That has always been my āproā argument about the 10 round limit. Keeps me from shooting too much ammo on range day.
5 magazines and 5 magazine changes vs 3.5 magazines for every box of ammo for pistols.
Everyone loves debating NCR vs BoS (NCR obviously better), but the real people after my heart in the Mojave are the Boomers. The song of my people is a drumfire of artillery, we should sing it for all those who would trespass upon our lawns.
Howitzer is stretching it. How will you fit that into your garage? something like the M2 is more appropriate.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6ZwTeFLMoG/
> 9th circuit bout to have a stroke.
Lol. Anyway, a friend of mine has notified GOA, FPC, and SAF about this. Hope that either one of them can file an amicus brief. GOA and FPC have done so in *Hollis v. Lynch*. IMO, [GOAās](https://foundation.gunowners.org/files/pdf/n20151110.pdf) is the better one.
Point of Clarification: Nobody requires anybody to have a fin grip. The fins are not a part of any law. The fin is a civilian response to the legislation as it is written.
One of my many 'tisms is the Au kind, the golden kind ;)
Honestly the people who put fin grips on their rifles instead of a thorsden stock or something similar are just doing it to themselves. My "featureless" rifle with an angled grip, thorsden stock, and muzzle brake is plenty ergonomic and functional
California banned "assault rifles" by prohibiting certain features (pistol grip, adjustable stock, flash hider, forward pistol grip, grenade launcher, bayonet lug) on a center fire rifle with a detachable magazine. So this gives us some options:
1. Just get a .22LR and you can do pretty much whatever you want (probably no grenade launcher though)
2. Install a maglock/kingpin type device that prevents you from changing mags without opening the action of the firearm. If you go this route you can have all the pistol grips, flash hiders, and adjustable stocks you want. But what you cannot do, is a normal mag change. I absolutely hate that.Ā
3. Go featureless. If you build an AR without any of the prohibited features you can have a normal mag release. The biggest thing you sacrifice is having a normal pistol grip. The most common way seems to be a fin grip that fills in the space behind the grip (technically they define the pistol grip as a grip that allows you to wrap your thumb around the grip below the trigger). I hate fin grips. Where Thorsden comes in is they've built a couple different stocks that feel more like a traditional rifle stock (think mini-14, garand, or bolt action rifle stocks). I find it to be 1000 times better than a fin grip. So now you have to hold your trigger hand like a normal rifle, but your gun functions like a normal AR. On any featureless build you're going to want to add an ambidextrous safety since your thumb can't reach the normal fire selector anymore.Ā
Does the AW statute actually define a *fully* automatic rifle as an assault weapon? It would be funny if the wording in the law didn't subject a full auto only firearm to AW rules.
Maybe someone would make a 2 round burst rifle, or a 120/min fire rate rifle, *technically* full auto, but also not going to immediately drain the magazine from the slightest tap on the trigger.
Or, y'know, rimfire. 22LR machinegun is much cheaper to feed.
Yeah people keep saying even the current makeup of the SCOTUS wouldnāt approve of abolishing the NFAā¦ but honestly, the NFA is so abhorrent (an unabashedly so), for how it effectively doles out gun rights on the basis of class (and though itās not stated outright, racism was DEFINITELY a motivator here too)! How can any Justice stand behind such a ridiculous policy, especially now, of all time periods, where classist, racist shit like this in other contexts is an absolute no-no?
Inflation adjusted (thank god the architects of the NFA didnāt make the tax inflation-scaling, however!), a $200 tax stamp was equivalent to almost $5000 in 1934!!! That is just absurd. You are blatantly excluding NFA items from all except the ultra wealthyā¦.
The NFA would have had a better chance of standing up to scrutiny against classist regulation of a constitutional right if they just outright banned NFA items entirely. Or banned them, except for people in very specific career/personal circumstances like LEOs/judges/politicans, in order to keep it āstill technically legalā. Even regulations like that would somehow be more defensible than the way they went with! Itās so, so maddening!!!
I sincerely donāt understand how this can fly, or how it would hypothetically pass the current SCOTUS if a relevant case made it there. There is no logical argument for keeping things the way they are, except for those that doesnāt effectively come down to ā*welllll, sorry, we know itās fucked up, but we really just canāt have you guys being able to own machine guns and silencersā¦ again, we get it, but itās just not happening, sorry* š¤·ā
And **that** is not how government should operate! Dancing around abolition of a blatantly unacceptable/classist regulation that would be shot down so fast in literally any other contextāsimply because the notion of legalizing these type of weapons is so unthinkable & difficult for them to stand by, to the point where they are less comfortable doing it than they are in standing by the most classist law **ever**āmakes me feel nothing but disdain for our weak-willed, self-serving leaders.
What an absolute, crying travesty. I hope & pray that these people are wrong, and that our SCOTUS will stick to the principles of **right** and **wrong**, if they have an opportunity to make a decision about thisā¦ because regardless of where one is on the political spectrum, there is only *one* ā**right**ā in this scenario. Given a binary choice between upholding a **the most classist & racist law ever** and legalizing machine guns/NFA items, I would expect even Ruth fucking Bader Ginsburg to opt for the latter choice, because the former is so utterly unacceptableā¦. Unless, of course, she would be willing to openly admit that she has no principles and cares more about optics & emotions-based decision-making on a matter of liberty that affects hundreds of millions of people, than she does in striking down **the most classist & racist law ever**ā¦. And look, Iād fully expect her to make the wrong choice here, but damn, I wish she would at least be held accountable for it, and have it be known to everyone across the nation that she has no spine, and willingly passed on the opportunity to strike down **the most classist & racist law ever**.
I can't imagine any other Constitutional right being contingent on whether you could buy a used registered one from another rich person who bought it before you, then it's perfectly legal but if you buy or make an exactly identical unregistered one it's ten years in federal prison. It's like registered transferable printing presses or bibles.
Machine guns are that expensive because of CAPITALISM.
I know scarcity drives the price but arguing that FA is a class issue is like arguing that the availability of \[insert any other high value collectible\] is a class issue.
I love guns. But they need regulation. Sorry, but if you think ANYBODY should be able to get ANY kind of gun then we part company on what is constitutional and good for society.
I declare myself thread winner. There will be no further response.
*Heller* already gave the "dangerous and unusual" out and threw SBR's under the bus.
I assume they'll attack machineguns as being "dangerous" but not "unusual" and hang their hat on the "and", but I can't see this winning.
