The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 29, 2012, 09:42 AM   #51
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,791
22 LR only.

A good place to start.

I think some sitting congresspeople would likely support it.

I could have fun

Many of the founding fathers owned artillery pieces. Load a field artillery piece with grapeshot and you have a weapon much more dangerous than most machine guns.
Quote:
Doesn't a new, select-fire M4 for under 2K sound pretty good?
As I understand it they wouldn't be anymore expensive than the semi-auto ones.

Might be a good idea to start repealing the ATFE decisions surrounding the Hughes amendment, such as no open bolt, etc.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; March 29, 2012 at 09:53 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 12:17 PM   #52
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,482
Quote:
The best way to step toward repealing ( or at least circumventing) Hughes would be for real, state-sanctioned militia to authorized private purchases of M4s and M16s, etc. for militia training and use... This can't be pre-textual, it has to be an actual state militia.
Here's an idea that sure to spur some interesting debate...

Piggyback the militia* on top of a state's "Shall Issue" CHL program. IOW create something of a two-tiered system. The bottom tier is your traditional (so to speak) CHL program. The top tier goes through the same background check system and adds some additional classroom instruction and range training with FA weapons. It could be called something like a "Special Militia Weapons License" (SMWL).

The state could require people who wish to buy machine guns to hold a SMWL, giving the legislation some cover as a "public safety" measure. Here's the clincher: word the state law such that it specifically authorizes SMWL holders to "legally purchase... military-type machine guns and assault rifles" but does not tie the purchase directly to compliance with the NFA or Hughes Amendment. When a SMWL holder attempts to purchase a factory-new select-fire M-4 rifle- just like the Army uses and therefore very obviously "military-type"- the purchase will be denied under the Hughes Amendment and the matter can go to court.

Discuss.

*Before someone raises this as an objection, IIRC the Militia Act of 1903- the law that created the National Guard- very specifically does not preclude states from sanctioning armed militias in addition to the Guard. I'm just too lazy to look up the text right now.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old March 29, 2012, 12:26 PM   #53
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Piggyback the militia* on top of a state's "Shall Issue" CHL program.
I like it. The state's militia could be statutorily define as an LE agency, therefore the exemption for law enforcement agencies would be all that is needed to bypass the NFA regulation.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 01:17 PM   #54
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,880
Quote:
As I understand it they wouldn't be anymore expensive than the semi-auto ones.
There's no reason for a select fire M16 or M4 to be significantly more expensive than a semiauto. I imagine they'd be in the $1100-1500 range; you wouldn't want a budget level one, so the price floor would be about what the nicer ARs are going for now. Factor in the extra hole in the lower, the cost of the extra parts for the fire control group (or just part if it's full auto and not burst), and the paperwork hassle for the maker (assuming they stay NFA), and I'd expect no more than a $200 premium, likely much less.
Technosavant is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 02:56 PM   #55
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,791
But LEO can't OWN a machine gun. Their agency can issue them one.

There is one way this will be categorically challenged in court. A whole bunch of otherwise respected and law abiding citizens get together in one place, call the ATFE and tell them they are currently converting their semi-auto guns to full auto. You get a thousand respectable recordless people together, all chipping in some money for a legal defense fund, and the government has a little bit of a problem.

You'll never find the thousand people though.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 7, 2012, 01:14 AM   #56
David Hineline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 1999
Location: South Sioux City, Nebraska
Posts: 704
6 million dead Jews agreed with SilentScreams that they had no need for machineguns during Nazi regime. How well did that work out for them?
David Hineline is offline  
Old April 7, 2012, 06:22 AM   #57
dayman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,071
I'm gonna agree with SilentScreams on this one. But, not because I believe the founding fathers would have agreed. I honestly can say I don't know, and don't care care what a bunch of long dead politicians would have thought one way or the other. I do know where they stood on owning other people, so we don't always see eye to eye anyway.
I like the fact that automatic weapons are hard to get, because all the people I personally know that go on about how much they want machine guns (and don't have them) have no business owning them. I'm glad "Bubba" up the hill does not have a M2.
A lack of specifically fully automatic weapons is pretty far down on the list of factors that allowed the Nazi's to commit genocide. I'm pretty sure we can avoid that without them.
We have to draw a line somewhere - the hyperbolic argument always being we don't want people having their own ICBM's. Personally I'm good with that line being set at fully automatic weapons. I think the system we have works pretty well.
You certainly don't have to agree - that's the awesome thing about the democratic system - but it does prove the point that even within 2A supporters there's no universal agreement on the issue. Project that onto the population in general, and I really don't think there's a lot of support.
Now, right to carry, reciprocity, and deregulating suppressors are fights I can get behind.
dayman is offline  
Old April 7, 2012, 07:29 AM   #58
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,791
Quote:
it does prove the point that even within 2A supporters
For some 2A supporters that line is set at single shot shotgun, or maybe double barrels if you can prove you are a registered member of a sporting club that regularly shoots doubles.

