New York Firearms Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is it just me?

I just posted this thought in another thread, though I think it deserves a thread of its' own...

Am I alone in thinking these cases arguing that semi auto "AWs" are protected and mentioning Miller are missing the big picture in that full auto weapons are already protected by the 2A and already confirmed by the SCOTUS precisely BECAUSE they have legitimate use for military purposes *per* Miller??????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Using the argument from A Christmas Story in this case is no different from Skretny using info from mother****in jones- its irrelevant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,514 Posts
Let's try to get a victory on the basis of common use for semi-autos before we try for the militia angle and autos. After all, we've been moving away from the idea of a militia-based 2nd Amendment for some time towards the individual...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
The federal ban, and first infringement on the 2nd Amendment, came in the middle of the last century and, unfortunately, it is now accepted by nearly everyone. This is the way gun-grabbers operate. Enact or pass some outrageous restriction and hope it sticks. Not only did this one stick but it became the basis for all subsequent gun control.
 

·
Postmaster General
Joined
·
23,073 Posts
Full autos. Too dangerous, unless you have the cash.

o_O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
The federal ban, and first infringement on the 2nd Amendment, came in the middle of the last century and, unfortunately, it is now accepted by nearly everyone. This is the way gun-grabbers operate. Enact or pass some outrageous restriction and hope it sticks. Not only did this one stick but it became the basis for all subsequent gun control.
For one thing, there is NOT a federal ban on full auto weapons. Under federal law it is legal to own full auto weapons, it just takes a $200 tax stamp. I believe congress specifically steered away from an outright ban because they believed it may violate the 2A. Federal law only bans making and selling new full auto firearms. That is based on the comerce clause so it is not as clear cut to challenge. SCOTUS already said you cannot charge a fee to exercise a right when wealth has no relation to the right (striking down a poll tax of ~$1). You could challenge the $200 tax on those grounds, which raises the question of are they protected arms? This runs the risk of SCOTUS saying the tax is allowed because they are not protected- which then opens door to an outright ban.

NY state has an outright ban on full auto- which was enacted back when 2A was thought to only apply to the federal govt. Now, post McDonald, it should be possible to challenge that and open NY to federal legal weapons. Again runs the risk of SCOTUS saying they are not protected.

Problem with Miller is that the Court did not actually come out and explicitly say that arms related to military purpose are protected-- it only said that arms not related to military purpose are not protected. A very fine, and non existent difference, but the problem is there is not an explicit test stated by the court- you cannot easily pull an outright quote from the Miller decision to put in brief. You need to lay out the argumemt that this is what it means, and the converse of what they said is true. Stupid, but this is where lower judges find wiggle room.

This is likely a series of cases unless SCOTUS gets a conservative judge and starts being broad in their decisions. 1) challenge NY state ban 2) challenge the $200 tax 3) challenge the ban on new manufacturer.

Perhaps it is easier for someone in another state to challenge the tax. Striking a tax on what is considered a legal weapon, especially when the legislature failed to ban due to constitutional concern, may be more palitable to the courts and most likely to win. Then taking down the state ban is easy. Once that is open it will be an argument about needing to let 2A overrule the comerce clause power- a ban on mamufacture eventually leads to an effective outright ban. If the cant ban, but can stop all manufactue, eventually all pre existing wil break and none exist- none exist, none can be made, and none can be sold, but thats not a ban? Someone (maybe a reservist) could claim they want to buy a M249 to get their own practice in on off duty time to maintain skills needed in militia.

Biggest stumbling block is what the Heller and McDonald decisions say about full auto-- these were actually addressed and the Justices said some things along the lines of those decisions NOT striking the full auto ban. The state will be able to pound on those quotes. In truth, the Justices stopped short of saying the ban is ok and that machine guns are not protected, but that may rewuire too high a level of reading comprehension for some judges to understand. The quotes do leave the door open to challenge the machine gun prohibitions, but it stopped short of actually comingnout and saying one way or the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
They don't ban the manufacture OR sale of new ones- they've allowed millions upon millions to be made and sold since the bans went into effect! You just have to be one of "them" to qualify

They only ban new ones from being sold to We The People.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
If you really want to get mad, read the actual history of the case, amongst the worst and most unjust decisions the Court has ever rendered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,206 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
So why dont we start preparing the case now for when these "AW" cases are behind us and we have new leadership in DC who respect the supreme laws of the land?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Cases challenging the ability to infringe on the 2A by using the Commerce Clause have already been through the federal court system, and as usual been denied cert by SCOTUS. Try your preferred seach engine for 'MSSA v Holder', the Firearms Freedom Act and the statements by Gary Marbut.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
So why dont we start preparing the case now for when these "AW" cases are behind us and we have new leadership in DC who respect the supreme laws of the land?
Is there a way that we can use their own strategy against them? Let's start a campaign to overturn the NFA firearms ban in New York State. Then we can compromise and say "OK, we'll settle on just getting rid of the SAFE act and ensuring all semi-auto firearms are legal".

