New Lawsuit Aims to Overturn Post-86 Machine Gun Ban

yrHEW

Back in May, I first wrote about the possibility that a new ruling could open the floodgates for trusts to register new machine guns. On September 11th, that possibility became fact when the ATF approved — and then immediately rescinded — a Form 1 for a brand new machine gun for civilian ownership. Now it looks like a couple attorneys are filing suit against the ATF, trying to use this ruling as leverage to overturn some or all of the provisions of the National Firearms Act . . .

From the GoFundMe campaign supporting one of the lawsuits:

My name is Stephen Stamboulieh.  I am an attorney in Mississippi that has tirelessly worked to further our 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, my sights are set on 18 USC sec 922(o).  This is known as the machinegun ban.  I don’t believe this is constitutional in light of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.    Likewise, the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), which taxes the making and transferring of Title II weapons (machineguns, suppressors, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, etc) is ripe to be attacked on Second Amendment grounds.

We have the avenue to attack both the machinegun ban and the NFA with the BATFE’s recent approval of a number of Form 1s.  I have a number of clients that I will be filing a lawsuit on behalf of to seek to overturn the ban and the NFA in different states.

This will be expensive.  I am in the process of collecting donations to offset the legal fees in this case.  If you are interested in assisting, please donate.  No donation is too small.  These lawsuits will be funded strictly off donations.  Unlike the government, we do not have an unlimited war chest to fund this.  That is where the grass roots come into play.  We can do this, but we need your help!

At the time of writing, the legal fund is up to $18,000 in donations.

Filing suit against the ATF seems to be all the rage these days. From Ares Armor to SIG SAUER, now a rag-tag group of People of the Gun on the internet, thanks to the recent Supreme Court cases there’s civil rights blood in the water and everyone wants in on it. I’m not sure just how far these legal challenges to the ATF will go, but it’s damn fun to watch from the sidelines.

comments

  1. avatar Scott in IA says:

    My hopes are high, but expecting the worst.

    1. avatar mger223 says:

      Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

      And don’t the idiots sending money realize that the money is going to him? Win or lose, he still gets paid by idiots who think they’ll be able to buy cheap machine guns if they just pitch in a few dollars. Actually, what will probably happen is he’ll happily create bad case law that will screw us even more. Read that last sentence again so it sinks in.

      No good can come of this (for anyone but the guy collecting money for his own salary). Anyone sending this guy money is an idiot. Apparently there are lots of idiots.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        So spend your money on something else, rather than denigrating those who would support a long shot 2A cause.

        1. avatar mger223 says:

          They’re just going to make more bad laws, so we should all just give up.

          You know, if there was a chance this was anything more than someone looking for people to keep him paid and busy, don’t you think any gun rights organizations would be jumping on it? Heck, even SAF takes long shot cases. But this is just some dude trying to get people to give him money. That it will probably make bad case law doesn’t matter.

          Some of you people don’t understand that bad case law is just as bad – if not worse – than bad laws. You pick fights you can win – not fights that you can convince naive gun owners to send you money for because you’ve got a mortgage or whatever.

        2. avatar AllAmerican says:

          Mergr223, I bet you thought the gun laws in DC and Chicago, as well as the carry laws in IL and WI would never change too. Yes, let’s just continue to hold what we got instead of going on the offensive for our rights. The courts are absolutely filled to the brim with bad case law. Who are you really working for? Bloomberg?

        3. avatar Shiny Side Goes Out! says:

          What part of “creating bad case law” escapes your understanding?

          The NFA ’34 has survived largely because of the bad case law set by US v. Miller in 1939. A challenge to the NFA that was brought not by Miller or his co-defendant but by the Roosevelt administration in order to get a favorable ruling on the books before a properly-crafted case could be brought that would demolish the NFA.

          This nickle-and-dime crowd-sourced case shows no sign of being well thought out, nor of being brought by competent lawyers.

          Half-assed cases aren’t just easy for the government to win. They also set precedent that will be used to dismiss or ignore future cases brought by competent lawyers with sound arguments.

          We didn’t get the Heller and McDonald victories because some dimwitted hayseeds threw together a case in crayon and hired a bus-bench lawyer to file it.

