Supreme Court Ruling on Heller & the 1986 Prohibition

A

Anthony

New member
Hello Everyone,

After reading Justice Scalia's opinion earlier today I was left wondering how the ruling would effect the 1986 prohibition of the manufacture of new full auto weaponry for civilian consumption. In his opinion, Justice Scalia discusses the types of weapons covered by the second amendment and goes so far as to use the M-16 as an example. Now I am not a lawyer, but I was quite moved by it. Shortly thereafter I read the below article on the Fox News Channel's website pointing out that:

"The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html

Thoughts?

Any legal minds on the board?

_________________
Anthony
 
I wish - but I believe that Scalia affirmed that 'reasonable restrictions' were still allowed.

I would love to have it otherwise, but I dont foresee it happening. And no one is going to fight for it either. NRA is great, but they have no dog in the full auto fight. I'm afraid that one may be lost to us forever.
 
I think the NFA rules and regs for owning a full-auto could be considered reasonable restriction.
 
I wish - but I believe that Scalia affirmed that 'reasonable restrictions' were still allowed.
Click to expand...
He also inserted weasel phraseology regarding 'dangerous' and 'unusual' arms. On the one hand you can argue there's nothing 'unusual' about an M-16. Probably half the folks on this board had to learn to shoot them when we were in the service. But on the other hand a sharp stick is pretty 'dangerous'. I remember when my sister was three she was running with a sharp stick and tripped, jamming it into her throat. She would have died if my father hadn't had good first aid training. :eek:

I think the NFA rules and regs for owning a full-auto could be considered reasonable restriction.
Click to expand...
I think that you getting my permission to post is a reasonable restriction of your first amendment rights. Just send me a p.m. whenever you want to contribute and I'll get back to you within 3 months or so. :rolleyes: Reductio ad absurdum.

Seriously though, you might want to consider the interstate commerce clause, reasonable limitation of the power of the central government and the probability that the NFA might never have been instituted if they'd had instant background checks in 1934.;)
 
If this isn't inviting a challenge, I can't imagine what would

Scalia:
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 lim-
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
 
My worry is the antis will find some way of limiting ammo, or powder, Banning lead ammo. ( you gotta watch out for the condor ya know) Or just not letting you have ammo at all.
 
ronl said:
I think the NFA rules and regs for owning a full-auto could be considered reasonable restriction.
Click to expand...

A complete ban on select fire weapons made after 1986 is not reasonable.

And we have to appeal the GCA of 68, not 86, for if it were not for the former, there would be no latter.
 
reality check

No matter how much we here might wish for a repeal of the NFA of 34, we aren't going to get it. While we ought to be able to, if this country actually lived according to the principles of the Founders, there has been entirely too many lies, disinformation, and out right BS over the past 70 years, and there just are not enough of us to change the minds of the bulk of the nation, and our elected representatives. Not that we shouldn't try, after all, miracles do sometimes happen. But we need to face reality. We should hit hard those things we actually stand a chance of achieving!

What the court's ruling says to me (among other things) is that we have a very good basis for killing all the "semiautomatic assault weapon" crap. But ti do so we will have to (temporarily) give up on the repeal of full auto weapons restrictions. Repeatedly mentioned, in conjunction with the term militia, is the phrases "ordinary" and "in common use", outside of those weapons actually serving in the military.

Now, it can (and will) be argued that as far as ordinary citizens (the militias) go, the M16 is not "ordinary and in common use". They will sieze on this fact, and it is a true fact, since no full autos are "in common use" (they will exclude licensed MG owners from being considered) since 1934, due to the federal law. They will argue that since the M16 is not in "common use" that under the ancient definitions used in the Supreme Court ruling, it is not a suitable militia weapon, and therefore may continue to be restricted. They will ignore the "military application" standard, and cling desperately to the "in common use" language, because that all they've got. Nothing else can be even remotely twisted into an argument favoring their goals.

They will scream at us, "by our own Supreme Courts definition, these dangerous and unusual weapons are not in common use, and so must continue to be regulated!"

And I say, let them! Because that very argument destroys any basis for regulating semiautomatic firearms, especially of military appearance. These kinds of guns are clearly and uncontrovertably "in common use"!

Let them fight to continue to regulate M16s and belt feds (we will fight that fight later, and we will fight it!), because doing so clearly invalidates any and all restrictions on AR 15, AKs, magazine capacity limits, pistol grips, and that dreaded and deadly "thing that goes up"!

This court decision and its wording gives us the basis for fighting to repeal the NFA (and the 86 ban as a first step), and the only argument that the anti's can use makes their bans on semiautos unconstitutional!

