A suggested framework for a 922(O) argument
The argument should be based on the following:
1) Under a 'militia basis' the manufacture, possession, transfer, and ownership of machine guns are protected because they are arms in 'common use' by the military. Dellinger conceded that point in his opening remarks and Justice Ginsberg brought it up as well. If we are using the contemporaneous examples as well as the descendant argument for militia weapons, then machine guns and - more radical peers of mine - artillery are the *prime* examples of what modern people should have in their homes and communities since early colonial settlers such as Pennsylvania banded together to purchase cannon and drilled with the Pennsylvania Rifle (itself the bleeding edge of technology for it’s time), so from a purely ‘militia’ view, an MG is just fine.
2) Under the 'individual rights' basis, the manufacture, possession, transfer, and ownership of machine guns are protected since the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The ability of the individual to be familiar and proficient with military arms is dependent on his or her individual ability to keep and bear them for use.
3) The purpose of the RKBA and the militia at their core is to ensure Liberty; the Second Amendment is the 'last resort' for a populace who no longer has a means for redress either in the Courts or in the Congress. It is the means of the populace overthrow a Tyrant or a Tyrannical government and restore the Constitution to the original framer's intent.
As it stands now, there are no challenges on the books on a 2A basis that I have been able to find after 2 years of looking and I haven't seen a single appeal to SCOTUS on that basis. This may change after June