Heller decision and machine guns

[32ndgeorgia]

What is the likelyhood of an eventual decision that removes the Reagan 1986 executive order banning the registration of new machine guns?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that mg's would be considered militia weapons.

Maybe some legal eagles could give their opinions.

[AliYahu]

Originally posted by 32ndgeorgia
What is the likelyhood of an eventual decision that removes the Reagan 1986 executive order banning the registration of new machine guns?
It wasn't an EO it was part of the FOPA.

Eli

[tuck0411]

Constitutional or not, it seems most decisions from SCOTUS these days come down to personal agenda/opinion by many of the justices, so I would think it would depend on Scalia's ability to persuade at least four other justices that machine guns are not "dangerous or unusual". The chance of that seems slim, IMO.

[thunderchicken]

No ametralladoras, cabron.

[Azrial]

If the law was repealed for one day I would file to convert my DSA!

[1gewehr]

The decision certainly lends substance to a suit to repeal the 1986 MG ban.

It absolutely bans an entire class of weapons.

[republic]

Clearly the language of the 2nd Amendment finds these federal laws repugnant to the natural rights from whence it is derived. As to the legal outlook, I would say that the banning of classes of firearms would be ripe for review and removal. I don't even understand how the federal government can legislate on any firearms manufacture, modification, or sale unless it is across state lines. State laws may differ, but to ensure a republican form of government (guaranteed of all states by the US Constitution), it is necessary for the people to have the ability to throw off a repressive government, and that means military arms and privately owned crew served weapons. I would think that the PRK would be ripe for this type of a case to be brought to the federal level.

From a purely classical-liberal/libertarian viewpoint, there is no justification for any restriction on firearms (or other military hardware save chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons) for an otherwise law abiding (i.e. property rights respecting) citizen.

I think I found the source of the confusion, Bouvier's Law Dictionary does not define the words SHALL and NOT, with this in mind, I can see how the supreme court would be confused as to how to interpret the clearly confusing language of the 2nd Amendment.

republic

[republic]

Originally posted by Azrial
If the law was repealed for one day I would file to convert my DSA!

Good double entendre.

republic

[Manedwolf]

I might see where they'd not allow machine guns because they're not in "common use", thanks to the 1986 ban. Vicious circle. :P

On the other hand, it would seem to kill any chance of a new AWB, because rifles based on the AR and Kalashnikov platform are very much so in common use.

[TheOtherChris]

COLUMBIA V. HELLER
Opinion of the Court in District of
Bottom of page 55 and top of page 56

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

So Scalia clearly postulates that banning M-16 rifles would detach the 1st half of the amendment from the 2nd half.
Since they have ruled that such a detachment is unsound, such weapons are permitted. He adds that even though it "may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

This opens the door to invalidate Hughes.
While the court affirms the right to license and regulate, an outright ban is not permitted and to severely limit the number of MGs at a level far below the number of individuals permitted to own them is a defacto ban.

So, it is my opinion that an individual's challenge to the prohibition to make a new MG has a great chance for success. (Though I don't have deep enough pockets to take it on.)

[Manedwolf]

I'm just a bit annoyed that he trotted out that ancient liberal canard.

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

That's part of a two-part liberal contradiction used against guns for the purpose of 2A.

Part 1: "Small arms are useless against tanks and bombers!"

Part 2: "We can't win in Iraq because all of the people have AKs and sniper rifles and they keep hitting our people when they poke their heads out of the tanks."

So which is it, liberals?

[Heat]

The only way we are going to get our rights restored is to_________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______!__________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________.____________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________!!________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______.__________________________________________ ________________________________.
Thats how you do it!

[101ABN327]

?????????????

[101ABN327]

I would file immediate form 1's on everything in this picture plus about six more!

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/19020Rhodie_R-1_Stable_003.jpg