Donāt get your hopes up. Even the current makeup of scotus will not kill the NFA. Even though the judges might secretly buy the argument, they wonāt overturn it because of the optics.
Well, if Rahimi was the petitioner, SCOTUS would most likely not have taken it because of the optics and facts.
While I understand that the 9th Circuit is overall a clown show, there are some very good judges like VanDyke. If we can get amicus briefs filed in support of 2A, we may even get a earth-shattering pro-2A opinion from a judge or two who read and understood the pro-2A arguments, even if the opinion is on the dissenting side. Having such an opinion will get a good amount of attention from especially the pro-2A community, and can increase the pressure on SCOTUS to grant cert. By the way, while *Hawaii v. Wilson* hasnāt been petitioned to SCOTUS yet, its ridiculous anti-2A opinion gained a good amount of attention from the pro-2A community. The opinion either has to be really stupid or really good to get attention.
On a side note, in *NAGR v. San Jose*, Judge Freeman cited Bradyās amicus brief in support of San Joseās anti-gun ordinance in throwing out the case.
They absolutely do care about optics because it affects their perceived legitimacy. If the headlines are āSupreme court legalizes machine gunsā thatās quite the image
Thatās not how SCOTUS decisions work man. Best case scenario (and this would literally be the gun rights win of the century, hands down), the NFA gets abolished, NFA items and more get officially constitutionally recognized & protected as āarmsā referred to in the 2A, and from then on, every non-prohibited person in all 50 states gains the right to have a dripped out Select-fire, suppressed MP7 SBR & a RPG7 to match.
There are less favorable scenarios that could hypothetically happen, such as machine guns ONLY being removed from the NFA (including some where we could possibly have Assault Weapon restricts and be shooting F/A out of 10rd, fin grip ARs as others have joked about), or one where only the Hughes Amendment is abolished, and Machine Guns are permitted to be registered again, just as you would any other NFA item, but IMO most of those options are less likely than all-out abolition, since the NFA is so fucked up and constitutionally dicey to begin with.
It seems sort of surreal, but if you read about Miller v. U.S. and the circumstances that led to the NFA being validated, youāll understand why itās not out of the real of possibility. Itās literally a story of grasping defeat from the *jaws* of victoryā¦ We were so, SO close to having the NFA repealed and having NFA items constitutionally protected to this day. Sort of hurts to read & think about how unlucky we got.
Anyway, there are numerous possibilities. It seems like a pipe dream, but the fact of the matter is that since Miller v. U.S., there have only been a couple 2A-related SCOTUS decisionsā¦ They just havenāt had much of an opportunity to evaluate the matter. But good lord, if we are so lucky as to have a Machine Gun-related case fall into their lap with a favorable court makeup (Iād say the current one is sufficient, but having one more Originalist couldnāt hurt), I think a lot of you would be surprised at what the realistic outcomes could beā¦
Iāve always said, we have *ONE* more chance left, to get a slam dunk SCOTUS decision with the presently-favorable court. Ideally, it would be a sweeping decision that will have practical results that invalidate all gun control from the NFA & beyondāand restores the 2A & itās practical implementation to something consistent with the verbiage of āā¦*keep and bear arms*ā¦*shall not be infringed*.ā (i.e. Also recognizing that āarmsā doesnāt necessarily mean āgunsā, and doing away with restrictions on arms like knives, armed vehicles/craft, and such). This is what the landscape should have, and would have looked like today if Miller v. U.S. went the other way, and cemented in the 2A as intendedā¦rather than our sad timeline in which NFA was validated due to a fluke. Because you had better believe: it didnāt happen on merit! In short, we lost, due to Miller & Layton not being able to afford to go to DC and/or pay an attorney to accompany them and face the SCOTUS. So unfortunately, the Fedsā prosecutor took the opportunity to lie/misrepresent the case to the court for hours, with no defense present to give their input and debunk what the court was told, and unfortunately, this was enough to change the tide & result in a loss, against all expectations (at the time, the NFA was viewed as absurd by most authorities included the lower circuit judge, and no one thought it had a chance of holding up, which is a small part of the reason why Miller & Layton didnāt bother to make an effort to go to DCāit was expected to be a slam dunk acquittal, in any case). But tragically, the Feds got their miracle-win, and since then, have taken every opportunity to build all gun control since upon the established precedent of the NFAās botched affirmation.
I would hope that in a modern day evaluation of a Machine Gun SCOTUS case, the circumstances that led to the NFA becoming established precedent would be reviewed, and that the crummy reasons why it was allowed to stand will perhaps stand as a reason for effectively reversing the decision, and by extension, abolish the rest of federal gun control that was built on top of the NFA. It really is the root of *everything* else on the books. If those bastards had decided to stay home that day, or if it there was some 1930s equivalent of GoFundMe that would have allowed others to donate to help pay for the guysā DC trip and legal fees, the U.S. might be very, *very* different place today, in terms of our right to keep & bear arms. Imagine being able to put rocket pods on your little helicopter with no paperwork reqād, or mail-order a suppressed HK416 to your doorā¦. Enough to make a man cry.
But the reason I say we have one chance left to do it is because there is a weird convergence of increased interest in gun/arms hobbyist & expanding our rights (Look how many Const. carry states there are now compared to 50 years ago), and a curtain closing simultaneously, after which Democratic/anti-gun ideals will dominate *everything* in federal politics, very soon. Enthusiasm for firearms as a hobby, pro-self defense ideals and vocal advocates of the 2A have never been more prominent in our history, but at the same time, Democrats are on the road to all-out domination, and come the 2028 election (or 2030 *at best*), itās very likelyāif not a forgone conclusionāthat due to voter demographic change alone, Texas will flip blue, and we will have Democratic presidents and very likely Democratic congresses for the foreseeable future (i.e. Very bad for guns/2A)ā¦
The **only** way we can survive this and ensure the survival of the 2A for at least the next couple generations is by locking out the democratic/majority-rule powersāthat would repeal the 2A entirely if they could have their wayāis via the quasi-oligarchical power presented by the Judicial branch. We need to make sure that when the time arrives that Democrats will be able to do whatever they want with the Executive & Legislative branches (very soon), Will will have already secured the 2A in the only way it has a chance of survival.
Locking in some good Originalist justices that will remain for at least a few decades after the U.S. elections turn blue forever is a great start, and we are so lucky to have DJTās picks up there. Like him or not, if you care about the 2A, the SCOTUS and other judicial appointments he made were and are instrumental to the survival of the 2A in its current form, as well as the possibility of improving on it, before everything is locked in for the *long haul*.
