the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

Typically, the court carefully chooses its words. When they made rulings in Heller and McDonald, and subsequent rulings prior to Bruen, they said the "central component" of the 2A was self defense, and that component was "most acute" in the home.

In subsequent cases they specifically said that their previous words shouldn't be twisted to suggest the above was a limitation on the right, but on the government.

Reading Bruen without being disingenuous points to similar findings. They have well established that anything at the "core" of the 2A is protected. But they have also stated that such doesn't limit the right.

The statements and test presented in Bruen apply to determining if something is within the "core" of the right, and thus categorically protected without any government right to interfere. If it isn't at the core of the right, it may be at the periphery. Which is still protected under their current precedent, just to a lesser extent. Here is the thing though- categorical prohibitions of an entire class of arms is categorically unconstitutional. They've said as much. Which means...

Under their current precedent, I find it highly likely they could state that licensing or registration requirements are ok for MGs. But a categorical prohibition isn't going to fly.

Originally Posted By peachy:


I’d be careful conflating what the Court has opined with what any singular justice believes (whether openly or privately).

I’m curious though, where has the Court held that categorical prohibitions of an entire class of arms are categorically unconstitutional?

Originally Posted By Ben:


I think  you misunderstand what he intends to convey.  The point is directed towards the fact that congress can't hide behind ambiguous wording and let regulatory agencies do the dirty work.

Originally Posted By jbntex:


I don't disagree with you on Alito's legal point in his concurring opinion.  However, those legal bases are completely covered in the majority opinion by Thomas.  From my reading there is essentially no new legal points or counter points made in Alito's concurring opinion that are not already in the majority opinion.

I just don't get the point of restating what is already in the majority opinion and then going back and using probably three quarters of your concurring opinion reiterating the following points.

1. If congress knew about bumpstocks when they passed §5845(b) defining a "machinegun" they would have most likely not seen any difference. (inferring they would have probably included them)
2. The shooting in Vegas was "horrible"  (of course it was... but why drag that back up  as the main opinion already covered the Vegas shooting as a tragedy, etc.)
3. Effectively stating that Bumpstocks are just as dangerous as real machineguns.  i.e. a semi auto with a bumpstock can have "the same lethal effect"
4. The shooting in Alito's opinion "strengthened" the need to pass legislation to amend §5845(b) to include them.  The obvious effect of modifying §5845(b) to include bumpstock language is that they would be they would then be covered by 922(o) and banned.
5. The final part was my original point that he almost seems to be asking or daring congress to act to remedy the "disparate treatment" between machineguns and bumpstocks.

None of this has any relevance to the legal points that regulatory agencies can't make law nor can Congress hide behind regulatory agencies to do their dirty work.

If you wanted to write a concurring opinion that bumpstocks are also covered under the 2A on top of the fact, great.  

If you wanted to reaffirm the majority opinion that words have meaning and regulatory agencies can't make up new laws via the rule making process, also great.  However, just say that.  You don't need to write anything about Vegas, bumpstocks lethal effect, or that Congress should act to remedy "disparate treatment", etc.

If you told me that Cargill won 6-3 and then made me read the majority opinion and concurring opinion without being able to see who wrote what,  I would have said "thats a Roberts" wish-washy concurring opinion.  I would have been really surprised if you told me Thomas or Alito would have written that.

While I appreciate the win in this case as it is clearly the correct legal ruling based on the statue as written and of course who doesn't love to see the BATFE lose in court.... I also don't discount that congress may act at some point.

I hope that day never comes and bumpstocks don't potentially get banned legislatively via congress.  It also won't surprise me that Alito's own words will be used  to promote this type legislation as "common sense" gun control either.  Just feels a bit like an unforced error if you are a 2A supporting Justice.

Originally Posted By whs78:
What about common use and 200,000 being described as in common use.

The momentum from the brace, bump stock rulings ought to be enough to go after the NFA, since the number of registered items exceeds the common use number.

Originally Posted By whs78:
What about common use and 200,000 being described as in common use.

The momentum from the brace, bump stock rulings ought to be enough to go after the NFA, since the number of registered items exceeds the common use number.

Originally Posted By Flevvy:


Common use is not a legal standard, nor should it be.

Originally Posted By Deerhurst:


Apparently unusual and dangerous is.


As we know common use is not anything unusual.

Originally Posted By whs78:


Common use proves that they are in fact not dangerous and unusual.

I’m curious to see the numbers of machine gun deaths in the United States. I’m venturing to say the majority of people killed with them died at the hands of their own government.