So, we have a high court ruling that 1) we have the right to keep guns in our homes for self defense, separate of any militia connections, AND 2) it give us the groundwork for making all our guns "in common use" protected as "militia weapons".

The anti gunners are teetering on the edge of a cliff, and the branches of the tree they are holding on to are cracking, while the roots are slowly pulling out of the ground! The time is not yet for the bulldozer to uproot the whole tree, but we can help things along with a little judicious use of the pruning saw!

It will take time, and money, and things will have to be wrangled out in various courts, but if we keep the faith in the Founders principles and raise our children properly, so that they continue to do the same, in time that whole evil tree can be just splinters at the bottom of the cliff and actual liberty (not just freedom) may once again return to these United States!

(applause)


Thank you, thank you...I'll be here all week.;)
 
Great post, 44 AMP.

For the record, I was not suggesting we overturn GCA 34, but the 1986 ban on civilians owning "machine guns" manufactured after 1986. Although others in the thread suggested it. I agree that overturning GCA 34 would be very difficult in today's political climate, but lifting the 1986 ban might be more feasible with the court's ruling. Not easy by any means, but more feasible than GCA 34.

- Anthony
 
Remember in "Heller" the SC was looking at an outright ban on a certain class of firearm (handguns). They said certain regulations may be permissable, but not an outright ban. Under 1986 FOPA, a de facto ban was placed on full auto weapons. Prior to 1986, they were regulated under the 1934 NFA which many people would consider "reasonable" regulation. "Heller" could be used as a challenge to the '86 ban, but the regulations from '34 would still stand.

Just need to take it one step at a time. Chigaco and NYC are good first steps.
 
Nobody will know the answers to any of these questions until the laws are challenged. I think the freeze and the tax and the LEO singoff may be things that eventually fall under a reformed NFA, but we'll have to wait and see.
 
Basically all that would be needed would be one very rich collector to file one request to make one machine gun from a parts kit and a new receiver, then hiring the lawyers to see his suit through the courts. Its not going to happen because if he wins then he stands to lose market value on the machine guns he already owns. That would be sort of like fighting the zoning laws for the privilege of putting a trailer park next to your million dollar mansion. :o

ronl, I was just making a point, good buddy. You don't have to ask my permission to post! I was just pointing out that what seems reasonable to one person may seem arbitrary and restrictive to someone else.
 
One could make the argument that the only real reason to have a machine gun would be to use in ones role in the militia. Therefore, the government would need to maintain a registry of machine gun owners in the event of needing to call forth the militia, machine gun fire support could be evenly distributed among militia units. Personally I'd like to see registration done away with, but this is just one argument that could be made. The arbitrary CLOE sign off and the 1986 ban do contradict "Heller". It wouldn't take a rich person to challenge it if a bunch of us could donate to pay for a single case. Heck I might put up with the NFA requirements to buy or build a machine gun it weren't for the 1986 ban and CLEO sign off.
 
I've been wondering if the CLEO signoff couldn't be arguable on the basis of discrimination since corporations which own firearms are exempt from it. Couldn't one argue that it discriminates against individuals? :confused:
 
The cleo sign off is discrimination because they are under no obligation to sign off and there's not a lot you can do if they don't. Could you imagine if in order for someone to receive federal social security benefits, they had to get a local social services worker to sign off, and it were totally arbitrary? Heck, at least with nfa, you're trying to put money into the treasury. And that's the real kicker, they make it hard as they can for someone to pay a tax. :confused:
 
nra.jpg

Perhaps its time to actually do that.
 
Now would be a really bad time to challenge the machinegun ban. Kennedy was teetering on the edge of ruling against us or Heller would have gone further. That much was obvious from the ruling. Presented with machine guns he will go the other way. The smart thing to do is get (holding my nose) McCain elected and one-two more conservative justices on the court and then and only thing go back for machine guns.
 
M16's ARE the most common weapon in use at this time

M16's ARE the most common weapon in use at this time for Military purposes. I believe that owning such weapons should be allowed, but with a much higher degree of regulation and oversight than rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Why not at least start by allowing honorably discharged military personnel to keep them? After all, they were entrusted with much more dangerous weapons during their service to our country.

Ex-military folks don't suddenly become a risk to society just because they turned in their uniforms. Imagine the benefit of having a reserve of such folks among us, standing ready in the event of natural and unnatural disasters.

During an national emergency, these folks could even help "organize and regulate" the rest of us who perhaps have only standard AR15s and the like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top