1986
- Thread starter Dead
- Start date
Dennis Olson
New member
You mean the GCA of 1968, right?
The answer would be, um, NO!
The answer would be, um, NO!
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
No, Dennis; the "no newly manufactured full-auto for civilians" deal passed in '86.
Generally, regardless of subject, no law of any degree of foolishness will ever be repealed. To do so, Congress and a President would have to admit to foolishness on their part or by their predecessors. Egomaniacs never apologize.
, Art
[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited September 20, 2000).]
Generally, regardless of subject, no law of any degree of foolishness will ever be repealed. To do so, Congress and a President would have to admit to foolishness on their part or by their predecessors. Egomaniacs never apologize.
, Art[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited September 20, 2000).]
MP Freeman
New member
Hate to put an optamistic post on this apparent doom-and-gloom thread, but remember that it will only take one proper case in the SCOTUS to send the entire house of cards falling down.
Regards,
MP
Regards,
MP
Eric Blair
New member
FWIR from SAR article:
According to ?Higgins? of Hard Times Armory, the language is in the '86 FOPA to allow transfers. The FOPA gives exemptions to Military, LEO and "gov't approved" entities. According to ???, this should include EVERYONE, as Form 4's and 1's are gov't approved.
As I remember, he didn't make to SCOTUS, as money and will power gave out.
If the ATF decided, they could accept Form'4 as is for Post 86's. Then it would be up to HCI or who ever to sue to SCOTUS to stop it.
I understand it won't happen, but I can dream.
(I'll try to find the reference on Bardwell's site.)
According to ?Higgins? of Hard Times Armory, the language is in the '86 FOPA to allow transfers. The FOPA gives exemptions to Military, LEO and "gov't approved" entities. According to ???, this should include EVERYONE, as Form 4's and 1's are gov't approved.
As I remember, he didn't make to SCOTUS, as money and will power gave out.
If the ATF decided, they could accept Form'4 as is for Post 86's. Then it would be up to HCI or who ever to sue to SCOTUS to stop it.
I understand it won't happen, but I can dream.
(I'll try to find the reference on Bardwell's site.)
That is true, "gov't approved entites" Even by passing NIC's you are a "gov't approved entity" unless they there is some wording of the "entity" part.
Ok here is the defintion of "entity"
en·ti·ty (nt-t)
n., pl. en·ti·ties.
Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
The fact of existence; being.
The existence of something considered apart from its properties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok I got ummm $50 (and I get paid on Friday) in my pocket.. Who else will chip in for this fight?
------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
[This message has been edited by Dead (edited September 21, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Dead (edited September 21, 2000).]
Ok here is the defintion of "entity"
en·ti·ty (nt-t)
n., pl. en·ti·ties.
Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
The fact of existence; being.
The existence of something considered apart from its properties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok I got ummm $50 (and I get paid on Friday) in my pocket.. Who else will chip in for this fight?
------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
[This message has been edited by Dead (edited September 21, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Dead (edited September 21, 2000).]
Eric Blair
New member
I found my SAR. (12/99, Vol3 No3)
It was J.D. Farmer from Hard Time Armory. He tried to file a personal Form 1 to create a new FA in 1989. ATF turned him down, so he appealed. "US District Judge J. Owen Forrester agreed that the ATF's interpretation of the law was unreasonable and therefore an abuse of descretion."
"The government appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit took a narrow view after hearing the arguments from both sides when it declared, "The issue is whether section 922(o) of FOPA prohibits the private possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986," and found that the statute had indeed banned private ownership of automatic firearms. "We have considered Farmer's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit," the court asserted in reversing forrester's order."
SCOTUS then refused to hear the case when it was appealed by Farmer and Lawyer Stephen Halbrook. (Halbrook is the lawyer for the Emerson case also)
The case is Farmer Vs. Higgins.
Eric
(All the above information is from a Small Arms Review article by Robert Hausman. If you care about FA, subscribe! 1-207-683-2959 or www.smallarmsreview.com )
It was J.D. Farmer from Hard Time Armory. He tried to file a personal Form 1 to create a new FA in 1989. ATF turned him down, so he appealed. "US District Judge J. Owen Forrester agreed that the ATF's interpretation of the law was unreasonable and therefore an abuse of descretion."
"The government appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit took a narrow view after hearing the arguments from both sides when it declared, "The issue is whether section 922(o) of FOPA prohibits the private possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986," and found that the statute had indeed banned private ownership of automatic firearms. "We have considered Farmer's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit," the court asserted in reversing forrester's order."
SCOTUS then refused to hear the case when it was appealed by Farmer and Lawyer Stephen Halbrook. (Halbrook is the lawyer for the Emerson case also)
The case is Farmer Vs. Higgins.
Eric
(All the above information is from a Small Arms Review article by Robert Hausman. If you care about FA, subscribe! 1-207-683-2959 or www.smallarmsreview.com )
For a decent ruling on it read Rock Island Armory v USA. The 7th Circuit ruled that it was unconstitutional to have to register a machine gun after 86 because Registration is only legal in as much as it deals with taxation, and since they are no longer collecting the tax, registration is unconstitutional.