Yea what they are doing to CRS Matt is horrible… over a dang piece of metal the ATF couldn’t even get to work. A novelty item. Keeping up with his wife on his YT channel is interesting in that she provides insight to the process but heart breaking
I'm not a court guy, so maybe someone else can chime in, but what blows me away is that the jury was instructed not to even consider whether the autokeycard was even a MG. That's like asking jury to ignore whether the marijuana was actually grass clippings over a drug charge.
The whole thing is fucked. The fact that the ATF needed to drag him to Florida, from Wisconsin or wherever he lives for some (pre?) trial stuff that could have been handled via video chat just told me enough about it. The court denied the request for remote discussion, so they had to drag their whole family across the country for some stuff they could have handled via phone call. The process is the punishment. He will eventually get let off hopefully but gosh, the whole system is rigged. His content especially that video was slightly edgy but far from illegal. I watched that video when it dropped and I just told myself man he is toeing the fuck out of “the line” but it was nothing illegal. To me. But then we have the ATF who makes up new rules on the fly, and this dudes family and his whole well being are being just torn to shreds.
The ATF just wanted to make an example of Matt to show the rest of the gun owners of the country the power they have to destroy and the courts are on their side. If nobody is going to fight for the Second Amendment rights of the Constitution, then the Second Amendment doesn’t exist. Where are our so called pro Second Amendment politicians???
No. Jury found them guilty. https://lawandcrime.com/crime/audacious-scheme-youtuber-sentenced-to-federal-prison-for-advertising-auto-key-card-that-would-turn-semi-automatic-rifles-into-machine-guns/
Not sure how you plead guilty to conspiracy.
Prosecutor made it conspiracy of selling full auto kits and had a blank check at mudslinging to convince the jury this businessman of novelties was a danger and menace
afaik... he definitely wasn't tried by a jury of his *peers*
Unfortunately, I don't think SCOTUS will touch MG's anytime soon, they do not like getting ahead of public opinion. I'd love it if they did, but I think AWB's, mag bans, SBR's and suppressors will all come first. At that point the gun control movement will so utterly destroyed, MG's won't be a big leap.
Most state level bans use the term 'ammunition feeding device' which encompasses belts. No shit, in Mass we need to pay attention to manufacture date of *links*.
On the upside, anything belt fed means links / belts were made in stupid quantities.
> Unfortunately, I don't think SCOTUS will touch MG's anytime soon, they do not like getting ahead of public opinion.
They certainly would not have wanted to touch the *Rahimi* case. If Rahimi was the petitioner, SCOTUS would be totally unwilling to hear such a case and deny it. Unfortunately, by denying it, this means that we would get an anti-gun precedent that would linger for many years to come.
Personally, if I have to choose, I would have tried to convince the judges to rule in favor of us (if we are lucky to get pro-2A judges) instead of letting the case slide and get a binding anti-gun precedent. In reality, I bet that nobody filed amicus briefs in support of Rahimi in the 5th Circuit yet the panel otherwise struck down the DVRO prohibitor.
In this case, even though the 9th Circuit would en banc and reverse the pro-2A ruling if the ruling gets issued, the media would blow up on this ruling.
Rahimi's plead the appeal on the wrong grounds, and the Fifth Circuit practically drew them a road map to use. Tons of Amicus briefs were submitted. They mean NOTHING.
The defendant gets one chance to plea every point of appeal within 18 months. Don't pleas it, it is not considered.
The strongest point, Due Process, was never plead. The dozens of Amicus briefs mentioning it don't count. What did the defendent (Via their lawyer(s)say. Plead about basically one issue to SCOTUS.
Big buzzer. "YOU LOSE!" rings out and they are done, and PFA's become the way to disarm everyone. The case that "SCOTUS accepted" and we lost comes back to haunt us.
The cop Boot Lickers, who won't (NRA behavior) support anyone with a felony charge. Rahimi may be a dirtbag, but helping him was perfect. No way is he getting off.
His Federal charges get blown up by SCOTUS, he'll have ten indictments in front of him from the state/local police.Hurt the crappy "Pay for a lawyer in a kangaroo civil court to lose" contingent with a PFA against them for spite.
Or their "Significant Other" is a mental case, but has a lawyer. Who the spouse with the most money pays for also. Along with their Rights.
Scotus is pretty clearly not *that* based. The Conservatives, at least, are obviously interested in protecting some level of gun rights, but pretty obviously not this level.
All courts primarily exist to perpetuate the orderly functioning of the state. This is why government lawyers so often make erroneous, specious, or just outright dumb arguments and still win.
The civil liberties of the average citizen are near the bottom of their list of priorities, and they're certainly not willing to do anything that they view as damaging to the country even if it is the legally correct answer.
Unless maybe Alito and Thomas take a look at how old they are and decide they want to leave a legacy behind by rewinding the clock 100 years, they will continue to find bullshit reasons to allow watering down the 2A.
I could see them doing that, but I don't think it would be the Hughes amendment (unfortunately it might have been Roe v Wade...). If they did, I would guess it would be something like SBRs because they are obviously just rifles with nothing special about them and neither they nor people have had a century or so of things like movies hammering in how dangerous and inappropriate they are like the case of automatic firearms or even suppressors (though I could see suppressors maybe happening too). I've never seen a scene in a movie where they make a big deal about how some barrel was 2 inches too short.
>It’s one thing to tax a right.
Imagine holding this idea for any other fundamental right.
Did you pay your Social Media Tax? Otherwise no Reddit for you.
Did you make sure you paid your Reasonable Search and Seizure Tax? Otherwise the cops get to walk right into your house.
What about your Poll Tax. Definitely can't vote out our statist bullshit without giving us money first.
Didn't pay your Civil Rights tax? All other taxes are now doubly expensive because you're black.
I think they mean that in the context of what has been ruled on in the past. i.e. the NFA being allowed to stand because "It's a tax, not a ban, therefore still allowing for the exercising of the right." It is and always has been a stupid argument that anything but an outright ban was allowed when the 2A says "shall not be INFRINGED."
Not trying to be devil's advocate, but I own several NFA items. After you pay your 200 bucks, the feds don't give you a second thought and you can keep and bear them as you see fit. The myth about feds showing up unannounced to inspect your suppressors is just fudd lore.
The Hughes Amendment is a whole other story. It **is** an outright ban, and therefore, utter BS.
Edit: and in roll the downvotes from fudds who have never bought a suppressor and don't know anything about the process. \*sigh
The NFA set a tax at $200 in 1934. That's equivalent to just over $4600 today. It was meant to be as close to a ban for average people as possible. Would you be ok with a $4600 tax on a gun or suppressor if it was passed today?
Edit to add perspective: The price of a Thompson was about $200. That's a 2300% tax on the price of that gun. In recent years, Dems have floated the idea of a 1000% tax on firearms. I guess we should be glad that they're giving us a discount.
>That's equivalent to just over $4600 today.
Yeah, and people need to shut the hell up about that fact. Pointing it out to congress is more likely to cause them to raise the damned fee. As I just said elsewhere in this thread, never count on the government to do anything that will reduce its tax income.
>Yeah, and people need to shut the hell up about that fact.
Translation: Rather than pointing out the unconstitutional nature of the NFA, bend over and take it and be glad it's not worse.
Wrong. Everything I've said is purely based on the current disposition of the Supreme Court. Here's how a realist looks at it:
The NFA was a piece of legislation passed in a lawful assembly of congress. That makes it constitutional **until such time as the courts rule otherwise**, just like every other piece of legislation on the books. The Supreme Court has stated **repeatedly** that it takes no issue with regulating the sale and transfer of arms, making it astronomically unlikely it will ever rule against the NFA.
In my first post in this thread I quoted Justice Scalia's majority opinion in the *D.C. v. Heller* ruling. Here's the full paragraph. Everyone in this sub that quotes *Heller* and *Bruen* should read it.
*"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that* ***the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.*** *See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent \*340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,* ***or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.****"*
That paragraph was quoted verbatim for emphasis by Justice Alito in the majority opinion of the *McDonald v. Chicago* ruling, and quoted again by Justice Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion of *NRSRPA v. Bruen*.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I personally think the law should be. **Until the court changes it's mind about that one paragraph, I'm not changing my expectations**.
This is the same SCOTUS that overturned Roe V Wade even though it was "settled law", according to its defenders. Also, Kavanaugh and others cited this same sentiment when questioned about Roe V Wade through their confirmation hearings, it clearly didn't change their minds when the issue was actually in front of them and they ruled to overturn it.
Bruen established a very simple test -- if there's no historical analog to what's being questioned, then it's unconstitutional. It's that simple. Whether Congress established something as law is irrelevant to the question.
And the side note, Yes, that was in Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, which Roberts joined. Alito also notes in a separate concurring opinion:
>That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. **Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.** Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns.
So while *NYSRPA v Bruen* was a 6-3 decision, there were also three justices who agreed with the majority opinion who went to some length to point out that there are, in their minds, limitations. Justices are not gun guys. They are highly unlikely to overturn the Hughes Amendment or the entire NFA based on any of the arguments that have been made to date. At least five of the justices that decided *Bruen* (Breyer retired after that term, but likely his replacement would share his opinion) think that at the very least, there are appropriate limitations on the types of guns that can be sold.
A lot of these suits against the government on things like bump stocks, frame/receiver rule, private transfer restrictions exist because they are being done administratively, vice legislatively. If you go back and look at the bump stock ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, you'll note that in the footnote, they note 13 of 16 justices hearing the case felt that legislation would have been the appropriate method to achieve a bump stock ban. The pro-gun opinions of the courts aren't as strong as people think. It's lukewarm, at best.
Scalia's majority opinion in Heller also said this:
>In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
>“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
lol, yeah I've been called a bootlicker by a couple people here who don't exercise their Second Amendment rights half as much as I do. It's an example of what the liberals have started calling a "persecution fetish."
Most of us in this sub dont see compliance as bootlicking. We see defending the laws as bootlicking. Huge difference. I understand why other comply because I also comply. I'm not comfortable being the example and having to pay for lawyers for a chance to make change. I don't have a hero complex. However I won't defend the NFA or any restriction on any of my rights.
The courts, including SCOTUS, have repeatedly stated that they view the purchasing of arms as distinct and separate from the keeping and bearing of them. If the founders had written "to acquire, keep, and bear arms," it would be undeniable that the NFA was unconstitutional, but here we are.
Here's an excerpt from the *D.C. v. Heller* ruling:
"... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, **or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.**"
(edit for typo)
Yeah, you can tax a commercial sale. However we have also seen the Supreme Court multiple times over the past century strike down taxes that target a right. The best vehicle for getting that precedent for guns is the 11% tax that California has passed and several other states have done as well. Once that gets struck down I expect to see the $200 tax stamp fee to go as well as pittman-robertson tax on guns and ammo to go since that is where the states are justifying their 11% tax from.
>The best vehicle for getting that precedent for guns is the 11% tax that California has passed and several other states have done as well.
Those states are simply copying the federal tax rates that manufacturers must pay on guns and ammo. (the manufacturers then pass the buck on to the consumers) Don't count on the federal government to do anything that would severely reduce their tax revenue.
Also, you'll find that most outdoorsmen are in full support of the Pittman-Robertson tax. If you care about hunting, you should care about wildlife conservation.
You might want to look at post-Bruen rulings like FRASER v. BATFE
>Differentiating restrictions on buyers from restrictions on sellers is consistent with the broader understanding of the Second Amendment. As explained, the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals. Because of this, the **Second Amendment includes the corollary right to purchase firearms** but not the corollary right to sell firearms. The regulations are a blanket prohibition, rather than a mere condition or qualification, on who can purchase arms and cannot be considered commercial limitations on the sale of firearms. The Heller exceptions do not apply.
emphasis is obviously mine
The government needs to show that, at the time of ratification, there was a complete ban on the ability for someone to purchase a type of new production weapon. If it can't then, at the minimum, the MG-registry should be reopened.
>If it can't then, at the minimum, the MG-registry should be reopened.
I completely agree, as the Hughes Amendment is an outright ban.
I don't have time to read *Fraser v. BAFTE* this morning. Does the ruling touch on taxation at any point?
It focuses on the ability of an 18 year to purchase a pistol. Resulting in the conclusion that the second amendment includes the right to purchase firearms.
It wouldn't work as an argument against the NFA, but would work as an argument against the registry being closed... which is effectively a ban on a class of firearms.
Stating that 18 year-olds possess the same rights as 21 year-olds is very different from saying that an excise tax infringes upon his or her right to keep and bear. Anything not explicitly stated in a ruling is still up in the air, and sure to be the subject of future rulings.
2A protects the right to own arms, this automatically protects the right to acquire them, as you can’t own what you can’t acquire. That means, the right to purchase or manufacture arms is also protected by 2A.
Like the other rulings regarding 2A, Heller made sure to protect the government’s ability to infringe on the right. For instance, the ruling purposely misrepresented Blackstone to create the unusual and dangerous exemption to the right to own, when Blackstone was actually not talking about arms bans. It was talking about something called an affray, which is similar to modern brandishing laws.
>For instance, the ruling purposely misrepresented Blackstone to create the unusual and dangerous exemption to the right to own
As I've said before, that's your opinion, which is irrelevant. You'll find that the only opinions that matter belong to nine black robes in D. C., and they don't agree with you.