          Frankly, “All American,” YOU are the one more likely to be working for Bloomberg. You are a classic “useful idiot.”

      2. avatar Bob72 says:

        Absolutely. I work with lawyers. Most will take a case for the all mighty dollar, and they will solicit “donations” for any cause they are passionate about. Everyone should step back, and make sure you know where your money is going. Donating to a reputable organization that has tirelessly fought for the 2nd amendment in the past is probably safer. Heck, for all we know, these kinds of requests could be an organized effort to funnel money away fro the cause by anti-2nd amendment folks. All I am saying is check it out first.

        1. avatar TheBear says:

          I don’t know of any large 2nd amendment organization who will even touch Class 3 laws.

          Am I missing something here?

        2. avatar Sambo82 says:

          “Everyone should step back, and make sure you know where your money is going. Donating to a reputable organization that has tirelessly fought for the 2nd amendment in the past is probably safer. ”

          While I nominally agree, I spent five bucks on a sausage burrito and a Mt Dew at a gas station this morning. I think I can sent this guy five bucks without the need to fret over the risk.

          “Naive short-sighted gun owners gonna happily fund someone to create bad case law for them.”

          And… what exactly? Make new civilian machine guns extra more illegaler?

          And keep in mind that NO Second Amendment organization will touch NFA cases in the discernible future. At all.

      3. avatar Xanderbach says:

        Mger223 is right- Why fight it? When bad laws get made, just sigh and obey. That’s the way to live. Constitution? Who needs it! They’re just going to make more bad laws, so we should all just give up.
        /sarc

      4. avatar Zach says:

        Haters going to hate.

        1. avatar mger223 says:

          Naive short-sighted gun owners gonna happily fund someone to create bad case law for them.

          Send your $5 or whatever to help guarantee that the NFA and Hughes Amendment will never go away. Feel like you did something. In fact, all you’re doing is paying someone’s mortgage while he fumbles his way into putting up more roadblocks to undoing these horrible laws.

        2. avatar Chicago Steve says:

          A selfish part of me really wants the ATF to declare trusts as persons to avoid this argument. That would suddenly allow anybody in Illinois to obtain a SBR through the weird quirks of law we have in this state.

      5. avatar Chadwick P says:

        Yes let’s all just give up, sell our guns, and take up bowling… Its attitudes like yours that have helped the erosion of our rights. Always saying it’s a bad fight so oh well maybe next time I’ll try. You know what that leads to? Current day tyranny! Our phones are tapped and our data is stolen and I just want to be able to keep some form freedom. If the case goes nowhere at least all the people who have contributed can say we tried and next time we will try again because freedom isn’t free and every now and again a patriot or two has to take up a fight. Even if that fight takes place in a courtroom, I see no bad outcome.

        1. avatar AR-PRO says:

          So what do we do? Do we just sit around with the other sheep and pray that superman will show up and save the day while sipping Kool aid and bending over for this tyrannical government? We all know that some nay-sayers do so because of their investment in NFA weapons and the fear of losing money if this is appealed. Bottom line – if you do nothing, NOTHING will ever change, ever! With a president in office who thinks he can do whatever he wants with his magical pen and executive order and the most liberal news organizations in the history of mankind, we need to stand up and take note, we need to make changes and take back our United States like our forefathers intended! The bullshit needs to stop.

      6. avatar Zach says:

        mger223 sounds like he/she is conducting psyops for Shannon Watts or Michael Bloomberg to drive people away from the cause. The typical if you don’t agree with me, you are stupid spiel that the antis prescribe to. I don’t need to donate money to feel good about myself or did something today, I do it because other people can’t or won’t. Anyways, if this lawyer is just trying to pay his mortgage, well good for him for figuring out a way to do it. Bravo sir, bravo.

      7. avatar kevin says:

        “Actually, what will probably happen is he’ll happily create bad case law that will screw us even more. ”

        This.

        1. I’m in no rush to send money but I’ll check it out. Give it some time and see if it quacks like a duck.

      8. avatar Lyndsy Simon says:

        For what it’s worth, I am willing to put my personal reputation on the line and vouch for Mr. Stamboulieh.