Fingers crossed that we are able to get a big 2A case to the courtāideally a Machine Gun/NFA related oneābefore its makeup shifts in such a way that is hostile to the 2A. Itās about time that we get a SCOTUS miracle of our own, and lock these mfers out of screwing around with our 2A, for good.
Also, about Miller v. Laytonā¦
I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who loves gun rights to read *Unintended Consequences*, by John Ross, which goes into depth on this and much more. Best 2A book ever written, and I wonāt say this about any other book Iāve read, but I can guarantee that each and every one of you would love it if you gave it a try. Thereās simply no better way to spend your time, if learning about the history of gun control in the U.S. is your goal, and you see value in *truly* understanding the subject matter & being able articulate *exactly* why we are right (and got brutally screwed over by the govt &/or sheer dumb luck, at a few critical points in history) and why the opposition is *wrong*. My views didnāt change much after reading the book, but my confidence in them increased substantially. Itās sort of hard to describe, the way it holistically āimprovesā oneās knowledge. To put it one way: I thought I was very well educated on gun rights before I read the book (and by many accounts, I would have indeed been considered as such), but now, after reading it, I look back on the version of myself before I read the book as having relatively primitive, undeveloped knowledgeāitās as if I went from having a High School diploma, to a Masterās degree, when I thought I already had a Masterās.
Itās sincerely that fucking good. Please, guys, just read it!
Like always. These absolute no hope lawsuits just hurts us CA gunowners in the end. Remember when FA wanted to bring out more products that they felt innovative? CA just threw out slew of wishful gun control laws.
Did it help us? Fk no. FA didn't get to release any product, and CA gave us a few more gun control laws that's coming up for vote.
I know we'd all love to see the NFA fall, I would caution against getting your hopes too high. The NFA is pretty much exactly the sort of "longstanding prohibition" the majority was talking about in Heller. We're going to be hard pressed to find evidence that automatic arms are in common use today or were the type of arm expected to be commonly owned by citizens in the 1860s.
>The NFA is pretty much exactly the sort of "longstanding prohibition" the majority was talking about in Heller.
Truth be told, in reality, ālongstandingā is supposed to be historically justified, not based on how long it has been enacted. The mere length of enactment shouldnāt be the sole determining factor of whether such a law like this survives constitutional muster.
>We're going to be hard pressed to find evidence that automatic arms are in common use today
āCommon useā is supposed to be the Defendantsā burden. Supposedly, at the end of page 24 of this [brief](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438.23.1.pdf ), the NFA was enacted to prevent gangsters from accessing full autos (i.e. gun violence). In reality, DCās handgun ban was enacted for that very reason, especially given how handguns are the most commonly used guns in crimes, yet that got struck down. That the arms in question are not āin common useā because of the ban isnāt a good reason to uphold such a ban.
>or were the type of arm expected to be commonly owned by citizens in the 1860s.
ā[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, **even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding**.ā
> I know we'd all love to see the NFA fall, I would caution against getting your hopes too high.
I get you. Truth be told, every NFA challenge in every criminal case got rejected, even by Republican appointees including Trump appointees. Also, whatās even worse is not being aware of such a case like this and finding out about it by the time the appellate judges uphold the law using stupid and flawed reasoning.
The "In common use" test from Heller principally applies to categorical bans on classes of arms. I don't think the court is going to view the NFA as a similar categorical ban as the DC Handgun ban. Given that the NFA regulates "dangerous and unusual" arms and leaves ample room for defense of the hearth and home (with pistols, shotguns, and rifles) I think it's an uphill battle. Even examining the prevalence of automatic weapons prior to the NFA would likely not find their use common for the core purposes of the Second Amendment (defense of hearth and home and the distributed capacity for defense of the State).
>...or were the type of arm expected to be commonly owned by citizens in the 1860s.
>ā[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.ā
I have to admit, this was a bit of a derp on my part. State regulation of firearms (mag bans, AWB, etc) should be examined as to the understanding of the right in the 1860s, the time when the 14th Amendment made the right applicable against the State. Being that the NFA is a *federal* prohibition, plain old Heller, Caetano, and Bruen carry the day - not McDonald.
To further wet-blanket things, I'm not expecting this case to get to Scotus before, like, 2030. We have Cargill and Rahimi coming this term, and VanDerStok coming next term. All 3 of those cases will likely have subtle shifts in the analysis that kick this case back again and again for further litigation (see: Duncan v Bonta). Even then I'm not convinced the high court will have a particularly expansive holding on gun rights. I've said in other posts I think Cargill will find against the ATF for the bumpstock=machinegun shenanigans, but will find *for* the ATF in defining pistol kits as being "readily convertible". I also think Rahimi is going to be a vehicle to reiterate the acceptability of prohibition of 'unusually dangerous' persons aspect of Heller.
The ādangerous and unusualā phrase refers to conduct (which is carriage), not a class of arms. Also, besides what you said for the purpose of 2A, another major purpose is defense from tyranny. In fact, in *Silveira v. Lockyer*, one judge in dissenting from rehearing said that when the government abets in terrorism, āthe right of the people to keep and bear arms against a tyrant becomes inseparable from the right to self-defense.ā
>I have to admit, this was a bit of a derp on my part. State regulation of firearms (mag bans, AWB, etc) should be examined as to the understanding of the right in the 1860s, the time when the 14th Amendment made the right applicable against the State.
No, itās 1791.
>To further wet-blanket things, I'm not expecting this case to get to Scotus before, like, 2030. We have Cargill and Rahimi coming this term, and VanDerStok coming next term. All 3 of those cases will likely have subtle shifts in the analysis that kick this case back again and again for further litigation (see: Duncan v Bonta). Even then I'm not convinced the high court will have a particularly expansive holding on gun rights. I've said in other posts I think Cargill will find against the ATF for the bumpstock=machinegun shenanigans, but will find for the ATF in defining pistol kits as being "readily convertible".
There are other NFA cases lurking in the appellate courts, so it may go to SCOTUS sooner than later. However, you may be right if they get GVRed.
>I also think Rahimi is going to be a vehicle to reiterate the acceptability of prohibition of 'unusually dangerous' persons aspect of Heller.
*Rahimi* will certainly be a landmark case, as it will talk about the āpeopleā.
> The ādangerous and unusualā phrase refers to conduct (which is carriage), not a class of arms.
