Stupid Question

USP45usp · November 19, 2005, 11:28 AM

I've lived in many states, and some of them define a "machine gun" as firing more than 3 shots with a single triger pull. Yet the ATFE (government) defines it as more than one shot per pull.

With states (Oregon is defined as more than one so it goes with ATFE's def.

) FINALLY standing up to the feds on issues (like our death with dignity and the medical pot laws we have here (hey, didn't say I agreed with them, just like the idea of the states standing up to the feds)), if the state wouldn't bust you for having, would you buy?

(sorry, I know that the paragraph above really hurts to read).

The reason that I ask is that there is a small grass roots starting up in Oregon that wants to take the 9th's decision on MG's to heart and to change the legislature here to remove the wording of a MG and also to remove the "catch all" of "and all federal laws".

We figure that it's like the auto knife laws. Federal law states that you cannot carry/send an auto across state lines and then for a civilian (the People) to own. Yet, we here in Oregon can buy/own/carry auto knives because they are made in Oregon (Benchmade). So why can't the People buy/own MG's that are made in the same state?

I know that the government says they can't (the People) because the steel has to cross state lines... well, why does that apply to MG's but not to auto knives?

Wayne

*we know that in Oregon it will never happen unless things change but it's a start.

Hkmp5sd · November 19, 2005, 07:10 PM

One reason people in many states cannot make/own/possess homegrown machineguns is because in states that do not have a seperate registration, laws generally are written that only machineguns (and most NFA items) legally registered under federal laws are legal in the state.

USP45usp · November 20, 2005, 12:45 PM

HK, true.

BUT, states are already going against the feds on many issues, with Oregon leading on some (death with dignity and medical pot) and the 9th has issued a ruling saying that MG's made in the state are legal and that hasn't been overturned.

Granted, I'm too chicken to be the first test case but it's time to at least get on the "people who don't believe in the law with MG's" list, one of many that I'm sure that I'm on.

Wayne

Legion2600 · November 20, 2005, 04:32 PM

I believe there is a case in Montana where they have told the Feds to go F themselves with respect to guns. Not NFA in particular, but just guns. Their argument being that anything solely made within Montana and stays in montana does not effect the Commerce Clause therefore Feds have no authority. I hope more states do this.

Problem is SOMEBODY has to be the test case.

Cortland · November 20, 2005, 05:40 PM

Most machine gun states have laws which make all machine guns illegal, and then carve out an exception for those possessed in accordance with federal law. There are some exceptions, among others: Virginia's Uniform Machine Gun Act says nothing about federal law and I believe New Hampshire has no state machine gun laws at all.

So if you want to build a machine gun in your basement in the complete and utter absence of interstate commerce and you live in one of these states -- go for it. You WILL be a test case and you probably won't win, so just be prepared to lose everything you own and spend 10 years in prison.

There's the way things ought to be and then there's the way things are.

shaggy · November 22, 2005, 10:51 PM

Whether the particular gun or parts have traveled interstate or just intrastate is no longer an issue; Congress still has power to regulate guns and/or machineguns via the Commerce Clause.

Anyone remember US v. Stewart?

USP45usp · November 22, 2005, 11:48 PM

Shaggy,

Quote:

Whether the particular gun or parts have traveled interstate or just intrastate is no longer an issue; Congress still has power to regulate guns and/or machineguns via the Commerce Clause.

Then why doesn't this apply to auto knives?

As for the test case, I'm too damn chicken to do so. The 9th has given me the "permission" that I need and the state of Oregon really doesn't have the money, or the care (unless I use it in a local/state crime) to put me into jail. Just the feds, as they have said that they will attack the state with the death with dignity and the medical pot laws (and the state/people have already said that they will not bow down to them, same with most sheriffs departments).

I talk and talk but for the time being, I won't do anything. That's for men greater than I, and I will only follow.

Wayne

shaggy · November 23, 2005, 12:47 AM

Funny you should mention medical pot. US v. Stewart is the 9th Circuit case you mentioned earlier. Raich v. Gonzales was a marijuana case in CA that killed any hope for getting around the Commerce clause in US v. Stewart. It was essentially the case the put the nail in Stewart's coffin.

Here's a quickie version of Raich...

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1775/

Following the decision in Raich, Stewart was remanded back to the 9th for reconsideration in light of Raich.

As for auto knives, the feds could control auto knives if Congress wanted.

T. O'Heir · December 4, 2005, 02:16 AM

"...auto knives..." A what? Is that the same as a switch blade?

shaggy · December 4, 2005, 07:32 PM

Yup - automatic knives = switchblades.

backfromthefuture · December 18, 2005, 11:55 PM

I don't know what the big deal is about machine guns.
I got a stepdad and stepuncle who were Green Berets
and 2 cousins who were Marine Force Recon, i bet they
could do more damage with a 9mm pistol then I could
do with a fully automatic M-16, M-4, MP-5 or whatever.