        I’ve corresponded with him personally on several occassions, and has observed him pursue legal action in the past to protect our rights. I have absolutely no doubt that he is acting in good faith. Further, he has been quite transparent with his actions in this matter and has reduced his normal hourly rate by nearly half of what it would normally be.

        I have no qualms – zero – in contributing to this.

      9. avatar tfunk says:

        I’ve been called an idiot before. I’m used to it.

  2. avatar John L. says:

    I’ll donate a buck for each firearm I own. Plus another $5 per firearm I would like to be fitted with a suppressor, or be able to go full auto.

    1. avatar v v ind says:

      I think this is a fair standard. This might seem more fair to those of us in slave states

  3. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    I was gonna start the paperwork on registering my M92 as an SBR, but maybe I’ll wait and see how this goes. Given how long the NFA branch takes to do anything, I’ll barely notice the delay.

    1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      My applications went in back in March, still no word. My FFL said it would take a year. SBR and Suppressor stamps.

      1. avatar Tom says:

        Yeah, that is the biggest problem with the whole SBR/SBS and suppressor tax. I wouldn’t mind it nearly as much if I could just sign a paper saying I bought it and pay the tax the same time as I am paying the sales tax then take the whole lot home with me at the same time.

        I get that the gov has the right/ability to tax. I think a tax based on barrel length is a bit…. odd…. but hey, just let me buy the damn thing without sitting around waiting for a year for some guy in an office to put his mark on the whole sale. Let me pay that tax just like any other sales tax when buying an item. Given that the stores are already tracking what was sold to whom and paperwork goes with buying a firearm to begin with, why does this process have to take so much longer.

  4. avatar John L. says:

    Up to 20.7k as of 10:13 EST Monday

  5. avatar tdgrafton says:

    This guy have prior history with winning cases?

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      Dunno that, but this really fascinating interview came up with law student Stamboulieh:

      http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2006/nov/21/jfp-exclusive-meet-witness-stephen-stamboulieh/

    2. avatar Pascal says:

      In Medicaid and insurance law, yes. According to the power of Google search. In the area of 2nd amendment m he was the one who drafted the MS Open Carry legislation and then lobbied to get it passed.

      Meaning, he has experience dealing with big bureaucracy, but not necessarily with gun rights suites. The NFA as a law has been questioned by many judges over the years. A test in court is probably due.

      $20 from each gun owner and this case can be funded. It is worth giving it a go.

      I put my $20 to the bucket. This morning.

  6. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

    Pass the popcorn…. This ought to be interesting.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      No doubt.

      What is interesting to me is that if machine guns can ever be acquired past a 1986 manufacture date again, a lot of people out there with $20,000 rifles will suddenly find they are worth $1,000 or $2,000 again.

      1. avatar Thestig says:

        And not a fuck will be given.

        It’ll eventually happen and I’ll have to say once again that I was right, and people are idiots using nfa items as an investment.

  7. I don’t see what the big deal is. Any bad guy can just convert a semi if he wants full auto but the good guys can’t have one? Nonsense.

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      I think that’s the point they’re getting at.

    2. avatar Mmmtacos says:

      No, you need to do your research: bad guys can’t just make a gun full auto, even if they have the means to, because they made it illegal.

      1. BUT THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Indeed. On a Glock, if you can change a light bulb, you’re already overqualified to swap out a slide cover plate to make your G17 full auto.

      The whole NFA apparatus is completely ludicrous.

  8. avatar dano says:

    It will be damn fun to watch until they make bad case law. Then it will be a crying shame. SAF is good at what it does by not taking cases for the sake of the fight but rather for the win. Sometimes that means waiting.

  9. avatar William says:

    Good for them and I hope they win big.

    I for one would love a SBR and a silencers or six without the sin tax. I don’t really want a machine in that I could not afford to feed it.

  10. avatar lolkeke says:

    Get rid of SBR and suppressor taxes. Machineguns are a novelty.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yup.

    2. avatar sacorey says:

      Yeah, thats the kind of political brainwashing that winds up being “guns are just a novelty” like they say in the uk

  11. avatar Zach says:

    I just dropped a 100 for the cause. If the lawsuit is successful, I will get it back from purchasing my first suppressor/sbr/machine gun without having to pay for a tax stamp.