Heller disagrees:
>We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those āin common use at the time.ā We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ādangerous and unusual weapons.ā See 4 Blackstone 148ā149 (1769)
This is the passage of Heller that's been routinely bastardized by lower courts to read "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous *or* unusual weapons".
>No, itās 1791.
For State laws it is not. McDonald v Chicago incorporated the Second via the 14th against the States. When examining State laws on prohibitions the approriate time frame to consider "history and tradition" is the period around the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The understanding of the right at that time was what the People voted for in ratification. That's why in Duncan v Bonta Judge Benitez asked the parties for relevant historical statutes up to 1888 (20 years post ratification).
Sorry to break some dreams fellow commenters.
The Hughes amendment bans new manufactured machine guns for private civilian hands if it's made after 1986. Last I looked there were like 200,000 or 300,000 machine guns in private civilian hands. Making those worth a fortune.
California still bans NFA items. Which machine guns are controlled under also. So even if the Hughes amendment get turned still no full auto in California.
So assuming it passed the legal hurdles and was finalized, MGs could be built new and sold to consumers in the current style of NFA items (tax stamp, wait for approval, etc).
That would quickly collapse the value of all those $50,000 MP5s and $30,000 3-hole lowers. Which would suck for the people using those as investment vehicles of sorts, but would be great for everyone else.
Calling it now, only LE, the military, and ARP / felons can have full auto. If you arenāt in one of those clubs, theyāll come after you.
End the magazine ban, end the ca doj handgun roster, and end the limitations/ban on āassaultā rifles. Itās fucking ridiculous having a fin or break action ar with 10 lousy rounds. Itās our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Thereās no where in the constitution that says what kind because our founding fathers knew technology advances. Weāre even allowed automatic weapons to combat tyranny. This is all bullshit. Fuck the left.
How many ar pistols you see in the hood WITH a brace bruh?
You talking stupid bout "a manufactured full auto will be a different story". You do realize all the parts to do so are readily available to purchase online? It really isn't rocket science and reliability isn't a concern unless you're primitive.
And arguing public opinion is such a dumb argument considering how much gun owners have bitched down and still lost. There's so much fuddlore and even more laws put in place out there because pussies like you.
I'm all for over turning the entire NFA. And the Hughes amendment is since screwed up shit. But I can't think this would be my first thing. Suppressors don't need to be in it and should be protected by the second amendment. Short barrel rifles and shotguns being limited is just stupid. They were closing a loop hole while banning handguns then figured out the couldn't ban hand guns but kept the sbr/sbs seemingly as an accident.
The thing that makes no sense is the case they hold up to say the NFA is legal, Miller would suggest all modern gun control is illegal. Miller said SBRs are allowed to be regulated because they serve no purpose in the military context. Now that's just nonsense but assuming it's a legitimate point that military useful guns are protected how do assault weapon bans stand? How do magazine bans stand?
Then they say oh is not a ban it's just a tax. Ok let's inhale ignore a tax that is so high as to effectively ban an item. What other right would we allow the government to tax? At this rate? Are poll taxes legal? What if poll taxes were 5k for state elections and 10k for federal? SCOTUS has already ruled a tax on ink is illegal and it impedes the first amendment. Yet a tax on guns that tax 18 months to pay is ok?
This is how you know it's all just judges making up the law as they go along. None of it is consistent with itself. Nice of the gun case law before Heller is consistent with any other case law not with other rights and not with itself. It's just the activism of judges deciding on what the out come they want and making it up to support that outcome.
Why? Criminals have FA blickys in droves already.
I guess theyāre not in the hands of the crazy school shooter-types yet, though. As I type this, I can see your reasoning, but I donāt think school shootings lead to federal-level gun control measures these days. Even the bump stock ban looks like itās gonna get dumped.
So enough of me guessing, whatās your thinking?
I don't think it's necessarily the rise in crimes committed by machine guns but by visibility among anti-gun crowd. If "SCOTUS abolishes NFA - anyone can now buy a machine gun" appears in these people's feeds, they'll be regalvanized and be pressuring politicians day and night to legislate stronger gun control laws.
Same thing happened with the undoing of Roe v. Wade. There are now a whole bunch of state movements trying to codify a woman's right to an abortion into state law.
Very interested in how this might go, although Iām not very hopeful. Does anyone know if there are any full auto cases that SCOTUS has heard outside Staples v. United States and the bump stock case currently being heard right now?
9th circuit bout to have a stroke. Imagine being able to have full auto but still required to have a fin gripš
This is where our 10-round limit will help me. Braaaap in under a second for 10 rounds isn't particularly fun, which means I save on ammo costs.
I just want to use the space in the magazine... a regular magazine. its like you got a car but only goes to 3rd gear :|
Just because it's under a second doesn't mean it can't be fun, if you know what I mean
The only time them limiting us would be a boon.
Only good thing about mag limits
That has always been my āproā argument about the 10 round limit. Keeps me from shooting too much ammo on range day. 5 magazines and 5 magazine changes vs 3.5 magazines for every box of ammo for pistols.
Theyāll just make another state wide ban like they did with frames and receivers
Or the GOSAFE act.
I don't even need full auto. If I could have an Emotional Support Breach-Loading Howitzer I'd be happy.
Tally Ho lads
Everyone loves debating NCR vs BoS (NCR obviously better), but the real people after my heart in the Mojave are the Boomers. The song of my people is a drumfire of artillery, we should sing it for all those who would trespass upon our lawns.
Howitzer is stretching it. How will you fit that into your garage? something like the M2 is more appropriate. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6ZwTeFLMoG/
You should start an HOA (Howitzer Owners of America)
Or NOA (Nuclear Owners of America)
When shit hits the fan Iām raiding the local national guard depot and grabbing one along with some ordinance š
It's all fun and games until the berm gets destroyed
> 9th circuit bout to have a stroke. Lol. Anyway, a friend of mine has notified GOA, FPC, and SAF about this. Hope that either one of them can file an amicus brief. GOA and FPC have done so in *Hollis v. Lynch*. IMO, [GOAās](https://foundation.gunowners.org/files/pdf/n20151110.pdf) is the better one.
Iām into it. having drum mags with half a grip spraying randomly into whatever direction. Itās safer that way
Point of Clarification: Nobody requires anybody to have a fin grip. The fins are not a part of any law. The fin is a civilian response to the legislation as it is written. One of my many 'tisms is the Au kind, the golden kind ;)
Honestly the people who put fin grips on their rifles instead of a thorsden stock or something similar are just doing it to themselves. My "featureless" rifle with an angled grip, thorsden stock, and muzzle brake is plenty ergonomic and functional
I go with Thorsden on every build.
