KS - Fed judge strikes down full auto firearm ban

[Anti Federalist]

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1826684575088513453

[jmdrake]

[Invisible Man]

Thanks for posting this. This looks like very big news.

To be pedantic, I don't think it's accurate to call the law in question a machine gun ban. They aren't actually banned. It's just you have to pay a special tax and file certain paperwork to own them. It sounds like this case was about somebody owning one without having jumped through the right hoops and paying that tax.

[jmdrake]

Thanks for posting this. This looks like very big news.

To be pedantic, I don't think it's accurate to call the law in question a machine gun ban. They aren't actually banned. It's just you have to pay a special tax and file certain paperwork to own them. It sounds like this case was about somebody owning one without having jumped through the right hoops and paying that tax.

That's true of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/un...endix/download

But "Ronald Rayguns" infamous "Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986 had this nasty provision.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-100-Pg449.pdf

"(oXD Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
"(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
"(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or
a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision
thereof; or

"(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun
that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes
effect.".

The person in this case owned, among other things, a glock switch and those were not patented until 1996 and not even claimed to have been invented until 1987 so there's no way to claim to having "lawfully possed" one "before the date this subsection" took effect.

That said, I still see people on YouTube firing Glock switches that they claim are owned by someone who had a license for them. So how do they do that? Well....I'm not sure. But I think that can be done using a machine gun manufacturers license. (See: https://www.atf.gov/file/58221/download) I'm not a gun guy but I vaguely remember @Anti Federalist pointing out to me the differences between the 1934 act and the 1986 act some time ago.

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for posting this. This looks like very big news.

To be pedantic, I don't think it's accurate to call the law in question a machine gun ban. They aren't actually banned. It's just you have to pay a special tax and file certain paperwork to own them. It sounds like this case was about somebody owning one without having jumped through the right hoops and paying that tax.

@Invisible Man as @jmdrake rightly pointed out, yes, they are pretty effectively banned.

No new production has been allowed to be sold to the citizen's market since 1987, which means that even if you jumped through all the hoops, paid the $200 tax AND lived in a state that did not prohibit Class III weapons, you'll still be paying $20,000 for a clapped out AK or 9MM SMG that is really only worth $500 to a $1000 at most.

But I do not think that these laws will stand up much further in light of Heller and Bruen.

[Anti Federalist]

le bumpe

[Anti Federalist]

Oh and @jmdrake ...I beat ya.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...to-firearm-ban

[Anti Federalist]

That said, I still see people on YouTube firing Glock switches that they claim are owned by someone who had a license for them. So how do they do that? Well....I'm not sure. But I think that can be done using a machine gun manufacturers license. (See: https://www.atf.gov/file/58221/download) I'm not a gun guy but I vaguely remember @Anti Federalist pointing out to me the differences between the 1934 act and the 1986 act some time ago.

Here's my understanding of this.

For years ATF maintained that they could not regulate or ban parts that could used to "convert" a semi into a full auto until they were installed or machined into a weapon.

The 1986 FOPA changed that, and ATF then claimed the parts themselves could be banned. There went the legal sales of sear kits and trigger kits and spring kits for ARs and AKs and Uzis...I know, I used to have a mess of these kits before they were tragically lost overboard in a boating accident.

But ATF never really went after accessories that "clamped on" a trigger like "Hell Fires" and "bump stocks" or "Glock switches" and so on that required no machining or alterations...they did not have congressional authority to do so, as this was quite a leap from devices that required a gunsmith, metalworking knowledge and significant alterations. It was also rather silly, as a couple of rubber bands or even your trigger finger, held properly, can produce an "automatic fire" event.

Nor does the Executive branch have the authority to ban these accessories, as Trump found out with his bump stock ban in Cargill.

That's why this federal judge overturned the conviction of a man found guilty of possessing a "machine gun" simply by it having a Glock switch on it.

[TheTexan]

I might have to buy some diving equipment

[dannno]

I might have to buy some diving equipment

What are the best companies to own stock in that manufacture diving equipment?

[unknown]

Wait, a court that upheld the Constitution?

WTF???

[Swordsmyth]

Trump judge.

Trump-Appointed Judge Throws Out Machine Gun Possession Case

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-donal...ndment-1943769

[jmdrake]

Oh and @jmdrake ...I beat ya.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...to-firearm-ban

lol.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

[Invisible Man]

That's true of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/un...endix/download

But "Ronald Rayguns" infamous "Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986 had this nasty provision.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-100-Pg449.pdf

"(oXD Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
"(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
"(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or
a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision
thereof; or

"(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun
that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes
effect.".

The person in this case owned, among other things, a glock switch and those were not patented until 1996 and not even claimed to have been invented until 1987 so there's no way to claim to having "lawfully possed" one "before the date this subsection" took effect.

That said, I still see people on YouTube firing Glock switches that they claim are owned by someone who had a license for them. So how do they do that? Well....I'm not sure. But I think that can be done using a machine gun manufacturers license. (See: https://www.atf.gov/file/58221/download) I'm not a gun guy but I vaguely remember @Anti Federalist pointing out to me the differences between the 1934 act and the 1986 act some time ago.

@Invisible Man as @jmdrake rightly pointed out, yes, they are pretty effectively banned.

No new production has been allowed to be sold to the citizen's market since 1987, which means that even if you jumped through all the hoops, paid the $200 tax AND lived in a state that did not prohibit Class III weapons, you'll still be paying $20,000 for a clapped out AK or 9MM SMG that is really only worth $500 to a $1000 at most.

But I do not think that these laws will stand up much further in light of Heller and Bruen.

I stand corrected.

I like how the point about military use of weapons is getting used.

Proponents of gun control laws always like to say that certain weapons only have military use, as if that means that civilians shouldn't be allowed to own them. But the very words of the 2nd Amendment require that if a weapon has a military use that is precisely why the right of civilians to keep and bear it cannot be infringed.

[Anti Federalist]

I stand corrected.

I like how the point about military use of weapons is getting used.

Proponents of gun control laws always like to say that certain weapons only have military use, as if that means that civilians shouldn't be allowed to own them. But the very words of the 2nd Amendment require that if a weapon has a military that is precisely why the right of civilians to keep and bear it cannot be infringed.

I like it as well.

FPC is doing great work on this front.

[oyarde]

What are the best companies to own stock in that manufacture diving equipment?

Diving equipment market valued at 3.5 billion in 2023 expecting to reach 8.1 billion by 2035 according to 5/24/24 report by allied market research

[Swordsmyth]

Trump judge.

Trump-Appointed Judge Throws Out Machine Gun Possession Case


https://www.newsweek.com/judge-donal...ndment-1943769

I post this little fact in the US Politics thread which AF posted FIRST and all of a sudden the threads get merged and put in the less visible forum.
This topic is FAR more about US Politics than Personal Security and defense, nobody will be buying and using any kind of full auto gun for self defense any time soon, this will have to work its way through the courts all the way to SCOTUS first.

This is exactly like when my thread about Trump promising to ban CBDCs got banished to the Crypto forum.