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      Not only that but suppressor production (due to higher demand) will have to go up. There will be an initial spike in prices, but production will eventually increase to meet demand, and sooner or later the prices will come down.

      1. avatar Zach says:

        Plus there will be an increase in R&D funding so we will get better suppressors.

        1. avatar Lolinski says:

          Doubt that. The hoops required to own a suppressor has made people demand the best.

      2. avatar Tex300BLK says:

        Dont expect too much in that area, the things are still made out of very expensive alloys that require expensive tools to manufacture. Until LaRue stops charging $250 for a piece of machined 7075 Aluminum don’t expect a robotic laser welded inconel or stellite baffle core to suddenly cost half of what they are charging now, just not going to happen. Expect maybe a couple hundred to come off of the more expensive cans like SureFire, AAC etc.

        The biggest savings will be not having to pay all the additional cost tied to owning a supressor like tax stamp, transfer fees, SOT for the dealers etc, legal fees for organizing a trust/LLC etc. to own one. Some of that is baked into the cost of the Supressor because the manufacturer has to jump through a lot of the same hoops as we do, but the part is still going to be expensive due to the expense of making them (the exception being that maybe pistol cans and 22lr cans will be cheaper since not nearly as much exotic materials/complicated manufacturing processes go into them, but rifle cans wont change much).

        1. avatar TheBear says:

          Uh…

          You can use an oil filter for a suppressor.

        2. avatar Tex300BLK says:

          Your point? An oil filter wont get any cheaper if the NFA is repealed, want a cookie? the threaded adapter wont get any cheaper either probably, and if an oil filter was made out of precision machined laser welded inconel it would be really fucking expensive, again, the materials nor the process of making them into a suppressor will get any cheaper if the NFA is repealed. You may see a minor tick down in prices due to no longer having filing/registration requirements for the manufacturer and SOT for the dealer baked in to the cost of the suppressor, but a good rifle suppressor is still going to be expensive because they are made out of expensive exotic materials who’s physical properties make them great for suppressor baffles but harder to machine/cut/weld/assemble and all that adds cost that exist regardless of NFA legislation (fun fact F1 uses similar materials for their exhaust manifolds and each pair costs well into the thousands of dollars).

        3. avatar Xanderbach says:

          Except- Good suppressors are only $250-$300 in Europe, where they are unregulated. Heck, there are plans floating around to make a viable one out of frost plugs from engines for less than $20. While prices for some of the uber-tier cans will remain the same, you would most likely be able to pick up a .22 suppressor at your local walmart for $50 if it wasn’t for the sin tax.

  12. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    I donated to the cause. Even if the wins are small, all we need is to start a hairline fracture to begin to break the NFA apart.

    1. avatar mger223 says:

      There won’t be any win because the lawsuit is actually frivolous. The only thing that can come out of this is bad case law. Thanks for helping cement the NFA in place. Oh, and paying this guy’s mortgage.

      1. avatar Misnomer says:

        You know, your point would be accepted a lot more readily if you weren’t so belligerent or disparaging in your comments. I can see where you’re coming from, but you’re not going to win anybody over with that poor attitude.

      2. avatar Dev says:

        If you are experienced with case law then give us a detailed explanation as to why this effort will not work. Until you prove your point your opinion is just as valid, or just as useless as those of the people you are attacking with your commentary.

      3. avatar Dev says:

        If you are experienced with case law then give us a detailed explanation as to why this effort will not work. Until you prove your point your opinion is just as valid, or just as useless as those of the people you are attacking with your commentary.

      4. avatar Lyndsy Simon says:

        So, you know Mr. Stamboulieh and are privy to information protected by attorney-client privilege?

        I ask this because you’ve claimed that a suit is frivolous before it has has been filed with the court. Even if we make the unwarranted assumption that you are qualified to make that determination, the only way you could possibly know the merits of the suits is if you were yourself the attorney or the client.

        1. avatar Big E says:

          Being reasonable and logical? That is frowned upon on the internet. Please stop that and start making wild assertions and unsupported claims. Thank you.

        2. avatar Sambo82 says:

          Yeah… you must be new to the internet. Rational and well spoken? We don’t like yer kind ’round here.