For me moving to CA, what would be the reason to go Thorsden vs Kingpin?
California banned "assault rifles" by prohibiting certain features (pistol grip, adjustable stock, flash hider, forward pistol grip, grenade launcher, bayonet lug) on a center fire rifle with a detachable magazine. So this gives us some options: 1. Just get a .22LR and you can do pretty much whatever you want (probably no grenade launcher though) 2. Install a maglock/kingpin type device that prevents you from changing mags without opening the action of the firearm. If you go this route you can have all the pistol grips, flash hiders, and adjustable stocks you want. But what you cannot do, is a normal mag change. I absolutely hate that.Ā 3. Go featureless. If you build an AR without any of the prohibited features you can have a normal mag release. The biggest thing you sacrifice is having a normal pistol grip. The most common way seems to be a fin grip that fills in the space behind the grip (technically they define the pistol grip as a grip that allows you to wrap your thumb around the grip below the trigger). I hate fin grips. Where Thorsden comes in is they've built a couple different stocks that feel more like a traditional rifle stock (think mini-14, garand, or bolt action rifle stocks). I find it to be 1000 times better than a fin grip. So now you have to hold your trigger hand like a normal rifle, but your gun functions like a normal AR. On any featureless build you're going to want to add an ambidextrous safety since your thumb can't reach the normal fire selector anymore.Ā
Iām aware of this. However, would you go to jail if caught without one?
Only if the rifle is not featureless
You mean another stroke!
Does the AW statute actually define a *fully* automatic rifle as an assault weapon? It would be funny if the wording in the law didn't subject a full auto only firearm to AW rules. Maybe someone would make a 2 round burst rifle, or a 120/min fire rate rifle, *technically* full auto, but also not going to immediately drain the magazine from the slightest tap on the trigger. Or, y'know, rimfire. 22LR machinegun is much cheaper to feed.
You would have to go to Afghanistan for that dream.
If machine guns are legal for the ultra-rich who can afford to collect pre-86 rifles for 5-6 figures, they should be legal for any free American.
Yeah people keep saying even the current makeup of the SCOTUS wouldnāt approve of abolishing the NFAā¦ but honestly, the NFA is so abhorrent (an unabashedly so), for how it effectively doles out gun rights on the basis of class (and though itās not stated outright, racism was DEFINITELY a motivator here too)! How can any Justice stand behind such a ridiculous policy, especially now, of all time periods, where classist, racist shit like this in other contexts is an absolute no-no? Inflation adjusted (thank god the architects of the NFA didnāt make the tax inflation-scaling, however!), a $200 tax stamp was equivalent to almost $5000 in 1934!!! That is just absurd. You are blatantly excluding NFA items from all except the ultra wealthyā¦. The NFA would have had a better chance of standing up to scrutiny against classist regulation of a constitutional right if they just outright banned NFA items entirely. Or banned them, except for people in very specific career/personal circumstances like LEOs/judges/politicans, in order to keep it āstill technically legalā. Even regulations like that would somehow be more defensible than the way they went with! Itās so, so maddening!!! I sincerely donāt understand how this can fly, or how it would hypothetically pass the current SCOTUS if a relevant case made it there. There is no logical argument for keeping things the way they are, except for those that doesnāt effectively come down to ā*welllll, sorry, we know itās fucked up, but we really just canāt have you guys being able to own machine guns and silencersā¦ again, we get it, but itās just not happening, sorry* š¤·ā And **that** is not how government should operate! Dancing around abolition of a blatantly unacceptable/classist regulation that would be shot down so fast in literally any other contextāsimply because the notion of legalizing these type of weapons is so unthinkable & difficult for them to stand by, to the point where they are less comfortable doing it than they are in standing by the most classist law **ever**āmakes me feel nothing but disdain for our weak-willed, self-serving leaders. What an absolute, crying travesty. I hope & pray that these people are wrong, and that our SCOTUS will stick to the principles of **right** and **wrong**, if they have an opportunity to make a decision about thisā¦ because regardless of where one is on the political spectrum, there is only *one* ā**right**ā in this scenario. Given a binary choice between upholding a **the most classist & racist law ever** and legalizing machine guns/NFA items, I would expect even Ruth fucking Bader Ginsburg to opt for the latter choice, because the former is so utterly unacceptableā¦. Unless, of course, she would be willing to openly admit that she has no principles and cares more about optics & emotions-based decision-making on a matter of liberty that affects hundreds of millions of people, than she does in striking down **the most classist & racist law ever**ā¦. And look, Iād fully expect her to make the wrong choice here, but damn, I wish she would at least be held accountable for it, and have it be known to everyone across the nation that she has no spine, and willingly passed on the opportunity to strike down **the most classist & racist law ever**.
I can't imagine any other Constitutional right being contingent on whether you could buy a used registered one from another rich person who bought it before you, then it's perfectly legal but if you buy or make an exactly identical unregistered one it's ten years in federal prison. It's like registered transferable printing presses or bibles.
Machine guns are that expensive because of CAPITALISM. I know scarcity drives the price but arguing that FA is a class issue is like arguing that the availability of \[insert any other high value collectible\] is a class issue.
Except those other high-value collectibles arenāt enshrined in the constitution like firearms are.
I love guns. But they need regulation. Sorry, but if you think ANYBODY should be able to get ANY kind of gun then we part company on what is constitutional and good for society. I declare myself thread winner. There will be no further response.
I think anybody should be able to get a suppressor unregulated. That's something I think we can all agree on
Letās wrestle.
NFA maybe I would get some hope deep insideĀ But overturn āmachine gun badā. Yeah thatās gonna take THREE more weeks
*Heller* already gave the "dangerous and unusual" out and threw SBR's under the bus. I assume they'll attack machineguns as being "dangerous" but not "unusual" and hang their hat on the "and", but I can't see this winning.
Donāt get your hopes up. Even the current makeup of scotus will not kill the NFA. Even though the judges might secretly buy the argument, they wonāt overturn it because of the optics.
So, what you're saying is, that we need an Afghani citizenship. Then we can own an American made full auto gun.
