Patience?  I've been waiting since 1990 ( when I turned 21)!

Why is this a fight?  Founding fathers said The Right to Bear.  Why is one firearm singled out and banned?   Fight on.

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.

If you go back to before 1986, apparently Colt wouldn't sell M16's to non-LE and would pull an SOT's Colt dealer status if they did.  But once the guns were sold to LE, there's not much that the manufacturer can do about it if LE later resold the gun to someone else.  I used to have an M16 that was sold to a police department who later resold it.

FN or some other large manufacturers who primarily sell to government agencies might not sell machineguns directly.  But there's soooo many more manufacturers today that it wouldn't be a problem; some would.  You could always form 1 one, anyways.  Of all the things to worry about with legalizing new machineguns for the general public, this is pretty low on the list.

*Palmetto State Armory and Fenix Ammunition have entered the chat*

@ben

Bumping this because we all need it to happen.

I sir wish the opportunity to find out.

One thing I have found out about companies is they like money. I bet one will take mine, and if not... I will buy some shop tools and make my own piece by piece. (shrugs)

The quotes from the article, below, have dampened my hope of opening up the registry or repealing the NFA. I’m particularly surprised by some of the comments from the conservative justices considering intentionalist or purposivist arguments when their usually favored textualist arguments are so strong.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/supreme-court-divided-ban-rapid-fire-rifle-bump/story?id=107646810

Bump

Que up the Well  We're waiting meme

I have a mill, a lathe, and a welder...

you got recalled from being retired?

Coincidence.


Deep stare wanted to put a stop to this

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

@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.

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

JUSTICE ALITO, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no
other way to read the statutory language. There can be little doubt that the Congress that enacted 26 U. S. C.
§5845(b) would not have seen any material difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle equipped
with a bump stock. But the statutory text is clear, and we
must follow it.
The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not
change the statutory text or its meaning. That event
demonstrated that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock
can have the same lethal effect as a machinegun, and it
thus strengthened the case for amending §5845(b). But an
event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.
There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of
bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the
law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had
stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation
is clear, Congress can act.

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

I wonder if anyone at T Rex Arms would be willing to help put a "package" together.  This seems right up their alley as well.....I don't have any connections with them but maybe worth looking into.  It appears like-minded individuals would be linking up.

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.

That’s not at all how it comes across to me. He also had some troubling comments and questions in the hearing from what I recall of the little coverage that I saw.

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?

$100, if you get it done.

Thread should pinned.

OK, put me down for a Hundo as well.  I'd contribute to a GiveSendGo for legal expenses if needed (I don't recall @Ben thoughts on this).  Maybe if he has the right angle, SAF or FPC (GOA?) might also step in and help.

Trying to keep this thread alive

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 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.

It reads to me almost like he’s apologizing for the result that the law demanded and proposing a solution to rectify the outcome.

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.

They have had many opportunities to do what you’re describing with various AW bans and have not done so, yet.

Sometime before the end of the month, we are going to get a decision in Rahimi.  It will almost certainly limit Bruen.  The only question is how severely.  Prepare to be loved tenderly(pegged?) by Justice Barret.

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

Apparently unusual and dangerous is.


As we know common use is not anything unusual.

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.

Mr. Flevvy said common use is not a legal standard.


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

...and they will turn that around to say, "See?!  The MG ban works!"

Statistically the average CHL holder is less likely to commit a crime than a cop too. Is be willing to bet a legal MG owner is even lower.

If the registry ever opened, 1,000 companies would just reverse-engineer anything the public wanted.

You wouldn't be able to get an FN, but you'd be able to get an Schmep-N.

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.

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

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.

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

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.  

I FEEL machine guns should be legal? Does that do anything to change the law?

No.

Laws don't give a shit about your FEELINGS and I don't either.

The law defines something specific. I does NOT define FEELINGS. Hence why we look at real life and not your FEELINGS. We don't care about FEELINGS. We care about the law and what the law says.

The law defines a MG as a having a specific mechanical property. It does care if you FEEL it is a machine gun because it either is or it isn't as defined by a specific mechanical property. There is no questions, there is no way it can change without an act of Congress.

Look at it from a real life perspective, not a liberal made up perspective if FEELINGS.

If anyone can do it, Ben can.

We don’t need FN  or Colt or S&W.

All we need is a clear path to a Form 1 process.