        3. avatar mger223 says:

          The super-secret strategy has been plastered all over the internet. It’s a failing strategy. You guys are cheering on the further destruction of your gun rights. Excuse me for not being more cordial in my admonishments – those gun rights you’re all so desperate to destroy are mine too.

          Let’s pretend that it’s actually lawful for trusts to manufacture MGs because of poor ATF wording or whatever (FYI it’s not). Ok, fine. It’s still illegal for any natural person to possess said MGs – trusts be damned. So how does anyone with a trust build said MGs if the natural persons associated with the trust can’t possess them? Read 922(o) sometime. It’s very clear about possession and doesn’t make any exceptions for people who used Quicken Willmaker and got a Form 1 approved. This lawsuit is beyond frivolous, yet it will provide someone with easy billable hours and no client to show up wondering where the money is going. Compliments of naive gun-owning idiots tripping over themselves to help create bad case law. But I’m the bad guy because I tossed a cold bucket of reality at everyone. Right.

          Somehow, I don’t think “I told you so” will quite make it ok in the end. The best thing for everyone (but the guy begging people to keep him billable) would be if the case is thrown out. But if we look at the fiasco that happened with NFATCA’s helpful letter that brought us 41P, I’m not convinced that will happen. I think fed.gov will be more than happy to use their unlimited resources against a single attorney and his very limited ability to fight them. I don’t think it’ll be pretty for us. And then what? Hope that the Big Boys jump in and save us?

          It’s sad how desperate gun owners are to throw money at a losing cause that can only hurt them. All in the hopes that maybe they’ll be able to play with otherwise prohibitively expensive toys someday. You’re better off burning that money, and an additional benefit is that doesn’t screw the rest of us who know that the hell is up.

        4. avatar Lyndsy Simon says:

          So… you were making an unsubstantiated accusation. Gotchya.

          > It’s still illegal for any natural person to possess said MGs – trusts be damned. So how does anyone with a trust build said MGs if the natural persons associated with the trust can’t possess them?

          Right – which is why it’s illegal today for employees of manufacturers with an SOT to possess post-86 MGs today. Oh, wait… that’s not right at all. Acting on behalf of their employer creates agency, through which the possession of those weapons is legal.

          It appears to me that even the legal strategy you’ve used to build a strawman is seriously flawed.

      5. avatar yakrat says:

        You sure seem to know an awful lot about the legal strategy planning to be employed. Care to let us in on it?
        I mean the attorney actually handling the case has yet to file and has been reluctant to let anyone know just what methods and strategy he will employ.
        For the record, I’ve met Stephen in person and he is the only lawyer I would donate funds to.

      6. avatar Howdy says:

        Please provide evidence to support your position in this specific instance.

  13. avatar JT says:

    Too much too quickly. We need to get suppressors and SBRs off the NFA before we even think about touching the MG issue.

  14. avatar over-educated economist says:

    The goal is $50k? Is that a joke? Reminder: he’s trying to overturn one of the cornerstone laws of the American gun control regime, one that has been in place for many, many years. This is a multi-year effort, probably by multiple counsel.

    He needs 10x that much, minimum. Moreover, he needs to tell us what the plan is to actually win. Even if he could somehow convince an appellate court that, hey, this law is bogus, he’d have to bank on SCOTUS either not taking the case, or not overturning. That is just INSANELY far-fetched given the composition of the current court, what cases they’ve been taking, and the text of their rulings in Heller and Miller. Remember, no one’s ever killed an AWB in the federal courts successfully – what are the chances of bagging the NFA?

    Now, if this was just a simple tactical lawsuit to bring the BATFE to heel on the whole trusts and MGs issue, maybe that would have a chance for the money he’s raising. But even that would be a huge stretch, and a big risk.

    1. avatar MD Matt says:

      This is my thought as well.
      Granted, they have standing, which is better than some of the cases we’ve seen lately.
      I’m happy to throw money at even long-shots–provided there’s a plan that has some sort of legal foundation.
      My question is on what basis are they challenging the law? I’ll have to see more before I’m convinced to fork over dinero.