BFF

November 19, 2005, 11:28 AM	#1
USP45usp Junior member Join Date: May 17, 2000 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 3,427	Stupid Question I've lived in many states, and some of them define a "machine gun" as firing more than 3 shots with a single triger pull. Yet the ATFE (government) defines it as more than one shot per pull. With states (Oregon is defined as more than one so it goes with ATFE's def. ) FINALLY standing up to the feds on issues (like our death with dignity and the medical pot laws we have here (hey, didn't say I agreed with them, just like the idea of the states standing up to the feds)), if the state wouldn't bust you for having, would you buy? (sorry, I know that the paragraph above really hurts to read). The reason that I ask is that there is a small grass roots starting up in Oregon that wants to take the 9th's decision on MG's to heart and to change the legislature here to remove the wording of a MG and also to remove the "catch all" of "and all federal laws". We figure that it's like the auto knife laws. Federal law states that you cannot carry/send an auto across state lines and then for a civilian (the People) to own. Yet, we here in Oregon can buy/own/carry auto knives because they are made in Oregon (Benchmade). So why can't the People buy/own MG's that are made in the same state? I know that the government says they can't (the People) because the steel has to cross state lines... well, why does that apply to MG's but not to auto knives? Wayne *we know that in Oregon it will never happen unless things change but it's a start.

November 19, 2005, 07:10 PM	#2
Hkmp5sd Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: Winter Haven, Florida Posts: 4,303	Nope...being a test case for a felony is no fun. One reason people in many states cannot make/own/possess homegrown machineguns is because in states that do not have a seperate registration, laws generally are written that only machineguns (and most NFA items) legally registered under federal laws are legal in the state. __________________ NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member

November 20, 2005, 12:45 PM	#3
USP45usp Junior member Join Date: May 17, 2000 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 3,427	HK, true. BUT, states are already going against the feds on many issues, with Oregon leading on some (death with dignity and medical pot) and the 9th has issued a ruling saying that MG's made in the state are legal and that hasn't been overturned. Granted, I'm too chicken to be the first test case but it's time to at least get on the "people who don't believe in the law with MG's" list, one of many that I'm sure that I'm on. Wayne

November 20, 2005, 04:32 PM	#4
Legion2600 Senior Member Join Date: June 11, 2005 Location: DFW Posts: 108	I believe there is a case in Montana where they have told the Feds to go F themselves with respect to guns. Not NFA in particular, but just guns. Their argument being that anything solely made within Montana and stays in montana does not effect the Commerce Clause therefore Feds have no authority. I hope more states do this. Problem is SOMEBODY has to be the test case.

November 20, 2005, 05:40 PM	#5
Cortland Member Join Date: May 24, 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 26	Most machine gun states have laws which make all machine guns illegal, and then carve out an exception for those possessed in accordance with federal law. There are some exceptions, among others: Virginia's Uniform Machine Gun Act says nothing about federal law and I believe New Hampshire has no state machine gun laws at all. So if you want to build a machine gun in your basement in the complete and utter absence of interstate commerce and you live in one of these states -- go for it. You WILL be a test case and you probably won't win, so just be prepared to lose everything you own and spend 10 years in prison. There's the way things ought to be and then there's the way things are.

November 22, 2005, 10:51 PM	#6
shaggy Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2004 Posts: 1,519	Whether the particular gun or parts have traveled interstate or just intrastate is no longer an issue; Congress still has power to regulate guns and/or machineguns via the Commerce Clause. Anyone remember US v. Stewart?

November 23, 2005, 12:47 AM	#8
shaggy Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2004 Posts: 1,519	Funny you should mention medical pot. US v. Stewart is the 9th Circuit case you mentioned earlier. Raich v. Gonzales was a marijuana case in CA that killed any hope for getting around the Commerce clause in US v. Stewart. It was essentially the case the put the nail in Stewart's coffin. Here's a quickie version of Raich... http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1775/ Following the decision in Raich, Stewart was remanded back to the 9th for reconsideration in light of Raich. As for auto knives, the feds could control auto knives if Congress wanted.

December 4, 2005, 02:16 AM	#9
T. O'Heir Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12,453	"...auto knives..." A what? Is that the same as a switch blade?

December 4, 2005, 07:32 PM	#10
shaggy Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2004 Posts: 1,519	Yup - automatic knives = switchblades.

December 18, 2005, 11:55 PM	#11
backfromthefuture Member Join Date: December 13, 2005 Location: Lawton/Ft.Sill, Oklahoma Posts: 41	I don't know what the big deal is about machine guns. I got a stepdad and stepuncle who were Green Berets and 2 cousins who were Marine Force Recon, i bet they could do more damage with a 9mm pistol then I could do with a fully automatic M-16, M-4, MP-5 or whatever. BFF