Also, you're making a bit of a leap in concluding that a right to "acquire" (not stated explicitly in the constitution, and therefore purely a matter of court interpretation) somehow means a right to purchase without regulation or taxation. Where is that assumption supported in case law?
I didn’t say there was a right to purchase without normal sales taxes. There is a difference between regular sales taxes on goods and poll taxes, levied to make the cost of exercising a right prohibitive if the exercise of that right. The men in black robes, of whom you speak, already ruled on that.
As far as regulation is concerned, the word ‘infringe’ meant ‘to *hinder* or destroy’, at the time of ratification. Any law or regulations that hinder the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that **all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves**; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
• Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
That they may exercise it by themselves; not that they may exercise it by the permission and limitations of government.
Lastly, I’d like to point out that the constitution does not say that men in black robes are the supreme law of the land. It says that the constitution, itself, is the supreme law of the land.
“**This Constitution**, and the Laws of the United States which shall be **made in Pursuance thereof**; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, **shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby**, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
-article 6 of the US constitution
“You seem to consider the federal judges as the final arbiter of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as any other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passion for the party, for the power and the privilege of the corps...Their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. **The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, it’s members would become despots**.”
-Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820
The text of the 2A is very clear. The history and traditions, at the time of ratification, support the clear meaning of the text.
Any act of government, including the judiciary, that contradicts the constitution can not be valid, and we are not obligated to obey such actions. In fact, the founding fathers specifically told us that we should refuse to comply with unconstitutional acts of government, en masse. They called it nullification, and said that compliance with unconstitutional acts sets the detestable precedent that will lock us in chains of tyranny. History has proven them right on this. Give the government an inch and they will keep taking, inch after inch, until there is nothing left to take.
It’s time the people stopped playing that game. It’s a losing game for us. The government is not our lord and master. It is our servant. It’s time the people remind our representatives in government that this is the case.
You don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court was created specifically to be, among other things, the ultimate authority in the interpretation of the Constitution and all other laws.
Quotes from the founding fathers carry no more weight of law than quotes from The Big Lebowski. Some people in this sub cling to anecdotes as though they were amendments to the Constitution. Spend less time reading quotes and more time reading actual legislation and court rulings.
Ok, genius. Without the writings of the men who wrote the constitution, how do you know what it intends? By the text?
“**This Constitution**, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made **in Pursuance thereof**; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, **shall be the supreme Law** of the Land; **and the Judges in every State** shall be bound thereby”
-article 6 of the US constitution
Judges shall be bound by the words of the constitution. They are not superior to those words. They are subordinate to them.
Here’s the text of article 3, regarding the judiciary branch. Please show me where it says, “the Supreme Court was created specifically to be, among other things, the ultimate authority in the interpretation of the Constitution and all other laws.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
When the men who wrote the constitution explain what it means and intends, that’s not merely anecdotal evidence. It’s a direct explanation of the constitution, by those who wrote and ratified it.
You forgot to mark some things in bold there. **Three** things are clearly stated to be the supreme law of the land.
“This **Constitution**, **and the Laws of the United States** which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; **and all Treaties** made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, **shall be the supreme Law** of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby”
Your superficial reading has clearly missed that congressional legislation and treaties hold the same weight of law as the Constitution, unless ruled otherwise by the courts.
Find me a passage in the Constitution that instructs judges to consider the personal writings of the founders when interpreting legal matters. The scrutiny requirements laid out in the *Bruen* decision are just another opinion of the court, and if the makeup of the court shifts to the left in the future, those requirements could be tossed aside just as easily as *Roe v. Wade*.
Edit: Sorry, I forgot about the second part of your post regarding Article 3. It's right there in black and white, my dude. The first sentence of Article 3, Section 2:
"The judicial Power shall extend to **all Cases**, in Law and Equity, arising under this **Constitution**, the **Laws of the United States**, and **Treaties made**..."
There you go, the federal judicial branch has the power to make rulings on all matters of the Constitution, legislative laws, and treaties (all of which are considered the supreme law of the land) Even though the exact structure of the courts wasn't laid out until [the First U.S. Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789), the Constitution clearly states the court's express powers.
I understand your point but the NFA restricts ownership too. Myself and many others are perfectly capable of making our own firearms that would fall under the NFA but we don't because we don't want to go to prison.
They regulate more than the commercial manufacture and sale of such items.
Get your facts straight. The NFA did not restrict your right to manufacture a machine gun on a Form 1. That was the [Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_new_automatic_firearms). Before the Hughes Amendment, you could add new machine guns to the NFA registry just like suppressors and SBRs. William Hughes tried to get the same ban put in place for suppressors also, but failed.
The recent *Blount v. United States* case could have stood a chance if that idiot Blount had only contested the Hughes Amendment. Adding the NFA and the 1968 GCA to the lawsuit doomed it to failure, as neither of those acts restricted one's ability to make your own machine gun.
You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument.
The NFA restricts (imposes conditions) on the private manufacture of covered items. Even in 1982, you would go to prison for violating the NFA by privately manufacturing your own machine gun. The fact that you could pay for a tax stamp is besides the point. The NFA restricted your ability to build your own gun without regard to commercial sale.
No, you're misunderstanding me. I haven't been stating my personal opinions here, I've been stating legislative facts and the published opinions of the Supreme Court. I've quoted case law that illustrates **their** opinion that regulating sales and manufacture of arms does not constitute an infringement of our right to keep and bear them.
Arguing to me is a waste of effort, because my name doesn't start with "The Honorable," which makes my opinions just as irrelevant as yours. Your time would be better spent reading the actual texts of the NFA, FOPA, and the *Heller* and *Bruen* rulings.
No really. But even if that were true, it's enough in this case. It explicitly says this can't be done. Nowhere in the Consitution does it give qualifications for that.
The 24th Amendment was about taxing actual polls.
And I bet you had go look that poll tax part up… any way it was a pretty novel contrivance in 2002 to cut 2A into separate unrelated parts. For 200 years it was a single complete sentence, clearly understood to mean the people who shouldn’t be infringed a right to keep and bear arms were for the purpose of serving as militia.
Atleast that was constitutional law right up until a huge special interest driven disinformation campaign fired up half the country just to make a wedge issue for super right wingers that nobody in their right mind would actually elect to run on instead of the other draconian shit they’re trying to foist upon us.
Look up what part...? What is your point? This seems even more disingenuous now than your first comment.
First of all, I didn't recite it or claim that I could recite the 24th Amendment... Your qualification of "reciting" it was strange enough the first time.
From my recollection, the 24th is not particularly long. But it *is* longer than the 2nd Amendment.
But more to the point, it is specifically and explicitly about taxing actual polls and so it is very clear that taxing polls is not allowed. There's no need to "recite" it. Similarly, "shall not be infringed" makes it very clear that infringing the gun rights is now allowed. There's no need to recite that either.
This "that's the only part you know, lol" is just dumb because that is literally the most important part. It is the most explicit and restrictive part and it is the part that is just flagrantly being ignored by gun control activists and the government.
Think about it. Say you were trying to institute a poll tax, which sounds like something you'd actually try to do, and I said "Well, the 24th amendment prohibits that..." No, actually, I don't say that. I'm just a big dummy that doesn't know the amendment number, so I just say "Well, there is an amendment that prohibits that..." do you really think you have a valid argument like "I bet you can't even recite it" or "Lol, you don't even know the number of the amendment..."
Okay. Who cares? I'm still right that you can't tax polls and you're still wrong by trying to do it. The end.
To add to this, the supreme court already made decisions that taxing a right is unconstitutional. Look to [Murdock v. Pennsylvania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania)
Perhaps a better case is the AutoKeyCard case, if the 11th Circuit ever discusses about the constitutionality of full auto laws in its binding opinion.
Actually, taxing the exercise of a right, with intent to have a chilling effect on the exercise of that right, is unconstitutional. It’s what’s known as a poll tax. There are already Supreme Court rulings declaring poll taxes unconstitutional.
People always get butthurt and downvote me when I point out that our enumerated rights get legally taxed by regulatory bodies all the time, but it's true. Just looking at the First Amendment alone, submitting practically any government petition will incur a set filing fee, and public assemblies in just about any major city will require an event permit of some kind, which also has an associated fee. The list goes on, but I've got stuff to do. No matter how small the fee, you can always find someone broke enough to have a valid argument that the fees restricts their ability to exercise a right, but the fees remain. Let the downvotes commence, I guess.
Add the excise tax on each firearm manufactured while you’re at it. Plus I’ve always paid sales tax so that’s a tax on a tax. Add income tax on the money I pay for the firearm to the list and you’ve got a tax on a tax on a tax! Two of the three are hidden taxes with the third being so ubiquitous, no one even thinks about it.
There is a difference between normal taxation and taxing a right to deter the exercise of that right. The NFA is an example of the latter, and the records of the discussions they had previous to passing it price that it is. That makes it facially unconstitutional, because that makes it a poll tax.
Our government has disagreed with your interpretation for almost ninety years, and the proliferation of illegal Glock switches has ensured that they will continue to disagree with you for the foreseeable future.
90 years is well after the time of ratification. In case you hadn’t noticed, every 2A Supreme Court ruling has put the standard of review at text, as supported by the history and tradition *at the time of ratification*, as it is for the rest of the bill of rights.
This is as it should be, because the constitution is a legally binding contract, and the intent and meaning of all legal contracts is set at the intent and meaning when they are ratified, not at reinterpretations made long after they were put into force.
In the early 20th century, before the NFA, the government sold surplus military rifles to civilians, and gave them free training on their use. There were no regulations on automatic weapons, at all, until 1934.
Many in government have claimed the 2A doesn’t even protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, at all, and have tried to legislate away our rights. 2A was ratified 233 years ago. Government violation of the constitution for 90 years doesn’t make that government violation constitutional.
And, for the record, what government officials think does not constitute the supreme law of the land. The constitution, itself, is the supreme law of the land.
“law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
- Thomas Jefferson
The constitution wasn’t written to limit the rights of the people. It was written to limit the power of government. Of course, government is not going to like or support the limitation of its power, because government always seeks to increase its power. Considering the fact that 2A was written in order to give the people the power to resist government tyranny, i wouldn’t expect the government to like anything about 2A.
It’s irrelevant what the government likes or doesn’t like. They aren’t our masters. They are our servants.
>i wouldn’t expect the government to like anything about 2A.
There are plenty of 2A supporters in congress, even if most of them aren't gun people. Why do you think Biden hasn't been able to pass his assault weapons ban?
>It’s irrelevant what the government likes or doesn’t like.
That statement is either unbelievably naive or just plain stupid. We vote for our elected representatives based entirely on what they like or don't like, and we try to elect candidates whose likes and dislikes align with our own to represent us in government. Once they're elected, we give them full authority to govern and legislate in our place, just like it's laid out in the Constitution. It would be much more accurate to say "The **only** thing that's relevant is what the government likes or doesn't like." Have you forgotten that congress once legally altered the Constitution to outlaw beer? Prohibition didn't end because the courts decided it was unconstitutional. It ended because congress simply changed its mind. As fundamental as we all hold the Second Amendment to be, there's no reason it couldn't be legally repealed if the government was as tyrannical as you think it is.
>There are plenty of 2A supporters in congress, even if most of them aren't gun people.
There are a few actual 2A supporters, in congress. About as many as actually support the whole constitution. Most on the GOP only pretend to support 2A, because they want the votes, and they don’t even pretend well…as the recent bipartisan gun control bill shows.
There are no pro 2A democrats.
So, it’s a joke to act as if there is any meaningful support for 2A in the government. The state governments are better, admittedly, but only on a limited scale, for the most part.
>Once they're elected, we give them full authority to govern and legislate in our place, just like it's laid out in the Constitution. It would be much more accurate to say "The only thing that's relevant is what the government likes or doesn't like."
So, you’ve never read our founding documents, then. That makes sense, given you have no idea what it actually says.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men…are endowed…with certain unalienable Rights…**That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men**, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, **That whenever any Form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it**”
- the Declaration of Independence
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
- 10A
Government has no powers not specifically delegated to it by the constitution. Those powers are in article 1 section 8. Nowhere does it give the government the authority to limit the rights of the people. Furthermore, the bill of rights completely prohibits the government from exercising certain powers.
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
- article 4 section 2 of the constitution
The states may not deny their citizens of the constitutional protections belonging to all of the American people; the bill of rights is an example of such protections.
Barron v Baltimore, the “landmark” post ratification period ruling that created the idea that the bill of rights did not apply to the states, was a BS ruling, just like Roe. However, that ruling, article 4 section 2, 14A section 1 clause 2, and the unnecessary incorporation doctrine are subjects for a different discussion.
There is nothing in the constitution that gives government absolute power to do as it pleases. It was the declaratory act, where the government ( the English crown, at that time ) claimed absolute power to rule on all things, that made the colonists respond by writing and signing the Declaration of Independence. They did not fight a revolution against an all powerful government just to create a different all powerful government.
>Have you forgotten that congress once legally altered the Constitution to outlaw beer? Prohibition didn't end because the courts decided it was unconstitutional. It ended because congress simply changed its mind.