    2. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

      Is $50 going to break my bank to support it? Nope. Now if I was giving $1000, sure I want to see a plan. $50 is worth the day dreaming and the gamble something will come of it. Even if we lose, but make the public more aware of it, it could be a PR win.

      1. avatar Zach says:

        A lot of people knocked the we the people petitions to remove suppressors and sbr’s from NFA. Everyone under the sun knows that Obama would not try to remove either item from NFA even if 300 million people signed the petitions but it brought attention to the subject.

    3. avatar mger223 says:

      The goal is $50k? Is that a joke? Reminder: he’s trying to overturn one of the cornerstone laws of the American gun control regime, one that has been in place for many, many years. This is a multi-year effort, probably by multiple counsel.

      This is a frivolous lawsuit that will hopefully get laughed out of court. Unfortunately, it could also be used as an opportunity by fed.gov to create bad case law. But either way, the guy begging for donations to his salary fund still gets paid, right?

      1. avatar S.dogood says:

        go somewhere else if you wish to negative and anti second amendment

      2. avatar CB says:

        You should sit on your ass and bitch about it instead of doing anything…..

      3. avatar George Clavin says:

        Good work Mr ATF Agent, go see Obama and collect your $50

      4. avatar slowmethinks says:

        You have zero credibility to speak against Mr Stamboulieh. I’ve met him in person. He is active in the fight for YOUR gun rights. So, here you sit on your petty little soap box and try to tell others that what he is doing is a waste of time and money. What the hell are you doing to move forward and gain ground for the 2nd amendment? If all this case does is bring national awareness and help wrangle in some bigger players, then it’s worth every minute and dollar spent. Go home and sit in a dark closet. You’re better served there.

        1. avatar mger223 says:

          You have zero credibility to speak against Mr Stamboulieh. I’ve met him in person.

          Oh, I’ll bet you have. Tell me – how much additional credibility can one expect to achieve by speaking about themselves in the 3rd person? mger223 is curious. I’ve met him in person.

        2. avatar CB says:

          Yeah. People could never know someone in real life….. Idiot.

        3. avatar slowmethinks says:

          So I’m a shill for the lawyer? Yeah… You’re delirious. No one ever meets anyone. I don’t know how to reply to your stupidity.

    4. avatar Nick says:

      My guess would be that he’s hoping more will jump on board if it makes headway. If he starts making progress, perhaps the NRA,SAF, etc will join in.

    5. avatar int19h says:

      If he argues it before a lower level court successfully, you can be sure that SAF will be on the case, bringing in the heavy guns with their much larger funding. This is about securing a beachhead.

  15. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    If you think about it, machine guns should either be illegal (boo!!) or legal (yea!!). Right now some are legal and some are not. Further, if you fill out the forms right and pay your fees, you can have one depending on your state of residence. Imagine similar laws for voting. You can vote in your local election but you must be approved and pay fees to vote in national elections except in Massachusetts, NY, IL and CA where you’re not trusted with the vote.

    1. avatar SAS 2008 says:

      The same applies to all guns, not just machine guns.

  16. avatar mike says:

    From a time standpoint, NFA 1934 isn’t on solidified bedrock as say the Constitution or Bill of Rights… but it is still 80 years strong. And the machine gun ban (McClure-Volkmer Act 1986) is “only” 28 years old. If this legal proceeding at least brings MG prices down somewhat, then it’s still a win in my book.

    1. avatar Julio says:

      The age of the law on the books does not mean that they shouldn’t be challenged–nor should that discourage those attempting to enact change. Prohibition lasted almost 14 years. I won’t bother making the comparison to how long slavery was accepted either (or women’s suffrage, child labor laws, Jim Crow laws, etc.) other than to point out that changes can (and should) be made when people desire freedom.

  17. avatar Michael B. says:

    I donated $20.

    As far as this possibly leading to bad case law? I doubt it. Even if it does, it won’t change a thing for me as I refuse to own suppressors, short barreled long guns and automatics until that law is done away with.

    1. avatar Diamondback says:

      The government thugs appreciate your submissiveness.

      1. avatar Xanderbach says:

        Maybe he means, “registering SBRs, Suppressors, and FA.” Not that anyone would say that on an open forum…

        1. avatar Michael B. says:

          No, that’s not what I mean. I’m not willing to jump through the current hoops to get them so I won’t own them unless the hoops are done away with.