That would be a win-win everyone can be happy with right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
For one thing, there is NOT a federal ban on full auto weapons. Under federal law it is legal to own full auto weapons, it just takes a $200 tax stamp. I believe congress specifically steered away from an outright ban because they believed it may violate the 2A. Federal law only bans making and selling new full auto firearms. That is based on the comerce clause so it is not as clear cut to challenge. SCOTUS already said you cannot charge a fee to exercise a right when wealth has no relation to the right (striking down a poll tax of ~$1). You could challenge the $200 tax on those grounds, which raises the question of are they protected arms? This runs the risk of SCOTUS saying the tax is allowed because they are not protected- which then opens door to an outright ban.

NY state has an outright ban on full auto- which was enacted back when 2A was thought to only apply to the federal govt. Now, post McDonald, it should be possible to challenge that and open NY to federal legal weapons. Again runs the risk of SCOTUS saying they are not protected.

Problem with Miller is that the Court did not actually come out and explicitly say that arms related to military purpose are protected-- it only said that arms not related to military purpose are not protected. A very fine, and non existent difference, but the problem is there is not an explicit test stated by the court- you cannot easily pull an outright quote from the Miller decision to put in brief. You need to lay out the argumemt that this is what it means, and the converse of what they said is true. Stupid, but this is where lower judges find wiggle room.

This is likely a series of cases unless SCOTUS gets a conservative judge and starts being broad in their decisions. 1) challenge NY state ban 2) challenge the $200 tax 3) challenge the ban on new manufacturer.

Perhaps it is easier for someone in another state to challenge the tax. Striking a tax on what is considered a legal weapon, especially when the legislature failed to ban due to constitutional concern, may be more palitable to the courts and most likely to win. Then taking down the state ban is easy. Once that is open it will be an argument about needing to let 2A overrule the comerce clause power- a ban on mamufacture eventually leads to an effective outright ban. If the cant ban, but can stop all manufactue, eventually all pre existing wil break and none exist- none exist, none can be made, and none can be sold, but thats not a ban? Someone (maybe a reservist) could claim they want to buy a M249 to get their own practice in on off duty time to maintain skills needed in militia.

Biggest stumbling block is what the Heller and McDonald decisions say about full auto-- these were actually addressed and the Justices said some things along the lines of those decisions NOT striking the full auto ban. The state will be able to pound on those quotes. In truth, the Justices stopped short of saying the ban is ok and that machine guns are not protected, but that may rewuire too high a level of reading comprehension for some judges to understand. The quotes do leave the door open to challenge the machine gun prohibitions, but it stopped short of actually comingnout and saying one way or the other.
cant buy new ones, only whats out there, I believe 1986 is the cutoff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
cant buy new ones, only whats out there, I believe 1986 is the cutoff.
So when the remaining ones break beyond repair or go out of circulation due to owner's natural deaths and such, BOOM! You've got a ban. It may take a while but eventually...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,522 Posts
the attack on the 2a has been going on for a long time. unfortunately past generations didnt fight hard enough to defend the 2a so now we are stuck with things like the Sullivan act of 1911, and the NFA of 1934
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,575 Posts
I JUST finished reading the NYSRPA brief. My head is spinning. Likely no more legalese reading or thinking until Monday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,101 Posts
cant buy new ones, only whats out there, I believe 1986 is the cutoff.
Which limits the supply, which makes the prices go up, which makes them completely unaffordable to the average Joe, which creates a de-facto ban.

Not that there is enough supply to allow everyone who wants one to own one anyways.

The tax stamp is the least of the issues as far as I can tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
depends on what you want...an M16 or M4 variant will run at least 20k...for a registred drop in Auto Sear...same price. There are more economical options...Mac10/11s run for around 5k.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top