Gun Owners of America Challenges Federal Machine Gun Ban

[TomKoz]

On November 2, Gun Owners of America (and its foundation) joined forces with Dick Heller -- the very one who beat DC's gun ban before the Supreme Court in 2008.

 

Working in tandem, Gun Owners filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in support of a challenge to the federal machine gun ban, which was stuck on at the last minute to an otherwise pro-gun bill in 1986.

 

First and foremost, Gun Owners argues that the "arms" protected by the Second Amendment include fully automatic weapons, and that Supreme Court opinions have bolstered this view.

Our brief explains that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, but about the preservation of liberty.

 

 

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/gun-owners-of-america-challenges-federal-machine-gun-ban/#IVvMFrLqk6zQUeiF.99

[MrTriple]

This is something that needs to be addressed sooner or later, but I worry this might not be a good time. We're getting hit hard over so-called "assault weapons", especially with Paris and the various school shootings, and I worry this could be a good case filed at the wrong time.

[DomG]

This is something that needs to be addressed sooner or later, but I worry this might not be a good time. We're getting hit hard over so-called "assault weapons", especially with Paris and the various school shootings, and I worry this could be a good case filed at the wrong time.

Agree. Wrong time and will only cement opposition to all "assault weapons". Go after this when the climate is right.

[Trevis]

I think getting silencers off NFA would be better. Though, honestly, with how glacial the pace of this stuff goes... it could be many years before anything even remotely useful comes of the case.

[Teufel Hunden]

If automatic weapons are rolled as protected under the 2nd Amendment, that poetry much makes all "assault weapon" band unconstitutional, no? Pretty hard to argue that it is okay to ban something because of cosmetics when automatic weapons are available at the same time.

[chislinger]

If automatic weapons are rolled as protected under the 2nd Amendment, that poetry much makes all "assault weapon" band unconstitutional, no? Pretty hard to argue that it is okay to ban something because of cosmetics when automatic weapons are available at the same time.

If we lose Friedman this lawsuit has no chance. I don't know why they didn't wait until semi-auto AWBs are ruled on before filing this suit.

[mic6010]

And then the supreme won't hear it just like every other guns case.

[TyGuy]

I have no desire to own a fully automatic firearm, but they should be legal

[Hap]

Godspeed GOA.

[Xwing]

I imagine this suit is a longshot. But it would be nice to not have the federal ban which makes machine-guns cost $30k and up, since all manufactured since 1986 are illegal. Even if Illinois removed their silly state-wide ban, they are too expensive for the vast majority of us here to own as it stands.

[defaultdotxbe]

I think getting silencers off NFA would be better. Though, honestly, with how glacial the pace of this stuff goes... it could be many years before anything even remotely useful comes of the case.

I'd like to see SBR definitions loosened so that modifying a rifle into an otherwise legal handgun is exempted

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

[Jeffrey]

 

This is something that needs to be addressed sooner or later, but I worry this might not be a good time. We're getting hit hard over so-called "assault weapons", especially with Paris and the various school shootings, and I worry this could be a good case filed at the wrong time.

Agree. Wrong time and will only cement opposition to all "assault weapons". Go after this when the climate is right.

 

I think you'd be waiting a long time for a "right climate." Gun laws as a whole have become more in our favor in the last few years, IMO. Why not try this now?

[Trevis]

I think you'd be waiting a long time for a "right climate." Gun laws as a whole have become more in our favor in the last few years, IMO. Why not try this now?

It's like spending your whole paycheck on lottery tickets. It might pay off, but the odds aren't great. I suppose it's got to be dealt with eventually anyway. It's just that there are many incremental steps before it which have a higher likelihood of happening.

[I Hate Gunlaws]

I imagine this suit is a longshot. But it would be nice to not have the federal ban which makes machine-guns cost $30k and up, since all manufactured since 1986 are illegal. Even if Illinois removed their silly state-wide ban, they are too expensive for the vast majority of us here to own as it stands.

Supposedly some of the fiercest resistance to lifting the ban on newly manufactured MG's comes from the very people that currently own transferables. I've read where many see them as simply an investment piece, and who can blame them at those prices, and fear the loss in value that would happen nearly overnight with the ban lifting.

 

Gun owners sometimes have a way with working against each other, and themselves.

[Gamma]

Amazing how filing an amicus brief on appeal somehow becomes their organization fighting the war.

[mullet man]

 

I imagine this suit is a longshot. But it would be nice to not have the federal ban which makes machine-guns cost $30k and up, since all manufactured since 1986 are illegal. Even if Illinois removed their silly state-wide ban, they are too expensive for the vast majority of us here to own as it stands.

Supposedly some of the fiercest resistance to lifting the ban on newly manufactured MG's comes from the very people that currently own transferables. I've read where many see them as simply an investment piece, and who can blame them at those prices, and fear the loss in value that would happen nearly overnight with the ban lifting.

 

Gun owners sometimes have a way with working against each other, and themselves.

 

Yup. +1

[BradS]

 

I imagine this suit is a longshot. But it would be nice to not have the federal ban which makes machine-guns cost $30k and up, since all manufactured since 1986 are illegal. Even if Illinois removed their silly state-wide ban, they are too expensive for the vast majority of us here to own as it stands.

 

Supposedly some of the fiercest resistance to lifting the ban on newly manufactured MG's comes from the very people that currently own transferables. I've read where many see them as simply an investment piece, and who can blame them at those prices, and fear the loss in value that would happen nearly overnight with the ban lifting.

 

Gun owners sometimes have a way with working against each other, and themselves.

Yep, it is all about the money.

 

I know of one LGS which used to be a member of the National Association of Stocking Gun Dealers.

 

The NASGD teamed up with the Violence Prevention Center to close the "gunshow loophole". The VPC is just a branch of the Brady Campaign.

 

But hey, more business and transfers for the brick and mortar gunstores instead of the kitchen table FFL's.

[BradS]

The NFA act of 1934 requires the $200 stamp for suppressors, SBR's, etc.

 

If you were to adjust that $200 for inflation, then that $200 tax stamp would now cost about $3,500 in 2015 money.

[Xwing]

Supposedly some of the fiercest resistance to lifting the ban on newly manufactured MG's comes from the very people that currently own transferables. I've read where many see them as simply an investment piece, and who can blame them at those prices, and fear the loss in value that would happen nearly overnight with the ban lifting.

 

Gun owners sometimes have a way with working against each other, and themselves.

 

 

I understand their point of view. If it were legal in Illinois, I would consider selling some stocks and having an automatic firearm as an investment. But in reality, I very much doubt the approval of a few thousand gun owners who already have them is what's holding up the lifting of this ban. They are inconsequential in the bigger picture. What's holding it up is that the media has so scared people about these firearms, the liberal nanny-state politicians feel quite safe in keeping this ban. Few mainstream politicians have the stomach to fight for it, since they would be portrayed as being proponents of crazy mass-murder and the like. Given how successfully the media has inaccurately portrayed semi-automatic tactical rifles, I don't see it happening.