      2. avatar Michael B. says:

        The government thugs appreciate me donating to an effort to combat them? That seems illogical.

  18. avatar Toasty says:

    Right now the courts are having a hard time striking down laws that ban the most popular rifle in America even though the case law says that weapons that are in common use are protected. First, let’s overturn AWB’s and mag caps so we can get more case law on our side. Can we please NOT shoot ourselves in the foot?

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      IMO, the courts are not having any hard time, it is the people bringing the cases that are. The judges refuse to apply strict scrutiny however so that they can uphold the laws.

  19. avatar RetroG says:

    The US Supreme Court is fine with taxing all sorts of things, but the magnitude of the tax and the restriction on production of new “machine guns” are both vulnerable to legal challenges. One could also realistically challenge silencers being in the NFA, since the original reason for that was to prevent poachers from using them. Now that a number of states have legalized them for hunting, that argument goes out the window. And of course, their use in crimes is so low as to be statistically non-existant. The only previous challenge to the NFA that made it to the US Supreme Court was on the short barreled shotguns, and the court found against the plaintiff because short barreled shotguns were not used in military warfare (they were wrong, but…). It would be easy to argue that short barreled rifles are used in military warfare and are weapons a militia should have (actually the argument the court used).

    Finally, case law can’t make restrictions worse than they are, it can only clarify or relax restrictions.

    1. avatar Diamondback says:

      The case to which you refer is the Miller Case.

      The supreme ruled as they did for two reasons:

      1. They were/are corrupt. (Had they never heard of the trench shotguns of WWI? Or those issued for use while on guard duty?)

      2. The appellant had died and his attorney didn’t show up for the hearing because he didn’t expect to get paid.

      Like with almost everything in amerika, it’s all about the money and advancing the power of the state even if it’s illegitimate.

      Widespread noose therapy is needed in this country for politicians, their appointees, judges, prosecutors, etc. etc.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    There are 94 Federal District Courts, they are all equal and none of them can bind the others. So there are, in theory, 94 venues where the NFA might be overturned, and we can lose 93 times as long as we win once. That’s the way class action lawyers finally beat the tobacco companies, even though the plaintiffs lost hundreds of cases before they won a single case.

    Some extensive forum-shopping might find a court that’s more likely to strike or cripple the NFA. In any case, suing the bastards is probably the best way to advance our rights. If anything, we don’t sue enough. So bravo to Stamboulieh.

  21. avatar Diamondback says:

    Well, the supremes did admit, in Heller v. D.C., approx. 3/4 way down page 8 of the opinion from June 2008, that “… the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to ALL INSTRUMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE BEARABLE ARMS …” [emphasis mine] (Not that I agree that is the full extent of the scope of the right. I mean, there’s the “keep” and the “shall not be infringed” parts that they’ve yet to address.)

    So, if it “… extends, prima facie, …”, why can’t I have them all and why do I have to pay a tax, register or apply for a special permit?

  22. avatar tahco says:

    It takes no more than one month to process a form 1 for sbr people. I’m a sot3 and process them all the time. Quit your crying. It’s not tthat hard to do on eForms. Geez what a bunch of whiners.

    1. avatar tfunk says:

      Hmmm…I’m sort of thinking you don’t get it.

      Yep, you don’t get it.

  23. avatar Julio says:

    Somehow, it didn’t limit those within the Navy from attempting to purchase suppressors via “unconventional methods” and then take some creative license with the “storage” of documents regarding the approval of said NFA items along with the “unregistered” weapons they were (potentially) meant to augment.
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/probe-of-silencers-leads-to-web-of-pentagon-secrets/ar-BB8X1J2

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Oddly enough, had they just had them made overseas it wouldn’t be an issue.

      This is really just a problem for the poor SOB who made the suppressors, not so much for the military. The mechanic will probably be dealt with harshly unfortunately. Though I wonder why the pentagon didn’t just have a contractor manufacture them either outside the US or on an active military installation. Either way, different laws apply.

