Are MG's legal since 1991?

SUBMAN1 · 07-01-08, 09:32 PM

Ummm... Why is it that MG's are still illegal if the courts have already decided on this?

-S

Quote:

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are dismissed.

The gov never appealed this decision in 1991.

Yahoshua · 07-02-08, 11:54 PM

could you post the source for this so we can read the whole document?

SUBMAN1 · 07-03-08, 12:05 AM

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/cour...ock_island.htm

I'd say anyone that wants a machine gun can probably have one based on this ruling that clearly makes any ban unconstitutional. Unchallenged by the United States Gov!

-S

SUBMAN1 · 07-03-08, 12:13 AM

This may be an easier to read version - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...ock_island.txt

-S

Yahoshua · 07-03-08, 12:27 AM

These statements really struck me:

"Id. at 512, 57 S.Ct. at 555. In other words, the defendant contended that the Tenth Amendment power of the states to regulate firearms in their criminal codes was an exclusive power not delegated to the federal government."

"No federal jurisdiction existed to enforce alcohol Prohibition, because the Eighteenth Amendment had been repealed. Id. Similarly, no federal jurisdiction exists to ban mere possession of machineguns, and the NFA provisions at issue are not supported by the tax power to the extent they enforce a prohibition rather than taxation. "

"The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)."

"In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are

DISMISSED."

WOW

I'm holding onto my horses and checking to see if this case was ever overturned or appealed before I start jumping for joy.

Stealth Hunter · 07-03-08, 12:42 AM

I knew a black guy who bought an AK-74, but he had to appeal to the state before they allowed him to own it. He must also keep permits with him, when he shoots it, at all times and must agree to have checks done on it regularly. Don't know if it was modified to be single-shot, though.

SUBMAN1 · 07-03-08, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I knew a black guy who bought an AK-74, but he had to appeal to the state before they allowed him to own it. He must also keep permits with him, when he shoots it, at all times and must agree to have checks done on it regularly. Don't know if it was modified to be single-shot, though.

That sounds like a registerable AK-74. ie. it is fully automatic to be under those restrictions. You can have one too if you have the $$$.

-S

Ducimus · 07-03-08, 12:23 PM

Why would you want to own a Machine gun? Going to war? :rotfl:

I know why you can't own MG's, Nobody wants to see something like Colombine or any other mass shooting incident one could name, being executed with something like an M60E3. Thats just insane.

SUBMAN1 · 07-03-08, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Why would you want to own a Machine gun? Going to war? :rotfl:

I know why you can't own MG's, Nobody wants to see something like Colombine or any other mass shooting incident one could name, being executed with something like an M60E3. Thats just insane.

Umm, because that doesn't happen? If you did a little research, you would know that every citizen in the US of A can buy an M-60 if they really want it. There are plenty in civi hands right now. But gee! no one shoots anyone with them! imagine that?

Whacko kids can't afford one in the first place, let alone the bullets to make it work.

-S

Ducimus · 07-03-08, 12:37 PM

Wacko kids don't buy guns, they "borrow" them from relatives most likely then not. Im not gonna argue this one. My stance has always been the same with military hardware.

Its a tool designed for a specific job. Military hardware is designed for one specific purpose, and for no other purpose. To kill people. Excepting the case of self defense, killing people is generally considered illegal in the civillian world, and so long as thats true, why the fascination of owning tools to do a job that you cannot legally do as a civillian?

Personnally, i think all this military hardware hysteria, is simply that people think their cool. I know i do, i think for target shooting their alot of fun. But, people don't really *NEED* them, they just think their cool. Unless your in a uniform, you really don't have any buisness owning them.

And besides, even if you could get one off the shelf at your local turners, they'd be so stripped down and euthianized, it would be pointless to own one. Ever see the californian regulation compliant AR 15? What joke. It can no longer accept a box magazine. the magazine limited to a few rounds and was made internal. You have to release the rear retaining pin and slide the upper receiever with the bolt cariage and charging handle up as if you were going to field strip it, and insert rounds one by one into the internal magazine.

So.. phhht why bother either way.

SUBMAN1 · 07-03-08, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Wacko kids don't buy guns, they "borrow" them from relatives most likely then not. Im not gonna argue this one. My stance has always been the same with military hardware.

Its a tool designed for a specific job. Military hardware is designed for one specific purpose, and for no other purpose. To kill people. Excepting the case of self defense, killing people is generally considered illegal in the civillian world, and so long as thats true, why the fascination of owning tools to do a job that you cannot legally do as a civillian?

Personnally, i think all this military hardware hysteria, is simply that people think their cool. I know i do, i think for target shooting their alot of fun. But, people don't really *NEED* them, they just think their cool. Unless your in a uniform, you really don't have any buisness owning them.

And besides, even if you could get one off the shelf at your local turners, they'd be so stripped down and euthianized, it would be pointless to own one. Ever see the californian regulation compliant AR 15? What joke. It can no longer accept a box magazine. the magazine limited to a few rounds and was made internal. You have to release the rear retaining pin and slide the upper receiever with the bolt cariage and charging handle up as if you were going to field strip it, and insert rounds one by one into the internal magazine.

So.. phhht why bother either way.

Well you're talking about Kalifornia where nothing is legal practically. 47 states see things the way they should be. 3 or so have identity issues - Kali being one of them.