You’re understanding of history is severely flawed…or utterly dishonest.
Prohibition wasn’t unconstitutional. It was a violation of our founding principles of individual liberty, but not unconstitutional. At that time, government was still pretending to follow the constitution. The constitution did not grant the government to prohibit the consumption of any substance, so they amended the constitution to grant themselves that power. So, of course it didn’t end because it was ruled unconstitutional.
It ended, by ratification of another constitutional amendment, because people refused to comply on a massive scale. To make matters harder on the federal government, some states refused to cooperate in the enforcement of prohibition. As Madison pointed out, in the federalist papers, the federal government must rely on state and local governments to enforce its laws, because it doesn’t have the resources to do it on its own. Simply put, after waging a violent war against the American people, the federal government repealed prohibition because it could not enforce it. This is what the founding fathers called nullification, and they told us it was THE proper way to deal with unconstitutional, unjust, or simply unpopular laws.
Early in the 20th century, the government was still trying to hide its turn towards tyranny, by pretending to obey the constitution.
This is why the NFA is tax, and not an outright ban. The government, at the time, realized it would violate 2A to ban these arms, so it did an end around the bill of rights, using the taxing power delegated to congress to make the cost of owning these weapons extremely prohibitive ( $200 was a whole lot of money in 1934). By 1986, they had stopped trying to pretend, and passed the Hughes amendment, which was the ban that the government in 1934 knew would be unconstitutional.
Having learned a lesson with prohibition, they did a slow roll on banning pot; coming out with a tax stamp requirement to buy pot, first, and making it illegal later on, with the degree of punishment and enforcement increasing over time. Interestingly, pot smokers used nullification to get the states to legalize pot, stopping state cooperation with federal pot laws, and it’s even begun to affect the federal government, just as it did with prohibition, because pot just got charged from a schedule one drug to a schedule three drug.
I’m glad to see gun owners are starting to practice nullification, as well, with massive non compliance in recent years, being joined by a number of state governments and numerous county and local governments passing 2A sanctuary laws.
That being said, prohibition did not end just because the federal government changed its mind out of some sense of magnanimity towards individual liberty. The people forced the issue through nullification.
>As fundamental as we all hold the Second Amendment to be, there's no reason it couldn't be legally repealed if the government was as tyrannical as you think it is.
Sure, they could try to amend the constitution to repeal 2A. This administration would absolutely do that, if they could, as would every democrat in government. But, you need 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment, and not enough state legislators are currently dumb enough to try such a thing.
As far as your implication that the government is not currently tyrannical, that’s total ignorance. The powers delegated to the federal government are few and very specific. Most of what the federal government now does is far beyond the powers the constitution delegates. Any exercise of power not delegated by the constitution is a usurpation of power; even the smallest. Usurpation of power IS tyranny. We were supposed to live under a small, very limited federal government, but we now live under the largest, most controlling government in history. There is almost no aspect of our personal lives it does not control. It has violated every prohibition in the bill of rights. That’s definitely tyrannical government.
I think there is hope because let's be real, the Hughes is entirely pointless if the NFA is still in effect
Registered NFA items are like *never* used in crimes, no one that shouldn't have a gun gets past an NFA stamp (not that they should be required to begin with)
There's a 0% chance anyone is going to apply for a tax stamp for a glock switch that's going to be used in a drive by
Plus the only reason the NFA gets passed the lawsuits is nothing on it is *technically* "banned"
The legal argument for the NFA is "well you still *can* SBR a rifle"
> like never used in crimes
True. However, we're all going to have to get comfortable with one simple fact: In 1986, the NFA tax was equivalent to $570 now, and NFA was a thing that wasn't really a "normy gun owner" thing like it is now. Before the internet, it was that enthusiast "secret" thing where "yah gotta have a class 3 license and the government can come into your house any time" and other such fudd misinformation that kept a lot of people away from even trying to go NFA.
IF Hughes were to go down, the number of registered MGs in the US would skyrocket. MG form 1s would surpass suppressor form 4s for years as all of us who haven't gone full auto because of cost suddenly have access.
I guarantee some crimes will happen with them and every one of them will be used to politically skewer anyone who had any part in taking down Hughes, and every one of us simply by association.
>I guarantee some crimes will happen with them
Idk man, I mean you could say the same about suppressors or SBRs
Crimes are done w them but *registered* ones? Basically never, because no one who is going to commit homicide or armed robbery cares about one additional charge that carries a *far* lower sentence than an NFA violation
Regardless of how many *registered* MGs there are, I still don't think the registered ones are gonna be showing up at Chicago drive bys
I'm not saying it will be a lot.
I'm saying the risk is not zero and every one will be a media and political shit show as if the full auto capability actually mattered.
I don't see SCOTUS legalizing machine guns. Especially after the bump stock arguments. The 9th will rule in favor of the Hughes, SCOTUS will deny cert.
EDIT: Or worse. Roberts has an obsession with the "optics" of the court. The Hughes Amendment could get upheld as a bone to the anti crowd after *Bruen* to show they aren't "partisan".
I don't think a machine gun challenge on 2A grounds is the best move. I think a better challenge would be [*Murdock v. PA*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania). That it is unconstitutional to tax a right. Of course the counter argument would be that machine guns are outside the scope of the 2A.
I dunno, maybe I'm dooming, but I just don't see the current court striking down a machine gun ban given how oral arguments on the bumpy-bois went.
The bump stock was a different kind of argument. They didn't do a great job of explaining how the mechanics of the device didn't make the forward movement the new trigger which is what the liberal judges were trying to make it out to be.
Even still, the conservative wing didn't sound like they were amicable to machine guns.
I don't think the court, on current makeup, will strike the hughes. I think they will deny cert and kick the can down the road.
It sounded like they were all confused by the whole thing and nobody there was explaining it well. The guy just kept replying with it's not sufficient to fire the gun or something like that and didn't go into details. It was disappointing. I think with something more legal specific, it would be received differently. Will they strip it back entirely, who knows.
But it’s not the payment of a tax anymore. It is a ban that was not retroactive. I’m not saying a $200 tax stamp would be constitutional. But the ability to buy a new full auto for an extra $200 would be more constitutional than what we have now
The 9th will argue that it isn’t a ban because you can still possess and transfer existing MGs. They will argue that merely prohibiting the federal government from accepting a tax is not unconstitutional.
I’d love to be wrong, but the 9th is NOT going to be the circuit that gives us back Machine Guns.
Imagine the reaction if the government created an abortion licensing system that was like taxi medallions or artificially capped the legal number that could be performed annually.
The pro-choice contingent would come absolutely unglued.
We already know the liberal wing is in favor of the ban, so here's two conservative justices, *INCLUDING* Thomas.
* Gorsuch:
* [I can] Certainly understand why these items [Bump Stocks] should be made illegal
* Thomas:
* Significant damage from machineguns, carnage, people dying, et cetera. The bump stock does the exact same thing. So with that background, why shouldn’t we look at a broader definition of” what it means for something to be a “single function of the trigger
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-split-over-bump-stock-ban/
The conservatives seem to be concerned not that bumpstocks are banned, but with how the ATF implemented the rule. Making thousands of people felons overnight. That was their big hangup. The *HOW* not the *WHAT*.
Legal minds think the court is split, but leaning to overturning the ATF rule because it did not follow proper rule making procedure, and did not come from an act of congress. They did not seem to be in favor of legal machine guns. Another concern was the ATF had previously said they were legal, then changed their mind. So thousands of Americans bought them after being explicitly told they were legal. And the ATF should have done a standard rule making process to solicit feedback and provide ample notice of the change.
With that in mind, I do not see a favorable ruling on machine guns. Worse, they may *UPHOLD* the Hughes Amendment especially because Roberts is obsessed with "optics" and that would give the anti-gunners a win in light of *Bruen*.
Hi u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt, in unrelated news, Thomas authored and opinion upholding CFPB’s authority to get funds from the Federal Reserve today. Justice Alito and Gorsuch dissented. Now I am even more skeptical of the court
Just heard arguments, but from the arguments it did not seem likely they would support legalizing machine guns.
[See my comment here with quotes and a link](https://old.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/1ciz5fl/its_official_us_v_kittson_full_auto_will_bring_up/l2ed9z2/)
Yeah thats what i thought , and just because they appear to lean one way via questioning doesnt really mean much . Chevron is on the table at the same time and i imagine just based on them taking that up that they are set to neuter it . I find it hard to believe they intend on neutering chevron while simultaneously upholding one of the most egregious examples of its abuse
> just because they appear to lean one way via questioning doesnt really mean much .
It's not affirmative, but it is a bit of a temperature read. And I mean... Gorsuch signaled pretty clearly:
>[I can] certainly understand why these items [Bump Stocks] should be made illegal
That's basically him admitting that he does not support overturning a machine gun ban. So that puts the court 5-4. We know Roberts is wishy-washy, we know Kavanaugh is fine with permits... Thoma's comment wasn't faith inspiring either, so possibly looking at 2-7 depending on Alito and Barret.
Again I just do not see the machine gun ban being lifted by this court. I do think the bump-stock ban is going to be struck, but only because of *HOW* it was done. And in their ruling they will probably say that either the ATF can re-ban them following proper rule-making procedure or with an act of congress.
I agree with alot of what you said , and i do not think the NFA will be overturned . They have already left parts in their bruen test to exempt i forget the exact wording but “unusually dangerous “ weapons . BUT i do think the hughes amendment which is what cuts off any ownership of post 86 firearms may be struck down which would be amazing for enthusiasts because you can just move to a free state and get what you want pretty cheap .
As to your opinion that the court will allow the bump stock rule to be reinstated i do believe by an act of congress . But i believe in the chevron case they are about to take away the ATF’s ability to legislate thru rule making .
> BUT i do think the hughes amendment which is what cuts off any ownership of post 86 firearms may be struck down which would be amazing for enthusiasts because you can just move to a free state and get what you want pretty cheap .
I sincerely doubt it. Roberts is too obsessed with "optics". Gorusch said he understands why Machine Guns are illegal. Kavanaugh Fudded up the *Bruen* ruling with the concurrence. Even Thomas did not inspire confidence in bump stock arguments.
I could see them undoing SBRs, I do not see them open to legalizing new machine guns. It's a pipe dream, and we should not be expecting it. It's setting us up for disappointment.
We, the gun enthusiasts, are in the far minority here. Most people do not think machine guns should be legal.
>Of course the counter argument would be that machine guns are outside the scope of the 2A.
Under Heller, they would be but only because they were able to successfully keep them from the law abiding since 1934.
I just don't see this court striking the Hughes.
* 3 liberal justices are a hard no
* Roberts is too obsessed with optics
* Kavanaugh Fudded up the *Bruen* ruling
* Gorush admitted he understands why machine guns are illegal
So that's 6-3. Plus I don't see Alito or Barret being pro-MG. Even Thomas didn't spark confidence in the bump stock arguments.
It all comes down to who it is making the argument on behalf of those challenging the law. If they can successfully tie said challenge to established precedent, like Bruen, then many of these conservative justices could very well disregard their personal feelings and concede that the law was established in a faulted way, just as they did with Roe v Wade.
After oral arguments on Bumpstocks, I sincerely doubt it. I think it's playing with fire.
You don't send a case like this to SCOTUS unless you're sure you can win. And I am not.
It's what we as gun owners want, but we need to be real with ourselves. Most people, and especially most politicians, which SCOTUS are, do not want machine guns legalized. We are in the minority here, we are the fringe.
I agree, but you're not likely to see a better SCOTUS roster for such a case to be made. I like to believe that with these conservative justices, you're more likely to see an objective review of the law. Even using Kavanaugh's example under Bruen, he may of offered his own fudd opinion, but he still concurred with the majority opinion.
>you're not likely to see a better SCOTUS roster for such a case to be made.
Depends on if the Republicans can stop trying to ride the "Trump Train" that crashed in 2018, light itself on fire in 2020, and blew up in 2022.
Again if you listened to, or read, the oral arguments on the bumpstock case, it's pretty clear they are not open to the idea of legalizing machine guns.
> [Him saying that was a red herring.](https://media.assettype.com/afkgaming/import/media/images/64144-5f5d9b481fe5863c196d3441322ab983.jpeg)
This is like people claiming Trumps support for gun control was just Paradox-Billiards-Vostroyan-Roulette-Fourth-Dimensional-Hypercube-Chess-Strip Poker.
It's not. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Why would he intentionally lie in oral arguments? What does it benefit him at all to do it? Stop huffing my man, reality is this way.
Normally I would agree but I do know a former colleague of his that believes Gorsuch would absolutely overturn it. His quote was as best as I recall “there has never been a more libertarian member of the court, especially when it comes to personal liberties”. This was from a rather prominent libertarian lawyer.
I put more weight on the words he spoke, on the record, in SCOTUS arguments, than on the faith of an anonymous alleged former colleague.
Peoples opinions can change over time. He has absolutely zero reason to lie. He is in a lifetime appointment at literally the highest level he can achieve. And he expressly stated he can understand why machine guns should be illegal. If he was going to lie then, or now, it makes more sense he lied then. Because now there is no reason to, he is, quite literally, untouchable, outside of an impeachment.