      There is no restriction on the military having suppressors, or much of anything else for that matter. The NFA doesn’t apply and the ATF has no say in the matter once the item is in the DoD’s possession. It all really is just a problem with them having some guy who isn’t licenced making the damn things in this country. Even the lack of serial numbers isn’t exactly a big issue in the military other than for supply tracking, which doesn’t matter so much if it is an off the books op.

      In short, I doubt anyone bothered to even “wake the general up” for this one.

  24. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    This should be interesting. Nick needs to ship me some popcorn!
    So on the surface there are folks who are whining this is a bad case etc.
    I have thought about this.
    The major areas we have are:
    machineguns
    suppressors
    short barrel rifles
    short barrel shotguns

    It is odd, since I figure machinguns, and short barreled shotguns probably will be fought tooth and nail to keep illegal.
    As far as short barreled rifles and suppressors. I can see a case for those. I just don’t see much aversion to them, and no one can make a case that we will see rivers of blood and wild west shoot outs because of it.
    Would I like to see the whole thing tossed. You betcha! Certainly we can make the case that waiting 6 months to a year or longer is just wrong, and either they fix it or dump it.

  25. avatar NorthBridge says:

    There will be several people come along and tell you that this is a scam, there’s no way the lawsuit can succeed, etc, etc.

    All I ask is this: If you are interested in this endeavor but are on the fence about donating to this lawsuit, take some time to read the entire thread at AR15.com and draw your own conclusions. It’s a whopping 95 pages (at this point), but it’s worth the read.

    http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_NOW_ACCEPTING_DONATIONS__suing_ATF_over_post_86_machine_guns_for_NFA_trusts__updated_10_11_14.html&page=90#i49813327

    1. avatar NorthBridge says:

      My link above seems to take you straight to page 90. Oops. Here’s a link that takes you to the first page.

      http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_NOW_ACCEPTING_DONATIONS__suing_ATF_over_post_86_machine_guns_for_NFA_trusts__updated_10_11_14.html

  26. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    Wow-lots of back-n-fro. I sit here thinking how sometime back the ATF approved the Sig brace-essentially providing a way to make AR-15 pistols into short barreled rifles. The Henry Mare’s Leg is ostensibly a pistol but in reality a copy of a television series’ cutdown rifle, or the Draco-an AK-47 brought down to pistol size. Add to this the shotgun shell firing revolvers by S&W and Taurus, or the Derringers from Bond Arms-basically pocket shotguns in their own right. With these purchase options readily available(and who knows how many others are/will be)-it would seem that the rationale for a continued prohibition on at the very least SBRs and SBSs is on shaky ground. Just my two Shiny Abes……..

    1. avatar BDub says:

      I like how your Abes shine, sir.

  27. avatar Stainless1911 says:

    If this passes, then people have upheld the oaths they took, if it fails, then those people have broken their oaths and should be hung or shot. Their choice.

  28. avatar Kyle says:

    We can’t get assault weapons ban overturned, and these people think they can strike down the ban on machine guns? Scalia in DC v Heller says specifically that the Second Amendment does not apply to weapons like M-16s, i.e. machine guns.

    1. avatar NorthBridge says:

      I didn’t see “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (except for machine guns, tanks, and howitzers)” when I read the 2nd. Did I get an altered copy? Supreme Court justices aren’t gods.

    2. avatar Lyndsy Simon says:

      > Scalia in DC v Heller says specifically that the Second Amendment does not apply to weapons like M-16s, i.e. machine guns.

      Scalia said no such thing. The passage you’re thinking of is mere conjecture on his part, and certainly not a statement that the 2A “doesn’t apply” to machineguns.

  29. avatar Levi B says:

    The problem with the large pro-gun organizations is a lot of the big monetary contributors also have large collections of machine guns. You think they’re going to push to make them worth 10% tomorrow of what they’re worth today?

  30. avatar Robert Minnick says:

    Don’t see MG’s changing anytime soon. I’ve never understood the suppressor and SBR thing. I know people that do that do the MG thing and they have a lot of money tied up in them. If someone doesn’t have the money to buy a transferable they can’t afford to shoot it anyway. If somehow something ever changes with new production MG’s being available some people will lose a lot of money.

  31. avatar Savage says:

    Only a tyrant/traitor would put an investment/mg above our God-given Constitutional Rights!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email