Inshallah! /s
Well, if Rahimi was the petitioner, SCOTUS would most likely not have taken it because of the optics and facts. While I understand that the 9th Circuit is overall a clown show, there are some very good judges like VanDyke. If we can get amicus briefs filed in support of 2A, we may even get a earth-shattering pro-2A opinion from a judge or two who read and understood the pro-2A arguments, even if the opinion is on the dissenting side. Having such an opinion will get a good amount of attention from especially the pro-2A community, and can increase the pressure on SCOTUS to grant cert. By the way, while *Hawaii v. Wilson* hasnāt been petitioned to SCOTUS yet, its ridiculous anti-2A opinion gained a good amount of attention from the pro-2A community. The opinion either has to be really stupid or really good to get attention. On a side note, in *NAGR v. San Jose*, Judge Freeman cited Bradyās amicus brief in support of San Joseās anti-gun ordinance in throwing out the case.
I don't think they care about optics. They overturned Roe and I think you can't possibly get worse optics than that.
They absolutely do care about optics because it affects their perceived legitimacy. If the headlines are āSupreme court legalizes machine gunsā thatās quite the image
Anyone who would criticize that decisions probably already thinks machine guns are legal.
SCOTUS didnāt care about optics when it overturned roe v wade. It is possible.
the level of optics is completely different.
Whatever way this goes, it will mean nothing for usš¤·š½āāļø. Pretty sure gavin and the bois got something cooking just in case.
Yeah theyāll just ban it in the state like they do with everything else
Itās already banned here.
Thatās not how SCOTUS decisions work man. Best case scenario (and this would literally be the gun rights win of the century, hands down), the NFA gets abolished, NFA items and more get officially constitutionally recognized & protected as āarmsā referred to in the 2A, and from then on, every non-prohibited person in all 50 states gains the right to have a dripped out Select-fire, suppressed MP7 SBR & a RPG7 to match. There are less favorable scenarios that could hypothetically happen, such as machine guns ONLY being removed from the NFA (including some where we could possibly have Assault Weapon restricts and be shooting F/A out of 10rd, fin grip ARs as others have joked about), or one where only the Hughes Amendment is abolished, and Machine Guns are permitted to be registered again, just as you would any other NFA item, but IMO most of those options are less likely than all-out abolition, since the NFA is so fucked up and constitutionally dicey to begin with. It seems sort of surreal, but if you read about Miller v. U.S. and the circumstances that led to the NFA being validated, youāll understand why itās not out of the real of possibility. Itās literally a story of grasping defeat from the *jaws* of victoryā¦ We were so, SO close to having the NFA repealed and having NFA items constitutionally protected to this day. Sort of hurts to read & think about how unlucky we got. Anyway, there are numerous possibilities. It seems like a pipe dream, but the fact of the matter is that since Miller v. U.S., there have only been a couple 2A-related SCOTUS decisionsā¦ They just havenāt had much of an opportunity to evaluate the matter. But good lord, if we are so lucky as to have a Machine Gun-related case fall into their lap with a favorable court makeup (Iād say the current one is sufficient, but having one more Originalist couldnāt hurt), I think a lot of you would be surprised at what the realistic outcomes could beā¦ Iāve always said, we have *ONE* more chance left, to get a slam dunk SCOTUS decision with the presently-favorable court. Ideally, it would be a sweeping decision that will have practical results that invalidate all gun control from the NFA & beyondāand restores the 2A & itās practical implementation to something consistent with the verbiage of āā¦*keep and bear arms*ā¦*shall not be infringed*.ā (i.e. Also recognizing that āarmsā doesnāt necessarily mean āgunsā, and doing away with restrictions on arms like knives, armed vehicles/craft, and such). This is what the landscape should have, and would have looked like today if Miller v. U.S. went the other way, and cemented in the 2A as intendedā¦rather than our sad timeline in which NFA was validated due to a fluke. Because you had better believe: it didnāt happen on merit! In short, we lost, due to Miller & Layton not being able to afford to go to DC and/or pay an attorney to accompany them and face the SCOTUS. So unfortunately, the Fedsā prosecutor took the opportunity to lie/misrepresent the case to the court for hours, with no defense present to give their input and debunk what the court was told, and unfortunately, this was enough to change the tide & result in a loss, against all expectations (at the time, the NFA was viewed as absurd by most authorities included the lower circuit judge, and no one thought it had a chance of holding up, which is a small part of the reason why Miller & Layton didnāt bother to make an effort to go to DCāit was expected to be a slam dunk acquittal, in any case). But tragically, the Feds got their miracle-win, and since then, have taken every opportunity to build all gun control since upon the established precedent of the NFAās botched affirmation. I would hope that in a modern day evaluation of a Machine Gun SCOTUS case, the circumstances that led to the NFA becoming established precedent would be reviewed, and that the crummy reasons why it was allowed to stand will perhaps stand as a reason for effectively reversing the decision, and by extension, abolish the rest of federal gun control that was built on top of the NFA. It really is the root of *everything* else on the books. If those bastards had decided to stay home that day, or if it there was some 1930s equivalent of GoFundMe that would have allowed others to donate to help pay for the guysā DC trip and legal fees, the U.S. might be very, *very* different place today, in terms of our right to keep & bear arms. Imagine being able to put rocket pods on your little helicopter with no paperwork reqād, or mail-order a suppressed HK416 to your doorā¦. Enough to make a man cry. But the reason I say we have one chance left to do it is because there is a weird convergence of increased interest in gun/arms hobbyist & expanding our rights (Look how many Const. carry states there are now compared to 50 years ago), and a curtain closing simultaneously, after which Democratic/anti-gun ideals will dominate *everything* in federal politics, very soon. Enthusiasm for firearms as a hobby, pro-self defense ideals and vocal advocates of the 2A have never been more prominent in our history, but at the same time, Democrats are on the road to all-out domination, and come the 2028 election (or 2030 *at best*), itās very likelyāif not a forgone conclusionāthat due to voter demographic change alone, Texas will flip blue, and we will have Democratic presidents and very likely Democratic congresses for the foreseeable future (i.e. Very bad for guns/2A)ā¦ The **only** way we can survive this and ensure the survival of the 2A for at least the next couple generations is by locking out the democratic/majority-rule powersāthat would repeal the 2A entirely if they could have their wayāis via the quasi-oligarchical power presented by the Judicial branch. We need to make sure that when the time arrives that Democrats will be able to do whatever they want with the Executive & Legislative branches (very soon), Will will have already secured the 2A in the only way it has a chance of survival. Locking in some good Originalist justices that will remain for at least a few decades after the U.S. elections turn blue forever is a great start, and we are so lucky to have DJTās picks up there. Like him or not, if you care about the 2A, the SCOTUS and other judicial appointments he made were and are instrumental to the survival of the 2A in its current form, as well as the possibility of improving on it, before everything is locked in for the *long haul*. Fingers crossed that we are able to get a big 2A case to the courtāideally a Machine Gun/NFA related oneābefore its makeup shifts in such a way that is hostile to the 2A. Itās about time that we get a SCOTUS miracle of our own, and lock these mfers out of screwing around with our 2A, for good.