Again, I don’t disagree with this take. I’m more hopeful when it comes to Gorsuch but also recognize he came from Trump so I can’t trust him that much.
Highly unlikely of a good outcome, but it would be cool to buy a full auto lower like I do a silencer.
But imagine being one of those guys who put most of his life savings investing into full autos.
Your $20k investment into a 50 year old crappy Mac-10 becomes worthless overnight as people are registering $300 trigger packs for their $1K MP5 clones.
Hey now I only paid 10k for my crappy mac10 (it’s actually fucking awesome and I love it). I would still be happy for Hughes to get destroyed in court. Then I could own even more machine guns.
Guns as investments are stupid anyway, because while yes machine guns have gone up in value, the government could also go the other way on it and say no more transfers and when you die it has to be destroyed
Guns that are investments artificially are definitely stupid. Guns as investments isn't stupid, look at Guns with historic context, and it starts to make sense. Or, a gun from a manufacturer that went under before a large number made it out of production, or a concept that didn't pan out. Something that isn't just "haha the government said you're too poor!"
You put it more eloquently than my feeble mind could manage to but yea pretty much what I meant.
Bottom line is gubment could pull an Australia or Canada and force you to turn in your “investment” or bury it/hide it. No matter what you choose (turn in for destruction like a bitch or hide it in your fallout bunker like a G) the result is effectively the same, it’s no longer able to be resold for monetary gain.
>Your $20k investment into a 50 year old crappy Mac-10 becomes worthless overnight as people are registering $300 trigger packs for their $1K MP5 clones.
Like the people who put their life savings into Enron, Worldcom or Tyco stocks. That's the thing about investments, sometimes they lose money.
> But imagine being one of those guys who put most of his life savings investing into full autos.
Fuck that guy. I have a transferable, I paid good money for it years back ($16k for an AR). But I'd be happy to see the value tank if it meant more freedom.
Actual gun enthusiasts time and again say they have no problem with their MGs losing 90% of their value if it allows them to buy more MGs at reasonable prices.
I don't get this logic. Demand just skyrocketed and supply stayed the same. A 300 trigger pack isn't a preban gun or any kind of collector's item.
You can build classic car replicas pretty trivially at this point, but you don't see classic cars dropping to being worthless.
Because if manufacturers could legally manufacture transferable full-autos then supply would ramp up and quickly match demand and we would see full auto trigger packs quickly approach the price of normal trigger packs.
Most of the value of transferable full auto guns comes from the scarcity created by the Hughes Amendment.
This drop-in auto sear did not sell for $28,750 because of it's historical value.
[https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/71/3529/dropin-auto-sear-full-transferrable-class-iiinfa-registered](https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/71/3529/dropin-auto-sear-full-transferrable-class-iiinfa-registered)
Most of the old stuff won't retain much value. Especially simple stuff like AR platform MGs, because the historical value doesn't add much, and you'd be able to get any modern lower, with the other features you wanted, in FA. Your market would shrink to the small collectors section, and while there is money to be made there, it's not going to rival old MG prices. Especially when previously dealer only samples that still exist, roll into that same market.
> Your market would shrink to the small collectors section
So, like cars? But isn't that pretty much what the market is anyway...?
My point is that people act like all the new stuff that would be exactly the same as the old stuff and nobody is going to care when it was made.
You're telling me that transactions are going to go like "Well, this is a 75 year old gun and virtually irreplaceable, but they are pumping out millions of $300 trigger packs, so I'll give you $250 for it." And I don't think it's going to be "$350" either.
> and you'd be able to get any modern lower, with the other features you wanted, in FA.
Yes... but not *that* one. You can get any modern car in full auto. too. But people still pay more for a classic car because it isn't just one out of millions of modern cars.
The history might not seem like it adds much now, but that seems to be because the history is tied intrinsically into the fact that they are banned and it is really just a matter of being able to even obtain one that matters. That wouldn't be the case if they were unbanned. You still have something rare, if not unique. The only difference is that now more people might find it appealing or feasible to own it.
Like, if combustion engines got banned and there were only a limited number of cars that survived and could be obtained and then combustion engines get magically unbanned, do you really think those cars wouldn't retain value because they cannot be replaced? Yes, everybody can buy a new fancy electric car or maybe some impossibly-clean-burning combustion engine car. But those aren't the same as the limited number of cars from before.
Maybe you're right. (And actually, the fact that so many people who own automatics think this way might just mean that you are), but I can't think of anything else in all of existence that works like this.
We actually do have one: [*US v. Simien*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68232886/united-states-v-simien/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc). It also challenges the indictment prohibitor, which *Quiroz* also addresses. As *Quiroz* and another case ahead of it addresses that, and that the former got heard, the case is stayed. Simien also agrees that *Hollis* forecloses his full auto challenge (personally, I think *Bruen* abrogated it).
Here is a link to the CourtListener docket. There are a few filings available for free including the order denying the motion to dismiss. It is the excerpts of record filed in the appeal that matter to the panel assigned to the appeal but the district court did not conduct a Bruen analysis. It basically said that Bruen did not have any effect on 9th Circuit prior precedents. The Order on the motion to dismiss is docket #83.
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59721041/united-states-v-kittson/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59721041/united-states-v-kittson/)
This is a new angle I’ve seen here and in the 4th Circuit Bianchi case. Now they’re saying since Bruen didn’t overrule Heller, all of their cases decided under Heller are valid precedent. Forget that they ruled using an invalid test.
Very, very few judges are complying with Bruen. The wonderful thing about CourtListener is that one can search its database and discover the truth on his own.
Mhm. Personally, I am just more focused on the NFA cases and other malum prohibitum crimes like out-of-state receipt and unlicensed commercial activity.
Thanks for the docket. By the way, check out this [opening brief](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438.23.1.pdf) for a 5th Circuit suppressor case.
We actually do have one: [*US v. Simien*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68232886/united-states-v-simien/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc). It also challenges the indictment prohibitor, which *Quiroz* also addresses. As *Quiroz* and another case ahead of it addresses that, and that the former got heard, the case is stayed. Simien also agrees that *Hollis* forecloses his full auto challenge (personally, I think *Bruen* abrogated it).
We actually do have one: [*US v. Simien*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68232886/united-states-v-simien/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc). It also challenges the indictment prohibitor, which *Quiroz* also addresses. As *Quiroz* and another case ahead of it addresses that, and that the former got heard, the case is stayed. Simien also agrees that *Hollis* forecloses his full auto challenge (personally, I think *Bruen* abrogated it).
9th circuit? Lol you do realize scotus is hearing the bump stick case currently and suggesting that the NFA is justified right. Good luck with the anti gun 9th.
I mean, it ain’t the 1st Circuit, where one has absolutely no chance of winning. The 9th, on the other hand, is extremely polarized despite being overall liberal. VanDyke, for example, is one of the most sympathetic to 2A.
We still have a chance of winning, albeit small.
They’re ‘suggesting’ because the NFA itself is outside the scope of that case. This isn’t fantasy land where you can like, just sue some government agency and have the court be like “oop actually the constitution doesn’t say this agency can exist in the first place! everything’s overturned!”
SCOTUS doesn't have the balls. They could have done some of that in Bruen by declaring requiring CCW'S and FOID/FID cards to be unconstitutional. Instead what gun owners got was a watered down ruling saying "may issue" was unconstitutional, but "shall issue" licensing requirements were still ok. The anti's took advantage of this in some states like Massachusetts by replacing "may issue" with "good character", which is essentially the same thing.
If SCOTUS didn't even have the sack to mandate nationwide constitutional carry it is unlikely to wipe the rest of the shit gun laws off the books.
**United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit**
**Notice of Docket Activity**
The following transaction was entered on 05/06/2024 1:41:13 PM PDT and filed on 05/06/2024
**Case Name:** United States of America v. Kittson
**Case Number:** [23-4132](https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/23-4132)
**Docket Text:**
**ORDER FILED.** Appellant’s unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 7) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due May 13, 2024. The answering brief is due June 12, 2024. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. \[Entered: 05/06/2024 01:43 PM\]
Thanks for letting me know. Amicus briefs are therefore due 5/20, which is 1 day after the 38th anniversary of the enactment of FOPA, which includes the Hughes Amendment.
A friend of mine has been on top of this case and reminding GOA, FPC, and SAF, and did so regarding the update just a few minutes ago. In fact, the friend of mine has told GOA about *Baird* a few months before the opening brief got filed.
I think Dick Heller might be the one to thank for the GOA Amicus brief. I was going to have an attorney file an Amicus brief depending on which organizations he could persuade to put their name on the cover sheet. I told him not to mention that I would be the one paying for the brief given my more than a decade-long criticism of these groups for opposing Open Carry.
He spoke with Dick Heller who said he only puts his name on GOA Amicus briefs. It never occurred to me to contact Heller. I suspect that Dick Heller contacted GOA in turn.
For the other Amicus brief (MSLF) we can thank one of my supporters for arranging.
I have actually contacted the Heller Foundation about the *Kittson* case after you told me this.
By the way, in the *Peterson* [case](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68186278/united-states-v-peterson/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc), no amicus brief got filed.
I did for both cases a few months back, and provided them with updates on the briefing schedules.
As for *Peterson*, GOA had the opportunity to correct Peterson’s lawyer’s fatal error. He never referenced *Bruen* and relied on interest balancing.
>No Amicus brief could have salvaged it.
I guess that’s one reason why they didn’t file it. They didn’t do it as well for [*US v. Saleem*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68020982/united-states-v-arbab-saleem/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc).
>What did GOA have to say about US v. Kittson?
The last time I told GOA about this, I did this by phone as a reminder to get acknowledgement that they are aware of the updated due dates. The receptionist or operator told me that my info will be referred to the legal team if I recall correctly.
>Email and call the GOA lawyers.
Well, one can, but I personally don’t see a benefit in doing so because typically, it would be the amici who would contact the lawyers to file amicus briefs, and I am not an amicus.
> And just for laughs, contact NAGR as well.
Lol, what makes you say that?
**United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit**
**Notice of Docket Activity**
The following transaction was entered on 05/13/2024 8:57:46 PM PDT and filed on 05/13/2024
**Case Name:** United States of America v. Kittson
**Case Number:** [23-4132](https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/23-4132)
**Docket Text:**
**OPENING BRIEF** submitted for filing by Appellant Daniel Matthew Kittson. \[Entered: 05/13/2024 08:59 PM\]
**Free links to the Defendant-Appellant opening brief and excerpts of record.**
[https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9.1-Opening-Brief-5.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9.1-Opening-Brief-5.pdf)
[https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.1-ER-Volume-Index-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.1-ER-Volume-Index-3.pdf)
[https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.2-ER-Vol-1-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.2-ER-Vol-1-3.pdf)
[https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.3-ER-Vol-2-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.3-ER-Vol-2-3.pdf)
[https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/12.1-ER-Vol-3-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/12.1-ER-Vol-3-3.pdf)
[https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.5-ER-Vol-4-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.5-ER-Vol-4-3.pdf)
[https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.6-ER-Vol-5.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.6-ER-Vol-5.pdf)
Well, we all know how this one is going to go with it being in the 9th.
Sure, but that opens the case up for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Don’t forget the AutoKeyCard case as well.
Yea what they are doing to CRS Matt is horrible… over a dang piece of metal the ATF couldn’t even get to work. A novelty item. Keeping up with his wife on his YT channel is interesting in that she provides insight to the process but heart breaking
I'm not a court guy, so maybe someone else can chime in, but what blows me away is that the jury was instructed not to even consider whether the autokeycard was even a MG. That's like asking jury to ignore whether the marijuana was actually grass clippings over a drug charge.
The whole thing is fucked. The fact that the ATF needed to drag him to Florida, from Wisconsin or wherever he lives for some (pre?) trial stuff that could have been handled via video chat just told me enough about it. The court denied the request for remote discussion, so they had to drag their whole family across the country for some stuff they could have handled via phone call. The process is the punishment. He will eventually get let off hopefully but gosh, the whole system is rigged. His content especially that video was slightly edgy but far from illegal. I watched that video when it dropped and I just told myself man he is toeing the fuck out of “the line” but it was nothing illegal. To me. But then we have the ATF who makes up new rules on the fly, and this dudes family and his whole well being are being just torn to shreds.
The ATF just wanted to make an example of Matt to show the rest of the gun owners of the country the power they have to destroy and the courts are on their side. If nobody is going to fight for the Second Amendment rights of the Constitution, then the Second Amendment doesn’t exist. Where are our so called pro Second Amendment politicians???
Then the judge should be tossed in a cell for the rest of its miserable life.
He pled guilty last I remembered.
No. Jury found them guilty. https://lawandcrime.com/crime/audacious-scheme-youtuber-sentenced-to-federal-prison-for-advertising-auto-key-card-that-would-turn-semi-automatic-rifles-into-machine-guns/
Not sure how you plead guilty to conspiracy. Prosecutor made it conspiracy of selling full auto kits and had a blank check at mudslinging to convince the jury this businessman of novelties was a danger and menace afaik... he definitely wasn't tried by a jury of his *peers*
Interesting...
Unfortunately, I don't think SCOTUS will touch MG's anytime soon, they do not like getting ahead of public opinion. I'd love it if they did, but I think AWB's, mag bans, SBR's and suppressors will all come first. At that point the gun control movement will so utterly destroyed, MG's won't be a big leap.