I am not entirely comfortable with the idea of Thomas Payne owning a flintlock. He was pretty much bonkers. Of course, without him the American Revolution probably never comes close to happening. Do we want to wipe out that piece of history via regulation?

Obviously, many do.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 7, 2012, 07:31 AM   #59
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,258
Quote:
6 million dead Jews agreed with SilentScreams that they had no need for machineguns during Nazi regime.
If you can point out a direct correlation between the inability of civilians to own machine guns under the Nazi regime and the Holocaust, we'll listen. Otherwise, let's not stray into Godwin territory.

Quote:
I honestly can say I don't know, and don't care care what a bunch of long dead politicians would have thought one way or the other.
Well, some folks do. If they didn't, the Heller case would have gone very differently, and we wouldn't be where we are today.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 8, 2012, 02:35 PM   #60
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
There is no constitutional requirement for a person to be a part of a militia to bear arms... it is a civil right... The fault lies in that our ancestors believed the right would never be significantly questioned and certainly would not have imagined that it would be denied or "taxed" into a denial..

The way forward as I see it is for a case at the SCOTUS to spell out that arms are a civil right and that they may be borne anywhere lawfully that is not a specifically denied area or serves some special government interest... I do believe this is what the founders intended.... I also believe that it was the intent that anyone not actively imprisoned or jailed pending trial or actually in police custody would have and would always have the right to bear arms...

I believe the original intent was if you are not fit to live and be trustable in public then your execution or permanent jailing was required and that if you are fit for release then in the original nation your rights were returned without any court order being necessary. (Expungement un-necessary in the original intent)

Of course just to be up front in the old days if you were a felon you generally were hanged so they had few repeat offenders...

Our nation has wandered so far from the original intent of the 2A as to be ludicrous. It is direct fault of our representatives past and current and of the judicial systems lack of willingness to make clear cut rules in detail. It is also the direct fault of the voters not being responsible citizens in continuing to vote for those who are clearly for unconstitutional laws.

In my opinion (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) you have the right to buy whatever, but at this time our nation has enacted laws both constitutional and unconstitutional to restrict what was never intended to be restricted. What we need is someone with a crazy amount of money, guts and a few thousand lawyers on retainer and a willingness to take it all the way and to keep doing so until the court spells it all out.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; April 8, 2012 at 04:46 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old April 8, 2012, 04:18 PM   #61
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,791
We are getting off track enough I can't imagine this will persist much longer, but I am quite certain judicial review does not extend to making clear cut rules. I am not at all sure the founders intended judicial review to be anything close to as powerful as it is now and certainly not more powerful. I do think it is necessary to maintain a real checks and balances, although I doubt that was why John Marshall expanded the powers as he did.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; April 8, 2012 at 04:40 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 8, 2012, 04:54 PM   #62
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
The 2A looks pretty straight forward and yet.... and yet most congressmen and women and most senators now and in the past are or were lawyers. People who should have a better idea of the founders origional intent... yet they clearly vote for unconstituional laws with a total lack of concern and alarming regularity.

The problem is we have evolved into mob rule... whoever has the majority makes the rules without regard to the minority.... A very specific thing the founders worried about and took steps (electorial college) to try to prevent.

We better thank our lucky stars for judicial review or there would be no balance to "group think" in law....
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; April 8, 2012 at 10:20 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Reply

Tags
ban , class 3 , full auto , hughes amendment , machinegun

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12138 seconds with 7 queries