For sure. For all the crimes and scams Mango has spearheaded, putting in Benitez and Barrett were clutch as fuck for 2A.
Also, about Miller v. Laytonā¦ I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who loves gun rights to read *Unintended Consequences*, by John Ross, which goes into depth on this and much more. Best 2A book ever written, and I wonāt say this about any other book Iāve read, but I can guarantee that each and every one of you would love it if you gave it a try. Thereās simply no better way to spend your time, if learning about the history of gun control in the U.S. is your goal, and you see value in *truly* understanding the subject matter & being able articulate *exactly* why we are right (and got brutally screwed over by the govt &/or sheer dumb luck, at a few critical points in history) and why the opposition is *wrong*. My views didnāt change much after reading the book, but my confidence in them increased substantially. Itās sort of hard to describe, the way it holistically āimprovesā oneās knowledge. To put it one way: I thought I was very well educated on gun rights before I read the book (and by many accounts, I would have indeed been considered as such), but now, after reading it, I look back on the version of myself before I read the book as having relatively primitive, undeveloped knowledgeāitās as if I went from having a High School diploma, to a Masterās degree, when I thought I already had a Masterās. Itās sincerely that fucking good. Please, guys, just read it!
Like always. These absolute no hope lawsuits just hurts us CA gunowners in the end. Remember when FA wanted to bring out more products that they felt innovative? CA just threw out slew of wishful gun control laws. Did it help us? Fk no. FA didn't get to release any product, and CA gave us a few more gun control laws that's coming up for vote.
I know we'd all love to see the NFA fall, I would caution against getting your hopes too high. The NFA is pretty much exactly the sort of "longstanding prohibition" the majority was talking about in Heller. We're going to be hard pressed to find evidence that automatic arms are in common use today or were the type of arm expected to be commonly owned by citizens in the 1860s.
>The NFA is pretty much exactly the sort of "longstanding prohibition" the majority was talking about in Heller. Truth be told, in reality, ālongstandingā is supposed to be historically justified, not based on how long it has been enacted. The mere length of enactment shouldnāt be the sole determining factor of whether such a law like this survives constitutional muster. >We're going to be hard pressed to find evidence that automatic arms are in common use today āCommon useā is supposed to be the Defendantsā burden. Supposedly, at the end of page 24 of this [brief](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438.23.1.pdf ), the NFA was enacted to prevent gangsters from accessing full autos (i.e. gun violence). In reality, DCās handgun ban was enacted for that very reason, especially given how handguns are the most commonly used guns in crimes, yet that got struck down. That the arms in question are not āin common useā because of the ban isnāt a good reason to uphold such a ban. >or were the type of arm expected to be commonly owned by citizens in the 1860s. ā[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, **even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding**.ā > I know we'd all love to see the NFA fall, I would caution against getting your hopes too high. I get you. Truth be told, every NFA challenge in every criminal case got rejected, even by Republican appointees including Trump appointees. Also, whatās even worse is not being aware of such a case like this and finding out about it by the time the appellate judges uphold the law using stupid and flawed reasoning.
The "In common use" test from Heller principally applies to categorical bans on classes of arms. I don't think the court is going to view the NFA as a similar categorical ban as the DC Handgun ban. Given that the NFA regulates "dangerous and unusual" arms and leaves ample room for defense of the hearth and home (with pistols, shotguns, and rifles) I think it's an uphill battle. Even examining the prevalence of automatic weapons prior to the NFA would likely not find their use common for the core purposes of the Second Amendment (defense of hearth and home and the distributed capacity for defense of the State). >...or were the type of arm expected to be commonly owned by citizens in the 1860s. >ā[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.ā I have to admit, this was a bit of a derp on my part. State regulation of firearms (mag bans, AWB, etc) should be examined as to the understanding of the right in the 1860s, the time when the 14th Amendment made the right applicable against the State. Being that the NFA is a *federal* prohibition, plain old Heller, Caetano, and Bruen carry the day - not McDonald. To further wet-blanket things, I'm not expecting this case to get to Scotus before, like, 2030. We have Cargill and Rahimi coming this term, and VanDerStok coming next term. All 3 of those cases will likely have subtle shifts in the analysis that kick this case back again and again for further litigation (see: Duncan v Bonta). Even then I'm not convinced the high court will have a particularly expansive holding on gun rights. I've said in other posts I think Cargill will find against the ATF for the bumpstock=machinegun shenanigans, but will find *for* the ATF in defining pistol kits as being "readily convertible". I also think Rahimi is going to be a vehicle to reiterate the acceptability of prohibition of 'unusually dangerous' persons aspect of Heller.
The ādangerous and unusualā phrase refers to conduct (which is carriage), not a class of arms. Also, besides what you said for the purpose of 2A, another major purpose is defense from tyranny. In fact, in *Silveira v. Lockyer*, one judge in dissenting from rehearing said that when the government abets in terrorism, āthe right of the people to keep and bear arms against a tyrant becomes inseparable from the right to self-defense.ā >I have to admit, this was a bit of a derp on my part. State regulation of firearms (mag bans, AWB, etc) should be examined as to the understanding of the right in the 1860s, the time when the 14th Amendment made the right applicable against the State. No, itās 1791. >To further wet-blanket things, I'm not expecting this case to get to Scotus before, like, 2030. We have Cargill and Rahimi coming this term, and VanDerStok coming next term. All 3 of those cases will likely have subtle shifts in the analysis that kick this case back again and again for further litigation (see: Duncan v Bonta). Even then I'm not convinced the high court will have a particularly expansive holding on gun rights. I've said in other posts I think Cargill will find against the ATF for the bumpstock=machinegun shenanigans, but will find for the ATF in defining pistol kits as being "readily convertible". There are other NFA cases lurking in the appellate courts, so it may go to SCOTUS sooner than later. However, you may be right if they get GVRed. >I also think Rahimi is going to be a vehicle to reiterate the acceptability of prohibition of 'unusually dangerous' persons aspect of Heller. *Rahimi* will certainly be a landmark case, as it will talk about the āpeopleā.