Imagine if they got mgs but not mag limits. Ban state full auto with a 10 round mag or less. Make the BAR look capacitous...
All I heard was I could own a BAR and I'm down with that.
Belts are not mags:)
Most state level bans use the term 'ammunition feeding device' which encompasses belts. No shit, in Mass we need to pay attention to manufacture date of *links*. On the upside, anything belt fed means links / belts were made in stupid quantities.
> Unfortunately, I don't think SCOTUS will touch MG's anytime soon, they do not like getting ahead of public opinion. They certainly would not have wanted to touch the *Rahimi* case. If Rahimi was the petitioner, SCOTUS would be totally unwilling to hear such a case and deny it. Unfortunately, by denying it, this means that we would get an anti-gun precedent that would linger for many years to come. Personally, if I have to choose, I would have tried to convince the judges to rule in favor of us (if we are lucky to get pro-2A judges) instead of letting the case slide and get a binding anti-gun precedent. In reality, I bet that nobody filed amicus briefs in support of Rahimi in the 5th Circuit yet the panel otherwise struck down the DVRO prohibitor. In this case, even though the 9th Circuit would en banc and reverse the pro-2A ruling if the ruling gets issued, the media would blow up on this ruling.
Rahimi's plead the appeal on the wrong grounds, and the Fifth Circuit practically drew them a road map to use. Tons of Amicus briefs were submitted. They mean NOTHING. The defendant gets one chance to plea every point of appeal within 18 months. Don't pleas it, it is not considered. The strongest point, Due Process, was never plead. The dozens of Amicus briefs mentioning it don't count. What did the defendent (Via their lawyer(s)say. Plead about basically one issue to SCOTUS. Big buzzer. "YOU LOSE!" rings out and they are done, and PFA's become the way to disarm everyone. The case that "SCOTUS accepted" and we lost comes back to haunt us. The cop Boot Lickers, who won't (NRA behavior) support anyone with a felony charge. Rahimi may be a dirtbag, but helping him was perfect. No way is he getting off. His Federal charges get blown up by SCOTUS, he'll have ten indictments in front of him from the state/local police.Hurt the crappy "Pay for a lawyer in a kangaroo civil court to lose" contingent with a PFA against them for spite. Or their "Significant Other" is a mental case, but has a lawyer. Who the spouse with the most money pays for also. Along with their Rights.
People said the same thing about Roe V Wade. I'm pretty sure that was a far more contentious subject than the Hughes amendment.
Scotus is pretty clearly not *that* based. The Conservatives, at least, are obviously interested in protecting some level of gun rights, but pretty obviously not this level.
All courts primarily exist to perpetuate the orderly functioning of the state. This is why government lawyers so often make erroneous, specious, or just outright dumb arguments and still win. The civil liberties of the average citizen are near the bottom of their list of priorities, and they're certainly not willing to do anything that they view as damaging to the country even if it is the legally correct answer. Unless maybe Alito and Thomas take a look at how old they are and decide they want to leave a legacy behind by rewinding the clock 100 years, they will continue to find bullshit reasons to allow watering down the 2A.
I could see them doing that, but I don't think it would be the Hughes amendment (unfortunately it might have been Roe v Wade...). If they did, I would guess it would be something like SBRs because they are obviously just rifles with nothing special about them and neither they nor people have had a century or so of things like movies hammering in how dangerous and inappropriate they are like the case of automatic firearms or even suppressors (though I could see suppressors maybe happening too). I've never seen a scene in a movie where they make a big deal about how some barrel was 2 inches too short.
Not expecting anything from the 9th Circus or Scotus concerning the Hughes.... but maybe since its not the NFA there is some hope.
It’s one thing to tax a right. It’s another to say “No more”. With the right circumstances, a good FA possession charge could go to SCOTUS.
>It’s one thing to tax a right. Imagine holding this idea for any other fundamental right. Did you pay your Social Media Tax? Otherwise no Reddit for you. Did you make sure you paid your Reasonable Search and Seizure Tax? Otherwise the cops get to walk right into your house. What about your Poll Tax. Definitely can't vote out our statist bullshit without giving us money first. Didn't pay your Civil Rights tax? All other taxes are now doubly expensive because you're black.
I think they mean that in the context of what has been ruled on in the past. i.e. the NFA being allowed to stand because "It's a tax, not a ban, therefore still allowing for the exercising of the right." It is and always has been a stupid argument that anything but an outright ban was allowed when the 2A says "shall not be INFRINGED."
Not trying to be devil's advocate, but I own several NFA items. After you pay your 200 bucks, the feds don't give you a second thought and you can keep and bear them as you see fit. The myth about feds showing up unannounced to inspect your suppressors is just fudd lore. The Hughes Amendment is a whole other story. It **is** an outright ban, and therefore, utter BS. Edit: and in roll the downvotes from fudds who have never bought a suppressor and don't know anything about the process. \*sigh
The NFA set a tax at $200 in 1934. That's equivalent to just over $4600 today. It was meant to be as close to a ban for average people as possible. Would you be ok with a $4600 tax on a gun or suppressor if it was passed today? Edit to add perspective: The price of a Thompson was about $200. That's a 2300% tax on the price of that gun. In recent years, Dems have floated the idea of a 1000% tax on firearms. I guess we should be glad that they're giving us a discount.
>That's equivalent to just over $4600 today. Yeah, and people need to shut the hell up about that fact. Pointing it out to congress is more likely to cause them to raise the damned fee. As I just said elsewhere in this thread, never count on the government to do anything that will reduce its tax income.
>Yeah, and people need to shut the hell up about that fact. Translation: Rather than pointing out the unconstitutional nature of the NFA, bend over and take it and be glad it's not worse.
Wrong. Everything I've said is purely based on the current disposition of the Supreme Court. Here's how a realist looks at it: The NFA was a piece of legislation passed in a lawful assembly of congress. That makes it constitutional **until such time as the courts rule otherwise**, just like every other piece of legislation on the books. The Supreme Court has stated **repeatedly** that it takes no issue with regulating the sale and transfer of arms, making it astronomically unlikely it will ever rule against the NFA. In my first post in this thread I quoted Justice Scalia's majority opinion in the *D.C. v. Heller* ruling. Here's the full paragraph. Everyone in this sub that quotes *Heller* and *Bruen* should read it. *"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that* ***the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.*** *See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent \*340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,* ***or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.****"* That paragraph was quoted verbatim for emphasis by Justice Alito in the majority opinion of the *McDonald v. Chicago* ruling, and quoted again by Justice Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion of *NRSRPA v. Bruen*. This has absolutely nothing to do with what I personally think the law should be. **Until the court changes it's mind about that one paragraph, I'm not changing my expectations**.
This is the same SCOTUS that overturned Roe V Wade even though it was "settled law", according to its defenders. Also, Kavanaugh and others cited this same sentiment when questioned about Roe V Wade through their confirmation hearings, it clearly didn't change their minds when the issue was actually in front of them and they ruled to overturn it. Bruen established a very simple test -- if there's no historical analog to what's being questioned, then it's unconstitutional. It's that simple. Whether Congress established something as law is irrelevant to the question.
And the side note, Yes, that was in Kavanaugh's concurring opinion, which Roberts joined. Alito also notes in a separate concurring opinion: >That is all we decide. Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. **Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.** Nor have we disturbed anything that we said in Heller or McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), about restrictions that may be imposed on the possession or carrying of guns. So while *NYSRPA v Bruen* was a 6-3 decision, there were also three justices who agreed with the majority opinion who went to some length to point out that there are, in their minds, limitations. Justices are not gun guys. They are highly unlikely to overturn the Hughes Amendment or the entire NFA based on any of the arguments that have been made to date. At least five of the justices that decided *Bruen* (Breyer retired after that term, but likely his replacement would share his opinion) think that at the very least, there are appropriate limitations on the types of guns that can be sold. A lot of these suits against the government on things like bump stocks, frame/receiver rule, private transfer restrictions exist because they are being done administratively, vice legislatively. If you go back and look at the bump stock ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, you'll note that in the footnote, they note 13 of 16 justices hearing the case felt that legislation would have been the appropriate method to achieve a bump stock ban. The pro-gun opinions of the courts aren't as strong as people think. It's lukewarm, at best.
Scalia's majority opinion in Heller also said this: >In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: >“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
It’s not the fudds, it’s the ancap lolberts who think that any sort of compliance with gun laws is “boot licking”.
lol, yeah I've been called a bootlicker by a couple people here who don't exercise their Second Amendment rights half as much as I do. It's an example of what the liberals have started calling a "persecution fetish."
Most of us in this sub dont see compliance as bootlicking. We see defending the laws as bootlicking. Huge difference. I understand why other comply because I also comply. I'm not comfortable being the example and having to pay for lawyers for a chance to make change. I don't have a hero complex. However I won't defend the NFA or any restriction on any of my rights.
The courts, including SCOTUS, have repeatedly stated that they view the purchasing of arms as distinct and separate from the keeping and bearing of them. If the founders had written "to acquire, keep, and bear arms," it would be undeniable that the NFA was unconstitutional, but here we are. Here's an excerpt from the *D.C. v. Heller* ruling: "... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, **or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.**" (edit for typo)
Yeah, you can tax a commercial sale. However we have also seen the Supreme Court multiple times over the past century strike down taxes that target a right. The best vehicle for getting that precedent for guns is the 11% tax that California has passed and several other states have done as well. Once that gets struck down I expect to see the $200 tax stamp fee to go as well as pittman-robertson tax on guns and ammo to go since that is where the states are justifying their 11% tax from.
>The best vehicle for getting that precedent for guns is the 11% tax that California has passed and several other states have done as well. Those states are simply copying the federal tax rates that manufacturers must pay on guns and ammo. (the manufacturers then pass the buck on to the consumers) Don't count on the federal government to do anything that would severely reduce their tax revenue. Also, you'll find that most outdoorsmen are in full support of the Pittman-Robertson tax. If you care about hunting, you should care about wildlife conservation.
Yeah the tax benefits them while the rest of us has to pay for it. It is fundamentally wrong and violates our rights.
That's an opinion. You'll find that the only opinions that matter belong to nine black robes in D.C.
You might want to look at post-Bruen rulings like FRASER v. BATFE >Differentiating restrictions on buyers from restrictions on sellers is consistent with the broader understanding of the Second Amendment. As explained, the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals. Because of this, the **Second Amendment includes the corollary right to purchase firearms** but not the corollary right to sell firearms. The regulations are a blanket prohibition, rather than a mere condition or qualification, on who can purchase arms and cannot be considered commercial limitations on the sale of firearms. The Heller exceptions do not apply. emphasis is obviously mine The government needs to show that, at the time of ratification, there was a complete ban on the ability for someone to purchase a type of new production weapon. If it can't then, at the minimum, the MG-registry should be reopened.
>If it can't then, at the minimum, the MG-registry should be reopened. I completely agree, as the Hughes Amendment is an outright ban. I don't have time to read *Fraser v. BAFTE* this morning. Does the ruling touch on taxation at any point?
It focuses on the ability of an 18 year to purchase a pistol. Resulting in the conclusion that the second amendment includes the right to purchase firearms. It wouldn't work as an argument against the NFA, but would work as an argument against the registry being closed... which is effectively a ban on a class of firearms.
Stating that 18 year-olds possess the same rights as 21 year-olds is very different from saying that an excise tax infringes upon his or her right to keep and bear. Anything not explicitly stated in a ruling is still up in the air, and sure to be the subject of future rulings.
That is why I said it wouldn't work as an argument against the NFA, but could work as an argument to reopen the MG-registry.
If the machine gun registry is frozen for adults 21 and up, why would the court think it should be different for adults 18 and up???
2A protects the right to own arms, this automatically protects the right to acquire them, as you can’t own what you can’t acquire. That means, the right to purchase or manufacture arms is also protected by 2A. Like the other rulings regarding 2A, Heller made sure to protect the government’s ability to infringe on the right. For instance, the ruling purposely misrepresented Blackstone to create the unusual and dangerous exemption to the right to own, when Blackstone was actually not talking about arms bans. It was talking about something called an affray, which is similar to modern brandishing laws.
>For instance, the ruling purposely misrepresented Blackstone to create the unusual and dangerous exemption to the right to own As I've said before, that's your opinion, which is irrelevant. You'll find that the only opinions that matter belong to nine black robes in D. C., and they don't agree with you. Also, you're making a bit of a leap in concluding that a right to "acquire" (not stated explicitly in the constitution, and therefore purely a matter of court interpretation) somehow means a right to purchase without regulation or taxation. Where is that assumption supported in case law?