An M-60 registerable will be the real deal, not stripped down, fully auto, though Kali doesn't permit them. You need to leave that messed up state.

Guns serve many purposes, and military guns serve a purpose in civi life as well.

-S

VipertheSniper · 07-03-08, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Well you're talking about Kalifornia where nothing is legal practically. 47 states see things the way they should be. 3 or so have identity issues - Kali being one of them.

An M-60 registerable will be the real deal, not stripped down, fully auto, though Kali doesn't permit them. You need to leave that messed up state.

Guns serve many purposes, and military guns serve a purpose in civi life as well.

-S

UMMMMM seriously, what purpose do military guns have in civil life exactly? Guns like the M-60 for example? I guess even penis enlargement would be cheaper than getting an M-60 as a potence prothesis. Well that's just polemic, but I really can't think of another reason to own a fully-fledged MG, than having a my gun is bigger than yours issue of some kind.

SUBMAN1 · 07-03-08, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

UMMMMM seriously, what purpose do military guns have in civil life exactly? Guns like the M-60 for example? I guess even penis enlargement would be cheaper than getting an M-60 as a potence prothesis. Well that's just polemic, but I really can't think of another reason to own a fully-fledged MG, than having a my gun is bigger than yours issue of some kind.

As i said before and asked you before - Why not?

-S

VipertheSniper · 07-03-08, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

UMMMMM seriously, what purpose do military guns have in civil life exactly? Guns like the M-60 for example? I guess even penis enlargement would be cheaper than getting an M-60 as a potence prothesis. Well that's just polemic, but I really can't think of another reason to own a fully-fledged MG, than having a my gun is bigger than yours issue of some kind.

As i said before and asked you before - Why not?

-S

I've answered in the other thread, hadn't seen you had posted there, before I wrote here.

SUBMAN1 · 07-03-08, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

UMMMMM seriously, what purpose do military guns have in civil life exactly? Guns like the M-60 for example? I guess even penis enlargement would be cheaper than getting an M-60 as a potence prothesis. Well that's just polemic, but I really can't think of another reason to own a fully-fledged MG, than having a my gun is bigger than yours issue of some kind.

As i said before and asked you before - Why not?

-S

I've answered in the other thread, hadn't seen you had posted there, before I wrote here.

And I replied already!

-S

07-02-08, 11:54 PM	#2
Yahoshua The Old Man Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,493 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	could you post the source for this so we can read the whole document? __________________ Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua

07-03-08, 12:05 AM	#3
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	http://www.constitution.org/2ll/cour...ock_island.htm I'd say anyone that wants a machine gun can probably have one based on this ruling that clearly makes any ban unconstitutional. Unchallenged by the United States Gov! -S __________________

07-03-08, 12:13 AM	#4
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	This may be an easier to read version - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...ock_island.txt -S __________________

07-03-08, 12:27 AM	#5
Yahoshua The Old Man Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,493 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	These statements really struck me: "Id. at 512, 57 S.Ct. at 555. In other words, the defendant contended that the Tenth Amendment power of the states to regulate firearms in their criminal codes was an exclusive power not delegated to the federal government." "No federal jurisdiction existed to enforce alcohol Prohibition, because the Eighteenth Amendment had been repealed. Id. Similarly, no federal jurisdiction exists to ban mere possession of machineguns, and the NFA provisions at issue are not supported by the tax power to the extent they enforce a prohibition rather than taxation. " "The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)." "In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED." WOW I'm holding onto my horses and checking to see if this case was ever overturned or appealed before I start jumping for joy. __________________ Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua

07-03-08, 12:42 AM	#6
Stealth Hunter Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Y'ha-Nthlei Posts: 4,262 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	I knew a black guy who bought an AK-74, but he had to appeal to the state before they allowed him to own it. He must also keep permits with him, when he shoots it, at all times and must agree to have checks done on it regularly. Don't know if it was modified to be single-shot, though.

07-03-08, 12:23 PM	#8
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Why would you want to own a Machine gun? Going to war? :rotfl: I know why you can't own MG's, Nobody wants to see something like Colombine or any other mass shooting incident one could name, being executed with something like an M60E3. Thats just insane.

07-03-08, 12:37 PM	#10
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Wacko kids don't buy guns, they "borrow" them from relatives most likely then not. Im not gonna argue this one. My stance has always been the same with military hardware. Its a tool designed for a specific job. Military hardware is designed for one specific purpose, and for no other purpose. To kill people. Excepting the case of self defense, killing people is generally considered illegal in the civillian world, and so long as thats true, why the fascination of owning tools to do a job that you cannot legally do as a civillian? Personnally, i think all this military hardware hysteria, is simply that people think their cool. I know i do, i think for target shooting their alot of fun. But, people don't really NEED them, they just think their cool. Unless your in a uniform, you really don't have any buisness owning them. And besides, even if you could get one off the shelf at your local turners, they'd be so stripped down and euthianized, it would be pointless to own one. Ever see the californian regulation compliant AR 15? What joke. It can no longer accept a box magazine. the magazine limited to a few rounds and was made internal. You have to release the rear retaining pin and slide the upper receiever with the bolt cariage and charging handle up as if you were going to field strip it, and insert rounds one by one into the internal magazine. So.. phhht why bother either way.