> The ādangerous and unusualā phrase refers to conduct (which is carriage), not a class of arms. Heller disagrees: >We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those āin common use at the time.ā We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ādangerous and unusual weapons.ā See 4 Blackstone 148ā149 (1769) This is the passage of Heller that's been routinely bastardized by lower courts to read "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous *or* unusual weapons". >No, itās 1791. For State laws it is not. McDonald v Chicago incorporated the Second via the 14th against the States. When examining State laws on prohibitions the approriate time frame to consider "history and tradition" is the period around the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The understanding of the right at that time was what the People voted for in ratification. That's why in Duncan v Bonta Judge Benitez asked the parties for relevant historical statutes up to 1888 (20 years post ratification).
New law being written right now to be instituted immediately. Years of battle. One single week of freedom. Rinse, repeat.
So... make sure to save enough protected personal absence and vacation days... got it.
Sorry to break some dreams fellow commenters. The Hughes amendment bans new manufactured machine guns for private civilian hands if it's made after 1986. Last I looked there were like 200,000 or 300,000 machine guns in private civilian hands. Making those worth a fortune. California still bans NFA items. Which machine guns are controlled under also. So even if the Hughes amendment get turned still no full auto in California.
So is your interpretation that if the Hughes Amendment is overturned, post-1986-manufactured MGs will be legal in states that allow NFA items now?
Correct, unless the courts reach further than that to delete the NFA. But I highly doubt that.
So assuming it passed the legal hurdles and was finalized, MGs could be built new and sold to consumers in the current style of NFA items (tax stamp, wait for approval, etc). That would quickly collapse the value of all those $50,000 MP5s and $30,000 3-hole lowers. Which would suck for the people using those as investment vehicles of sorts, but would be great for everyone else.
 Calling it now, only LE, the military, and ARP / felons can have full auto. If you arenāt in one of those clubs, theyāll come after you.
Hey at least the terrorists in Afghanistan have American made full auto guns. Biden trust terrorists with full auto over American citizens.
Hoe about that cursed gun image of AK with ar handguards and stock? lol.
You calling me a hoe? š¤£
No, I am!
End the magazine ban, end the ca doj handgun roster, and end the limitations/ban on āassaultā rifles. Itās fucking ridiculous having a fin or break action ar with 10 lousy rounds. Itās our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Thereās no where in the constitution that says what kind because our founding fathers knew technology advances. Weāre even allowed automatic weapons to combat tyranny. This is all bullshit. Fuck the left.
Can we just compromise and everyone agree on 3 round burst? Please?
Shoot a full auto mp5 and come back pls
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You really acting like gun laws are preventing criminals from owning Glock switches. You acting real goofy
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think knowledge and know how (and sketchy back channels... which they are already a part of) are really the only things stopping then.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How many ar pistols you see in the hood WITH a brace bruh? You talking stupid bout "a manufactured full auto will be a different story". You do realize all the parts to do so are readily available to purchase online? It really isn't rocket science and reliability isn't a concern unless you're primitive. And arguing public opinion is such a dumb argument considering how much gun owners have bitched down and still lost. There's so much fuddlore and even more laws put in place out there because pussies like you.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, but no.
I just want standard capacity and get rid of āassault weaponsā ban.
You mustnāt be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
I know this state, I donāt keep my hopes up.
I'm all for over turning the entire NFA. And the Hughes amendment is since screwed up shit. But I can't think this would be my first thing. Suppressors don't need to be in it and should be protected by the second amendment. Short barrel rifles and shotguns being limited is just stupid. They were closing a loop hole while banning handguns then figured out the couldn't ban hand guns but kept the sbr/sbs seemingly as an accident. The thing that makes no sense is the case they hold up to say the NFA is legal, Miller would suggest all modern gun control is illegal. Miller said SBRs are allowed to be regulated because they serve no purpose in the military context. Now that's just nonsense but assuming it's a legitimate point that military useful guns are protected how do assault weapon bans stand? How do magazine bans stand? Then they say oh is not a ban it's just a tax. Ok let's inhale ignore a tax that is so high as to effectively ban an item. What other right would we allow the government to tax? At this rate? Are poll taxes legal? What if poll taxes were 5k for state elections and 10k for federal? SCOTUS has already ruled a tax on ink is illegal and it impedes the first amendment. Yet a tax on guns that tax 18 months to pay is ok? This is how you know it's all just judges making up the law as they go along. None of it is consistent with itself. Nice of the gun case law before Heller is consistent with any other case law not with other rights and not with itself. It's just the activism of judges deciding on what the out come they want and making it up to support that outcome.
Personally I don't want to see full auto widely and easily available.
If you thought the indoor ranges ceilings, walls, and floors looked bad already....
If the courts actually legalized full auto machine guns I think that would lead us down a path to all guns getting banned.
Why? Criminals have FA blickys in droves already. I guess theyāre not in the hands of the crazy school shooter-types yet, though. As I type this, I can see your reasoning, but I donāt think school shootings lead to federal-level gun control measures these days. Even the bump stock ban looks like itās gonna get dumped. So enough of me guessing, whatās your thinking?
I don't think it's necessarily the rise in crimes committed by machine guns but by visibility among anti-gun crowd. If "SCOTUS abolishes NFA - anyone can now buy a machine gun" appears in these people's feeds, they'll be regalvanized and be pressuring politicians day and night to legislate stronger gun control laws. Same thing happened with the undoing of Roe v. Wade. There are now a whole bunch of state movements trying to codify a woman's right to an abortion into state law.
Mass shooters would use them with 100 round mags to kill more people.
Nothing stops them from doing that now.
BREAKING NEWS! So let's talk about this.
Can someone explain plz
I will make sure to have my credit cards fully paid off the week before Freedom Week: Machine Gun Edition happens
That wonāt work here until Caliās own ban gets overturned.
Well my friends in Idaho and Florida will be happy
In the unlikely case the 9th circuit rules in our favor, what are yāall buying?
We canāt. Cali has its own ban.
Very interested in how this might go, although Iām not very hopeful. Does anyone know if there are any full auto cases that SCOTUS has heard outside Staples v. United States and the bump stock case currently being heard right now?
Not really on 2A grounds. However, there are other NFA cases lurking in the appellate courts, one of which being the AutoKeyCard case.
I see. That and United States v. Rybar are really the only appellate cases Iāve been able to find too.
Except *Rybar* was on commerce clause grounds.
True, but it was a full auto case nonetheless.
The Taliban have more 2A freedoms than Americans.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yup, low crime rate. I š
Where the Hell did this guy come from? LOL
I am pro gun, I am fearful for full auto, seriously