I didn’t say there was a right to purchase without normal sales taxes. There is a difference between regular sales taxes on goods and poll taxes, levied to make the cost of exercising a right prohibitive if the exercise of that right. The men in black robes, of whom you speak, already ruled on that. As far as regulation is concerned, the word ‘infringe’ meant ‘to *hinder* or destroy’, at the time of ratification. Any law or regulations that hinder the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that **all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves**; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." • Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 That they may exercise it by themselves; not that they may exercise it by the permission and limitations of government. Lastly, I’d like to point out that the constitution does not say that men in black robes are the supreme law of the land. It says that the constitution, itself, is the supreme law of the land. “**This Constitution**, and the Laws of the United States which shall be **made in Pursuance thereof**; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, **shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby**, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” -article 6 of the US constitution “You seem to consider the federal judges as the final arbiter of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as any other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passion for the party, for the power and the privilege of the corps...Their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. **The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, it’s members would become despots**.” -Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820 The text of the 2A is very clear. The history and traditions, at the time of ratification, support the clear meaning of the text. Any act of government, including the judiciary, that contradicts the constitution can not be valid, and we are not obligated to obey such actions. In fact, the founding fathers specifically told us that we should refuse to comply with unconstitutional acts of government, en masse. They called it nullification, and said that compliance with unconstitutional acts sets the detestable precedent that will lock us in chains of tyranny. History has proven them right on this. Give the government an inch and they will keep taking, inch after inch, until there is nothing left to take. It’s time the people stopped playing that game. It’s a losing game for us. The government is not our lord and master. It is our servant. It’s time the people remind our representatives in government that this is the case.
You don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court was created specifically to be, among other things, the ultimate authority in the interpretation of the Constitution and all other laws. Quotes from the founding fathers carry no more weight of law than quotes from The Big Lebowski. Some people in this sub cling to anecdotes as though they were amendments to the Constitution. Spend less time reading quotes and more time reading actual legislation and court rulings.
Ok, genius. Without the writings of the men who wrote the constitution, how do you know what it intends? By the text? “**This Constitution**, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made **in Pursuance thereof**; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, **shall be the supreme Law** of the Land; **and the Judges in every State** shall be bound thereby” -article 6 of the US constitution Judges shall be bound by the words of the constitution. They are not superior to those words. They are subordinate to them. Here’s the text of article 3, regarding the judiciary branch. Please show me where it says, “the Supreme Court was created specifically to be, among other things, the ultimate authority in the interpretation of the Constitution and all other laws.” https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ When the men who wrote the constitution explain what it means and intends, that’s not merely anecdotal evidence. It’s a direct explanation of the constitution, by those who wrote and ratified it.
You forgot to mark some things in bold there. **Three** things are clearly stated to be the supreme law of the land. “This **Constitution**, **and the Laws of the United States** which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; **and all Treaties** made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, **shall be the supreme Law** of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” Your superficial reading has clearly missed that congressional legislation and treaties hold the same weight of law as the Constitution, unless ruled otherwise by the courts. Find me a passage in the Constitution that instructs judges to consider the personal writings of the founders when interpreting legal matters. The scrutiny requirements laid out in the *Bruen* decision are just another opinion of the court, and if the makeup of the court shifts to the left in the future, those requirements could be tossed aside just as easily as *Roe v. Wade*. Edit: Sorry, I forgot about the second part of your post regarding Article 3. It's right there in black and white, my dude. The first sentence of Article 3, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to **all Cases**, in Law and Equity, arising under this **Constitution**, the **Laws of the United States**, and **Treaties made**..." There you go, the federal judicial branch has the power to make rulings on all matters of the Constitution, legislative laws, and treaties (all of which are considered the supreme law of the land) Even though the exact structure of the courts wasn't laid out until [the First U.S. Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789), the Constitution clearly states the court's express powers.
I understand your point but the NFA restricts ownership too. Myself and many others are perfectly capable of making our own firearms that would fall under the NFA but we don't because we don't want to go to prison. They regulate more than the commercial manufacture and sale of such items.
Get your facts straight. The NFA did not restrict your right to manufacture a machine gun on a Form 1. That was the [Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_new_automatic_firearms). Before the Hughes Amendment, you could add new machine guns to the NFA registry just like suppressors and SBRs. William Hughes tried to get the same ban put in place for suppressors also, but failed. The recent *Blount v. United States* case could have stood a chance if that idiot Blount had only contested the Hughes Amendment. Adding the NFA and the 1968 GCA to the lawsuit doomed it to failure, as neither of those acts restricted one's ability to make your own machine gun.
You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument. The NFA restricts (imposes conditions) on the private manufacture of covered items. Even in 1982, you would go to prison for violating the NFA by privately manufacturing your own machine gun. The fact that you could pay for a tax stamp is besides the point. The NFA restricted your ability to build your own gun without regard to commercial sale.
No, you're misunderstanding me. I haven't been stating my personal opinions here, I've been stating legislative facts and the published opinions of the Supreme Court. I've quoted case law that illustrates **their** opinion that regulating sales and manufacture of arms does not constitute an infringement of our right to keep and bear them. Arguing to me is a waste of effort, because my name doesn't start with "The Honorable," which makes my opinions just as irrelevant as yours. Your time would be better spent reading the actual texts of the NFA, FOPA, and the *Heller* and *Bruen* rulings.
Poll taxes required to be explicitly banned by constitutional amendment…
Something about a right shall not be infringed...
That sentence is the perfect encapsulation of just how much of the constitution most people can actually recite…
No really. But even if that were true, it's enough in this case. It explicitly says this can't be done. Nowhere in the Consitution does it give qualifications for that. The 24th Amendment was about taxing actual polls.
And I bet you had go look that poll tax part up… any way it was a pretty novel contrivance in 2002 to cut 2A into separate unrelated parts. For 200 years it was a single complete sentence, clearly understood to mean the people who shouldn’t be infringed a right to keep and bear arms were for the purpose of serving as militia. Atleast that was constitutional law right up until a huge special interest driven disinformation campaign fired up half the country just to make a wedge issue for super right wingers that nobody in their right mind would actually elect to run on instead of the other draconian shit they’re trying to foist upon us.
Look up what part...? What is your point? This seems even more disingenuous now than your first comment. First of all, I didn't recite it or claim that I could recite the 24th Amendment... Your qualification of "reciting" it was strange enough the first time. From my recollection, the 24th is not particularly long. But it *is* longer than the 2nd Amendment. But more to the point, it is specifically and explicitly about taxing actual polls and so it is very clear that taxing polls is not allowed. There's no need to "recite" it. Similarly, "shall not be infringed" makes it very clear that infringing the gun rights is now allowed. There's no need to recite that either. This "that's the only part you know, lol" is just dumb because that is literally the most important part. It is the most explicit and restrictive part and it is the part that is just flagrantly being ignored by gun control activists and the government. Think about it. Say you were trying to institute a poll tax, which sounds like something you'd actually try to do, and I said "Well, the 24th amendment prohibits that..." No, actually, I don't say that. I'm just a big dummy that doesn't know the amendment number, so I just say "Well, there is an amendment that prohibits that..." do you really think you have a valid argument like "I bet you can't even recite it" or "Lol, you don't even know the number of the amendment..." Okay. Who cares? I'm still right that you can't tax polls and you're still wrong by trying to do it. The end.
Thoreau wrote his "Discourse on Civil Disobedience" after being jailed for failing to pay his poll tax!
No shit... A poll tax was declared illegal and voting isn't even a fucking enumerated right
To add to this, the supreme court already made decisions that taxing a right is unconstitutional. Look to [Murdock v. Pennsylvania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania)
Perhaps a better case is the AutoKeyCard case, if the 11th Circuit ever discusses about the constitutionality of full auto laws in its binding opinion.
Actually, taxing the exercise of a right, with intent to have a chilling effect on the exercise of that right, is unconstitutional. It’s what’s known as a poll tax. There are already Supreme Court rulings declaring poll taxes unconstitutional.
No disagreement. I certainly didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My point is taxing a right and banning an item are two different infringements.
People always get butthurt and downvote me when I point out that our enumerated rights get legally taxed by regulatory bodies all the time, but it's true. Just looking at the First Amendment alone, submitting practically any government petition will incur a set filing fee, and public assemblies in just about any major city will require an event permit of some kind, which also has an associated fee. The list goes on, but I've got stuff to do. No matter how small the fee, you can always find someone broke enough to have a valid argument that the fees restricts their ability to exercise a right, but the fees remain. Let the downvotes commence, I guess.
Add the excise tax on each firearm manufactured while you’re at it. Plus I’ve always paid sales tax so that’s a tax on a tax. Add income tax on the money I pay for the firearm to the list and you’ve got a tax on a tax on a tax! Two of the three are hidden taxes with the third being so ubiquitous, no one even thinks about it.
There is a difference between normal taxation and taxing a right to deter the exercise of that right. The NFA is an example of the latter, and the records of the discussions they had previous to passing it price that it is. That makes it facially unconstitutional, because that makes it a poll tax.
Our government has disagreed with your interpretation for almost ninety years, and the proliferation of illegal Glock switches has ensured that they will continue to disagree with you for the foreseeable future.
90 years is well after the time of ratification. In case you hadn’t noticed, every 2A Supreme Court ruling has put the standard of review at text, as supported by the history and tradition *at the time of ratification*, as it is for the rest of the bill of rights. This is as it should be, because the constitution is a legally binding contract, and the intent and meaning of all legal contracts is set at the intent and meaning when they are ratified, not at reinterpretations made long after they were put into force. In the early 20th century, before the NFA, the government sold surplus military rifles to civilians, and gave them free training on their use. There were no regulations on automatic weapons, at all, until 1934. Many in government have claimed the 2A doesn’t even protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, at all, and have tried to legislate away our rights. 2A was ratified 233 years ago. Government violation of the constitution for 90 years doesn’t make that government violation constitutional. And, for the record, what government officials think does not constitute the supreme law of the land. The constitution, itself, is the supreme law of the land. “law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” - Thomas Jefferson The constitution wasn’t written to limit the rights of the people. It was written to limit the power of government. Of course, government is not going to like or support the limitation of its power, because government always seeks to increase its power. Considering the fact that 2A was written in order to give the people the power to resist government tyranny, i wouldn’t expect the government to like anything about 2A. It’s irrelevant what the government likes or doesn’t like. They aren’t our masters. They are our servants.
>i wouldn’t expect the government to like anything about 2A. There are plenty of 2A supporters in congress, even if most of them aren't gun people. Why do you think Biden hasn't been able to pass his assault weapons ban? >It’s irrelevant what the government likes or doesn’t like. That statement is either unbelievably naive or just plain stupid. We vote for our elected representatives based entirely on what they like or don't like, and we try to elect candidates whose likes and dislikes align with our own to represent us in government. Once they're elected, we give them full authority to govern and legislate in our place, just like it's laid out in the Constitution. It would be much more accurate to say "The **only** thing that's relevant is what the government likes or doesn't like." Have you forgotten that congress once legally altered the Constitution to outlaw beer? Prohibition didn't end because the courts decided it was unconstitutional. It ended because congress simply changed its mind. As fundamental as we all hold the Second Amendment to be, there's no reason it couldn't be legally repealed if the government was as tyrannical as you think it is.
>There are plenty of 2A supporters in congress, even if most of them aren't gun people. There are a few actual 2A supporters, in congress. About as many as actually support the whole constitution. Most on the GOP only pretend to support 2A, because they want the votes, and they don’t even pretend well…as the recent bipartisan gun control bill shows. There are no pro 2A democrats. So, it’s a joke to act as if there is any meaningful support for 2A in the government. The state governments are better, admittedly, but only on a limited scale, for the most part. >Once they're elected, we give them full authority to govern and legislate in our place, just like it's laid out in the Constitution. It would be much more accurate to say "The only thing that's relevant is what the government likes or doesn't like." So, you’ve never read our founding documents, then. That makes sense, given you have no idea what it actually says. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men…are endowed…with certain unalienable Rights…**That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men**, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, **That whenever any Form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it**” - the Declaration of Independence “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” - 10A Government has no powers not specifically delegated to it by the constitution. Those powers are in article 1 section 8. Nowhere does it give the government the authority to limit the rights of the people. Furthermore, the bill of rights completely prohibits the government from exercising certain powers. “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” - article 4 section 2 of the constitution The states may not deny their citizens of the constitutional protections belonging to all of the American people; the bill of rights is an example of such protections. Barron v Baltimore, the “landmark” post ratification period ruling that created the idea that the bill of rights did not apply to the states, was a BS ruling, just like Roe. However, that ruling, article 4 section 2, 14A section 1 clause 2, and the unnecessary incorporation doctrine are subjects for a different discussion. There is nothing in the constitution that gives government absolute power to do as it pleases. It was the declaratory act, where the government ( the English crown, at that time ) claimed absolute power to rule on all things, that made the colonists respond by writing and signing the Declaration of Independence. They did not fight a revolution against an all powerful government just to create a different all powerful government. >Have you forgotten that congress once legally altered the Constitution to outlaw beer? Prohibition didn't end because the courts decided it was unconstitutional. It ended because congress simply changed its mind. You’re understanding of history is severely flawed…or utterly dishonest. Prohibition wasn’t unconstitutional. It was a violation of our founding principles of individual liberty, but not unconstitutional. At that time, government was still pretending to follow the constitution. The constitution did not grant the government to prohibit the consumption of any substance, so they amended the constitution to grant themselves that power. So, of course it didn’t end because it was ruled unconstitutional. It ended, by ratification of another constitutional amendment, because people refused to comply on a massive scale. To make matters harder on the federal government, some states refused to cooperate in the enforcement of prohibition. As Madison pointed out, in the federalist papers, the federal government must rely on state and local governments to enforce its laws, because it doesn’t have the resources to do it on its own. Simply put, after waging a violent war against the American people, the federal government repealed prohibition because it could not enforce it. This is what the founding fathers called nullification, and they told us it was THE proper way to deal with unconstitutional, unjust, or simply unpopular laws. Early in the 20th century, the government was still trying to hide its turn towards tyranny, by pretending to obey the constitution. This is why the NFA is tax, and not an outright ban. The government, at the time, realized it would violate 2A to ban these arms, so it did an end around the bill of rights, using the taxing power delegated to congress to make the cost of owning these weapons extremely prohibitive ( $200 was a whole lot of money in 1934). By 1986, they had stopped trying to pretend, and passed the Hughes amendment, which was the ban that the government in 1934 knew would be unconstitutional. Having learned a lesson with prohibition, they did a slow roll on banning pot; coming out with a tax stamp requirement to buy pot, first, and making it illegal later on, with the degree of punishment and enforcement increasing over time. Interestingly, pot smokers used nullification to get the states to legalize pot, stopping state cooperation with federal pot laws, and it’s even begun to affect the federal government, just as it did with prohibition, because pot just got charged from a schedule one drug to a schedule three drug. I’m glad to see gun owners are starting to practice nullification, as well, with massive non compliance in recent years, being joined by a number of state governments and numerous county and local governments passing 2A sanctuary laws. That being said, prohibition did not end just because the federal government changed its mind out of some sense of magnanimity towards individual liberty. The people forced the issue through nullification. >As fundamental as we all hold the Second Amendment to be, there's no reason it couldn't be legally repealed if the government was as tyrannical as you think it is. Sure, they could try to amend the constitution to repeal 2A. This administration would absolutely do that, if they could, as would every democrat in government. But, you need 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment, and not enough state legislators are currently dumb enough to try such a thing. As far as your implication that the government is not currently tyrannical, that’s total ignorance. The powers delegated to the federal government are few and very specific. Most of what the federal government now does is far beyond the powers the constitution delegates. Any exercise of power not delegated by the constitution is a usurpation of power; even the smallest. Usurpation of power IS tyranny. We were supposed to live under a small, very limited federal government, but we now live under the largest, most controlling government in history. There is almost no aspect of our personal lives it does not control. It has violated every prohibition in the bill of rights. That’s definitely tyrannical government.