Originally Posted By Deerhurst:

MG deaths are quite small. Legal MG deaths are essentially non-existent. Most MG deaths will be gov owned MGs.

Originally Posted By jtb33:
...and they will turn that around to say, "See?!  The MG ban works!"

Originally Posted By carl1000:
One thing people don't think about… Do you think the manufacturers would actually sell us machine guns if they all of a sudden become legal? I don't think they would.

Originally Posted By sleestakwhisperer:
I think that these kind of threads ignore the fact that the USA is not governed by a precise set of laws.  

The laws are actually quite mushy, there is a lot of wiggle room in there for your neighbors to use to mess with your rights.

For example, "obscenity" is not protected as free speech under the 1st amendment, and here is the definition:

Speech or materials are obscene if: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the “prurient interest” (an inordinate interest in sex); (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as judged by national standards.

That is pure mush.  It's literally saying in plain English that if enough people think your speech is "obscene", then it's not protected.

These "let's open the registry by doing a lawsuit" threads always focus on precise technical applications of the law.  Which do not matter, because your neighbors have the ability to pass laws that hugely restrict the practical application of the 2nd amendment.  Ask your fellow shooters in NJ and CA and they'll tell you all about it.

I'm not trying to be discouraging, I'm saying that the registry will open when the general public wants it to.  The change will have to come from popular support, because of the way our laws and political system actually works in the practical sense.

I personally don't think it will ever happen, because there is an insane amount of gun crime in the USA, and the average voter will never want to make MGs cheap and widely available.   If you tell the average super market shopper who is squeezing cantaloupes (to determine freshness) that an M16 cost $30,000, they will be glad to hear it.

That's my humble 2 cents on it.

Like I said, I'm not trying to discourage anyone, if you think you can pull Excalibur from the stone, go for it.  In the meantime, buy a M11/9 before they cost $50k.

Originally Posted By Deerhurst:



Define mass amounts of gun crime. It's that raw numbers that mean nothing or percapita? Compared to what?

Originally Posted By sleestakwhisperer:



There is no objective definition as to what counts as "massive gun crime."  Subjective public perception is what defines it.

This thread is about opening the transferrable registry to new guns.  

I made the point that these threads always focus on technical details, like the semantics of how laws are worded.

My opinion is that these technical details are irrelevant, because the the public doesn't care, and the broad practical application of the law depends on public opinion.

Your neighbors have the ability to severely curtail what guns you can own.  They have done so your whole life and will continue to do so, because that's how our country's legal & political system works.  

About 6 months ago, Gallup did a poll and 63% of Americans described the "crime problem" in the U.S. as either "extremely or very serious".

When that many people are worried about getting their head blown off during a trip "into the city", you'll not see the transferrable registry open.   Fear is a powerful, primal emotion.

Opening the registry will take a grass-roots type push among the general public.  Take a friend or family member shooting.

Originally Posted By Deerhurst:



Then why did you bring it up if it has no definition and is irrelevant to the discussion?

Originally Posted By sleestakwhisperer:



The public perception of gun crime is not irrelevant, it's subjective.   And not only is it relevant to the discussion, it's actually the center hinge pin of the entire topic.

These NFA conversations always focus on technical application of the gun laws.  Right down to quibbling over the semantics.

But gun laws don't work that way: they depend on the subjective public perception of gun crime.

In New Jersey, people FEEL like gun crime out is of control, so THEY FEEL like forbidding their neighbors from owning a 30 round mag for their AR.

In Pennsylvania, half a mile away across the Delaware River, the public doesn't FEEL that way.  So THEY FEEL like letting their neighbor own a 30 round mag.

Same country, same federal laws, same Constitution, same geographical location, but different FEELINGS.  

Originally Posted By carl1000:
One thing people don't think about… Do you think the manufacturers would actually sell us machine guns if they all of a sudden become legal? I don't think they would. Do you really think FN and their legal team would think it was OK to put some M249's for sale at bass pro shop lol? As soon as some gangbanger got a hold of one of those legally or illegally, they would just ban machine guns all over again. We're having to fight 24/7 just to keep what we have right now much less making machine guns totally legal to buy. And as far as larger weapons like grenades, tanks etc., those manufacturers would never sell those to everyday Americans because of insurance and liability reasons. The insurance they would have to keep to sell some of those weapons would be unbelievable.

In the end, I don't think any of this is going to happen because we don't have a conservative utopia in this country. We can barely keep what we have right now. The stars would have to lineup so perfectly to get rid of the ATF in the NFA, that it's literally impossible. Now, if we get invaded by another country or something crazy like that, maybe we would see things loosen up as far as the second amendment.