Are MG's legal since 1991?

[SUBMAN1]

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

-S

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National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional.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]

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

[SUBMAN1]

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]

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

-S

[Yahoshua]

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"No federal jurisdiction existed to enforce alcohol Prohibition, because the Eighteenth Amendment had been repealed.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]

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]

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