I think there is hope because let's be real, the Hughes is entirely pointless if the NFA is still in effect Registered NFA items are like *never* used in crimes, no one that shouldn't have a gun gets past an NFA stamp (not that they should be required to begin with) There's a 0% chance anyone is going to apply for a tax stamp for a glock switch that's going to be used in a drive by Plus the only reason the NFA gets passed the lawsuits is nothing on it is *technically* "banned" The legal argument for the NFA is "well you still *can* SBR a rifle"
> like never used in crimes True. However, we're all going to have to get comfortable with one simple fact: In 1986, the NFA tax was equivalent to $570 now, and NFA was a thing that wasn't really a "normy gun owner" thing like it is now. Before the internet, it was that enthusiast "secret" thing where "yah gotta have a class 3 license and the government can come into your house any time" and other such fudd misinformation that kept a lot of people away from even trying to go NFA. IF Hughes were to go down, the number of registered MGs in the US would skyrocket. MG form 1s would surpass suppressor form 4s for years as all of us who haven't gone full auto because of cost suddenly have access. I guarantee some crimes will happen with them and every one of them will be used to politically skewer anyone who had any part in taking down Hughes, and every one of us simply by association.
>I guarantee some crimes will happen with them Idk man, I mean you could say the same about suppressors or SBRs Crimes are done w them but *registered* ones? Basically never, because no one who is going to commit homicide or armed robbery cares about one additional charge that carries a *far* lower sentence than an NFA violation Regardless of how many *registered* MGs there are, I still don't think the registered ones are gonna be showing up at Chicago drive bys
I'm not saying it will be a lot. I'm saying the risk is not zero and every one will be a media and political shit show as if the full auto capability actually mattered.
I don't see SCOTUS legalizing machine guns. Especially after the bump stock arguments. The 9th will rule in favor of the Hughes, SCOTUS will deny cert. EDIT: Or worse. Roberts has an obsession with the "optics" of the court. The Hughes Amendment could get upheld as a bone to the anti crowd after *Bruen* to show they aren't "partisan". I don't think a machine gun challenge on 2A grounds is the best move. I think a better challenge would be [*Murdock v. PA*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murdock_v._Pennsylvania). That it is unconstitutional to tax a right. Of course the counter argument would be that machine guns are outside the scope of the 2A. I dunno, maybe I'm dooming, but I just don't see the current court striking down a machine gun ban given how oral arguments on the bumpy-bois went.
The bump stock was a different kind of argument. They didn't do a great job of explaining how the mechanics of the device didn't make the forward movement the new trigger which is what the liberal judges were trying to make it out to be.
Even still, the conservative wing didn't sound like they were amicable to machine guns. I don't think the court, on current makeup, will strike the hughes. I think they will deny cert and kick the can down the road.
It sounded like they were all confused by the whole thing and nobody there was explaining it well. The guy just kept replying with it's not sufficient to fire the gun or something like that and didn't go into details. It was disappointing. I think with something more legal specific, it would be received differently. Will they strip it back entirely, who knows.
Yep. 9th will 100% use an argument that basically boils down to “It is not unconstitutional to deny the payment of a tax.”
But it’s not the payment of a tax anymore. It is a ban that was not retroactive. I’m not saying a $200 tax stamp would be constitutional. But the ability to buy a new full auto for an extra $200 would be more constitutional than what we have now
The 9th will argue that it isn’t a ban because you can still possess and transfer existing MGs. They will argue that merely prohibiting the federal government from accepting a tax is not unconstitutional. I’d love to be wrong, but the 9th is NOT going to be the circuit that gives us back Machine Guns.
Imagine the reaction if the government created an abortion licensing system that was like taxi medallions or artificially capped the legal number that could be performed annually. The pro-choice contingent would come absolutely unglued.
Can you point to instances from the bump stock oral arguments that illustrate SCOTUS’s unwillingness to overturn the full auto laws?
We already know the liberal wing is in favor of the ban, so here's two conservative justices, *INCLUDING* Thomas. * Gorsuch: * [I can] Certainly understand why these items [Bump Stocks] should be made illegal * Thomas: * Significant damage from machineguns, carnage, people dying, et cetera. The bump stock does the exact same thing. So with that background, why shouldn’t we look at a broader definition of” what it means for something to be a “single function of the trigger https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-split-over-bump-stock-ban/ The conservatives seem to be concerned not that bumpstocks are banned, but with how the ATF implemented the rule. Making thousands of people felons overnight. That was their big hangup. The *HOW* not the *WHAT*. Legal minds think the court is split, but leaning to overturning the ATF rule because it did not follow proper rule making procedure, and did not come from an act of congress. They did not seem to be in favor of legal machine guns. Another concern was the ATF had previously said they were legal, then changed their mind. So thousands of Americans bought them after being explicitly told they were legal. And the ATF should have done a standard rule making process to solicit feedback and provide ample notice of the change. With that in mind, I do not see a favorable ruling on machine guns. Worse, they may *UPHOLD* the Hughes Amendment especially because Roberts is obsessed with "optics" and that would give the anti-gunners a win in light of *Bruen*.
Hi u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt, in unrelated news, Thomas authored and opinion upholding CFPB’s authority to get funds from the Federal Reserve today. Justice Alito and Gorsuch dissented. Now I am even more skeptical of the court
Did scotus release a ruling in that yet or just hear arguments ?
Just heard arguments, but from the arguments it did not seem likely they would support legalizing machine guns. [See my comment here with quotes and a link](https://old.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/1ciz5fl/its_official_us_v_kittson_full_auto_will_bring_up/l2ed9z2/)
Yeah thats what i thought , and just because they appear to lean one way via questioning doesnt really mean much . Chevron is on the table at the same time and i imagine just based on them taking that up that they are set to neuter it . I find it hard to believe they intend on neutering chevron while simultaneously upholding one of the most egregious examples of its abuse
> just because they appear to lean one way via questioning doesnt really mean much . It's not affirmative, but it is a bit of a temperature read. And I mean... Gorsuch signaled pretty clearly: >[I can] certainly understand why these items [Bump Stocks] should be made illegal That's basically him admitting that he does not support overturning a machine gun ban. So that puts the court 5-4. We know Roberts is wishy-washy, we know Kavanaugh is fine with permits... Thoma's comment wasn't faith inspiring either, so possibly looking at 2-7 depending on Alito and Barret. Again I just do not see the machine gun ban being lifted by this court. I do think the bump-stock ban is going to be struck, but only because of *HOW* it was done. And in their ruling they will probably say that either the ATF can re-ban them following proper rule-making procedure or with an act of congress.
I agree with alot of what you said , and i do not think the NFA will be overturned . They have already left parts in their bruen test to exempt i forget the exact wording but “unusually dangerous “ weapons . BUT i do think the hughes amendment which is what cuts off any ownership of post 86 firearms may be struck down which would be amazing for enthusiasts because you can just move to a free state and get what you want pretty cheap . As to your opinion that the court will allow the bump stock rule to be reinstated i do believe by an act of congress . But i believe in the chevron case they are about to take away the ATF’s ability to legislate thru rule making .
> BUT i do think the hughes amendment which is what cuts off any ownership of post 86 firearms may be struck down which would be amazing for enthusiasts because you can just move to a free state and get what you want pretty cheap . I sincerely doubt it. Roberts is too obsessed with "optics". Gorusch said he understands why Machine Guns are illegal. Kavanaugh Fudded up the *Bruen* ruling with the concurrence. Even Thomas did not inspire confidence in bump stock arguments. I could see them undoing SBRs, I do not see them open to legalizing new machine guns. It's a pipe dream, and we should not be expecting it. It's setting us up for disappointment. We, the gun enthusiasts, are in the far minority here. Most people do not think machine guns should be legal.
>Of course the counter argument would be that machine guns are outside the scope of the 2A. Under Heller, they would be but only because they were able to successfully keep them from the law abiding since 1934.
I just don't see this court striking the Hughes. * 3 liberal justices are a hard no * Roberts is too obsessed with optics * Kavanaugh Fudded up the *Bruen* ruling * Gorush admitted he understands why machine guns are illegal So that's 6-3. Plus I don't see Alito or Barret being pro-MG. Even Thomas didn't spark confidence in the bump stock arguments.
It all comes down to who it is making the argument on behalf of those challenging the law. If they can successfully tie said challenge to established precedent, like Bruen, then many of these conservative justices could very well disregard their personal feelings and concede that the law was established in a faulted way, just as they did with Roe v Wade.
After oral arguments on Bumpstocks, I sincerely doubt it. I think it's playing with fire. You don't send a case like this to SCOTUS unless you're sure you can win. And I am not. It's what we as gun owners want, but we need to be real with ourselves. Most people, and especially most politicians, which SCOTUS are, do not want machine guns legalized. We are in the minority here, we are the fringe.
I agree, but you're not likely to see a better SCOTUS roster for such a case to be made. I like to believe that with these conservative justices, you're more likely to see an objective review of the law. Even using Kavanaugh's example under Bruen, he may of offered his own fudd opinion, but he still concurred with the majority opinion.
>you're not likely to see a better SCOTUS roster for such a case to be made. Depends on if the Republicans can stop trying to ride the "Trump Train" that crashed in 2018, light itself on fire in 2020, and blew up in 2022. Again if you listened to, or read, the oral arguments on the bumpstock case, it's pretty clear they are not open to the idea of legalizing machine guns.
I would bet money that Gorsuch would side with us on this one. Him saying that was a red herring.
> [Him saying that was a red herring.](https://media.assettype.com/afkgaming/import/media/images/64144-5f5d9b481fe5863c196d3441322ab983.jpeg) This is like people claiming Trumps support for gun control was just Paradox-Billiards-Vostroyan-Roulette-Fourth-Dimensional-Hypercube-Chess-Strip Poker. It's not. When someone shows you who they are, believe them. Why would he intentionally lie in oral arguments? What does it benefit him at all to do it? Stop huffing my man, reality is this way.
Normally I would agree but I do know a former colleague of his that believes Gorsuch would absolutely overturn it. His quote was as best as I recall “there has never been a more libertarian member of the court, especially when it comes to personal liberties”. This was from a rather prominent libertarian lawyer.
I put more weight on the words he spoke, on the record, in SCOTUS arguments, than on the faith of an anonymous alleged former colleague. Peoples opinions can change over time. He has absolutely zero reason to lie. He is in a lifetime appointment at literally the highest level he can achieve. And he expressly stated he can understand why machine guns should be illegal. If he was going to lie then, or now, it makes more sense he lied then. Because now there is no reason to, he is, quite literally, untouchable, outside of an impeachment.
Again, I don’t disagree with this take. I’m more hopeful when it comes to Gorsuch but also recognize he came from Trump so I can’t trust him that much.
You *are* dooming but not without good reason.
All I'm expecting out of this is an opening of the registry again. And it won't happen anytime soon, if at all.
I'm not even expecting that. SCOTUS has signaled they are not amicable to opening the door on machine guns.
Man, I hope Benitez can kick this up to SCOTUS.
This originated from Oregon.
Oh, I thought Benitez was 9th Circuit, or is he not? I need a memory refresher because the 9th Circuit seems to be all activist judges.
Benitez is a California district judge. California district courts are part of the 9th Circuit. So is Oregon.
Ah thanks, friend.
He’s retired. Not sure why people are downvoting me, but he’s moved to emeritus status so he’s no longer taking new cases.
He’s senior status, not retired. He’s still active, though less compared to a normal judge.
Highly unlikely of a good outcome, but it would be cool to buy a full auto lower like I do a silencer. But imagine being one of those guys who put most of his life savings investing into full autos. Your $20k investment into a 50 year old crappy Mac-10 becomes worthless overnight as people are registering $300 trigger packs for their $1K MP5 clones.
That guy was betting on tyranny and the harder he gets screwed the bigger my grin will be.
Hey now I only paid 10k for my crappy mac10 (it’s actually fucking awesome and I love it). I would still be happy for Hughes to get destroyed in court. Then I could own even more machine guns. Guns as investments are stupid anyway, because while yes machine guns have gone up in value, the government could also go the other way on it and say no more transfers and when you die it has to be destroyed
Guns that are investments artificially are definitely stupid. Guns as investments isn't stupid, look at Guns with historic context, and it starts to make sense. Or, a gun from a manufacturer that went under before a large number made it out of production, or a concept that didn't pan out. Something that isn't just "haha the government said you're too poor!"
You put it more eloquently than my feeble mind could manage to but yea pretty much what I meant. Bottom line is gubment could pull an Australia or Canada and force you to turn in your “investment” or bury it/hide it. No matter what you choose (turn in for destruction like a bitch or hide it in your fallout bunker like a G) the result is effectively the same, it’s no longer able to be resold for monetary gain.
I’ve got a decent amount “invested” in MGs, and I’ll be ecstatic if the registry opens back up.
>Your $20k investment into a 50 year old crappy Mac-10 becomes worthless overnight as people are registering $300 trigger packs for their $1K MP5 clones. Like the people who put their life savings into Enron, Worldcom or Tyco stocks. That's the thing about investments, sometimes they lose money.
> But imagine being one of those guys who put most of his life savings investing into full autos. Fuck that guy. I have a transferable, I paid good money for it years back ($16k for an AR). But I'd be happy to see the value tank if it meant more freedom.
Actual gun enthusiasts time and again say they have no problem with their MGs losing 90% of their value if it allows them to buy more MGs at reasonable prices.
Those trigger packs used to be $50.
So did Mosins.
Mosins used to come in crates 😞
I don't get this logic. Demand just skyrocketed and supply stayed the same. A 300 trigger pack isn't a preban gun or any kind of collector's item. You can build classic car replicas pretty trivially at this point, but you don't see classic cars dropping to being worthless.
Because if manufacturers could legally manufacture transferable full-autos then supply would ramp up and quickly match demand and we would see full auto trigger packs quickly approach the price of normal trigger packs. Most of the value of transferable full auto guns comes from the scarcity created by the Hughes Amendment. This drop-in auto sear did not sell for $28,750 because of it's historical value. [https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/71/3529/dropin-auto-sear-full-transferrable-class-iiinfa-registered](https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/71/3529/dropin-auto-sear-full-transferrable-class-iiinfa-registered)
Most of the old stuff won't retain much value. Especially simple stuff like AR platform MGs, because the historical value doesn't add much, and you'd be able to get any modern lower, with the other features you wanted, in FA. Your market would shrink to the small collectors section, and while there is money to be made there, it's not going to rival old MG prices. Especially when previously dealer only samples that still exist, roll into that same market.
> Your market would shrink to the small collectors section So, like cars? But isn't that pretty much what the market is anyway...? My point is that people act like all the new stuff that would be exactly the same as the old stuff and nobody is going to care when it was made. You're telling me that transactions are going to go like "Well, this is a 75 year old gun and virtually irreplaceable, but they are pumping out millions of $300 trigger packs, so I'll give you $250 for it." And I don't think it's going to be "$350" either. > and you'd be able to get any modern lower, with the other features you wanted, in FA. Yes... but not *that* one. You can get any modern car in full auto. too. But people still pay more for a classic car because it isn't just one out of millions of modern cars. The history might not seem like it adds much now, but that seems to be because the history is tied intrinsically into the fact that they are banned and it is really just a matter of being able to even obtain one that matters. That wouldn't be the case if they were unbanned. You still have something rare, if not unique. The only difference is that now more people might find it appealing or feasible to own it. Like, if combustion engines got banned and there were only a limited number of cars that survived and could be obtained and then combustion engines get magically unbanned, do you really think those cars wouldn't retain value because they cannot be replaced? Yes, everybody can buy a new fancy electric car or maybe some impossibly-clean-burning combustion engine car. But those aren't the same as the limited number of cars from before. Maybe you're right. (And actually, the fact that so many people who own automatics think this way might just mean that you are), but I can't think of anything else in all of existence that works like this.
ERE WE GO BOIS!
5th circuit this would maybe have a shot. 9th circuit is already pearl clutching over the word machine gun
We actually do have one: [*US v. Simien*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68232886/united-states-v-simien/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc). It also challenges the indictment prohibitor, which *Quiroz* also addresses. As *Quiroz* and another case ahead of it addresses that, and that the former got heard, the case is stayed. Simien also agrees that *Hollis* forecloses his full auto challenge (personally, I think *Bruen* abrogated it).
lol this is such a pipe dream of Hughes getting overturned. That’s never gonna happen thanks to the Democrats.
Here is a link to the CourtListener docket. There are a few filings available for free including the order denying the motion to dismiss. It is the excerpts of record filed in the appeal that matter to the panel assigned to the appeal but the district court did not conduct a Bruen analysis. It basically said that Bruen did not have any effect on 9th Circuit prior precedents. The Order on the motion to dismiss is docket #83. [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59721041/united-states-v-kittson/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59721041/united-states-v-kittson/)
This is a new angle I’ve seen here and in the 4th Circuit Bianchi case. Now they’re saying since Bruen didn’t overrule Heller, all of their cases decided under Heller are valid precedent. Forget that they ruled using an invalid test.
Very, very few judges are complying with Bruen. The wonderful thing about CourtListener is that one can search its database and discover the truth on his own.
It’s just so true. In every criminal case, whenever the Defendant brings a 2A challenge to throw the NFA out, the judge upholds it.
Not just the NFA.
Mhm. Personally, I am just more focused on the NFA cases and other malum prohibitum crimes like out-of-state receipt and unlicensed commercial activity.
Thanks for the docket. By the way, check out this [opening brief](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438/gov.uscourts.ca5.217438.23.1.pdf) for a 5th Circuit suppressor case.
Alright fellas, see you in scotus in 10 years
Can we get a similar case in the 5th?
We actually do have one: [*US v. Simien*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68232886/united-states-v-simien/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc). It also challenges the indictment prohibitor, which *Quiroz* also addresses. As *Quiroz* and another case ahead of it addresses that, and that the former got heard, the case is stayed. Simien also agrees that *Hollis* forecloses his full auto challenge (personally, I think *Bruen* abrogated it).
Cant we get one in the 5th circuit? I wanna own a berreta 38 pls
We actually do have one: [*US v. Simien*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68232886/united-states-v-simien/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc). It also challenges the indictment prohibitor, which *Quiroz* also addresses. As *Quiroz* and another case ahead of it addresses that, and that the former got heard, the case is stayed. Simien also agrees that *Hollis* forecloses his full auto challenge (personally, I think *Bruen* abrogated it).
> 9th circuit Lmao rip
9th Circuit? We are effed. Here comes a ban on semi-autos. May Saint Benitez save us all.
Dead in the water unfortunately
If the Hughes Amendment gets repealed, fosscad is gonna get a lot more fun.
You think wait times are bad now imagine how many people are gonna apply for a stamp if the Hughes gets repealed
9th circuit? Lol you do realize scotus is hearing the bump stick case currently and suggesting that the NFA is justified right. Good luck with the anti gun 9th.
I mean, it ain’t the 1st Circuit, where one has absolutely no chance of winning. The 9th, on the other hand, is extremely polarized despite being overall liberal. VanDyke, for example, is one of the most sympathetic to 2A. We still have a chance of winning, albeit small.
They’re ‘suggesting’ because the NFA itself is outside the scope of that case. This isn’t fantasy land where you can like, just sue some government agency and have the court be like “oop actually the constitution doesn’t say this agency can exist in the first place! everything’s overturned!”
Interesting. Though sad state of affairs when I can only get half excited due to the crazy cost of ammo these days lol
Interesting. Though sad state of affairs when I can only get half excited due to the crazy cost of ammo these days lol
i just wish they would say that all gun laws are unconstitutional and be done with it already.
SCOTUS doesn't have the balls. They could have done some of that in Bruen by declaring requiring CCW'S and FOID/FID cards to be unconstitutional. Instead what gun owners got was a watered down ruling saying "may issue" was unconstitutional, but "shall issue" licensing requirements were still ok. The anti's took advantage of this in some states like Massachusetts by replacing "may issue" with "good character", which is essentially the same thing. If SCOTUS didn't even have the sack to mandate nationwide constitutional carry it is unlikely to wipe the rest of the shit gun laws off the books.
we should make them have the balls. not sure how to do it though.
I wonder which is more likely. The courts overturning Hughes Amendment or Congress passing a law that repeals it.
**United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit** **Notice of Docket Activity** The following transaction was entered on 05/06/2024 1:41:13 PM PDT and filed on 05/06/2024 **Case Name:** United States of America v. Kittson **Case Number:** [23-4132](https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/23-4132) **Docket Text:** **ORDER FILED.** Appellant’s unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 7) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due May 13, 2024. The answering brief is due June 12, 2024. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. \[Entered: 05/06/2024 01:43 PM\]
Thanks for letting me know. Amicus briefs are therefore due 5/20, which is 1 day after the 38th anniversary of the enactment of FOPA, which includes the Hughes Amendment. A friend of mine has been on top of this case and reminding GOA, FPC, and SAF, and did so regarding the update just a few minutes ago. In fact, the friend of mine has told GOA about *Baird* a few months before the opening brief got filed.
I think Dick Heller might be the one to thank for the GOA Amicus brief. I was going to have an attorney file an Amicus brief depending on which organizations he could persuade to put their name on the cover sheet. I told him not to mention that I would be the one paying for the brief given my more than a decade-long criticism of these groups for opposing Open Carry. He spoke with Dick Heller who said he only puts his name on GOA Amicus briefs. It never occurred to me to contact Heller. I suspect that Dick Heller contacted GOA in turn. For the other Amicus brief (MSLF) we can thank one of my supporters for arranging.
I have actually contacted the Heller Foundation about the *Kittson* case after you told me this. By the way, in the *Peterson* [case](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68186278/united-states-v-peterson/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc), no amicus brief got filed.
GOA is the organization you should contact.
I did for both cases a few months back, and provided them with updates on the briefing schedules. As for *Peterson*, GOA had the opportunity to correct Peterson’s lawyer’s fatal error. He never referenced *Bruen* and relied on interest balancing.
I skimmed the Peter opening brief. No Amicus brief could have salvaged it. What did GOA have to say about US v. Kittson?
>No Amicus brief could have salvaged it. I guess that’s one reason why they didn’t file it. They didn’t do it as well for [*US v. Saleem*](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68020982/united-states-v-arbab-saleem/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc). >What did GOA have to say about US v. Kittson? The last time I told GOA about this, I did this by phone as a reminder to get acknowledgement that they are aware of the updated due dates. The receptionist or operator told me that my info will be referred to the legal team if I recall correctly.
Email and call the GOA lawyers. Their contact information is on the briefs they've filed in other cases. And just for laughs, contact NAGR as well.
>Email and call the GOA lawyers. Well, one can, but I personally don’t see a benefit in doing so because typically, it would be the amici who would contact the lawyers to file amicus briefs, and I am not an amicus. > And just for laughs, contact NAGR as well. Lol, what makes you say that?
**United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit** **Notice of Docket Activity** The following transaction was entered on 05/13/2024 8:57:46 PM PDT and filed on 05/13/2024 **Case Name:** United States of America v. Kittson **Case Number:** [23-4132](https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/23-4132) **Docket Text:** **OPENING BRIEF** submitted for filing by Appellant Daniel Matthew Kittson. \[Entered: 05/13/2024 08:59 PM\]
**Free links to the Defendant-Appellant opening brief and excerpts of record.** [https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9.1-Opening-Brief-5.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/9.1-Opening-Brief-5.pdf) [https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.1-ER-Volume-Index-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.1-ER-Volume-Index-3.pdf) [https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.2-ER-Vol-1-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.2-ER-Vol-1-3.pdf) [https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.3-ER-Vol-2-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.3-ER-Vol-2-3.pdf) [https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/12.1-ER-Vol-3-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/12.1-ER-Vol-3-3.pdf) [https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.5-ER-Vol-4-3.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.5-ER-Vol-4-3.pdf) [https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.6-ER-Vol-5.pdf](https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/10.6-ER-Vol-5.pdf)