Posted on 03/20/2007 9:41:22 AM PDT by Revtwo
I wonder if there is a way to do this without having the risk of F troop burning down your house looking for the M-16?
And what exactly do they think the rest of the US is going to do if that ruling should ever be passed down from the SC?
Actually if the manufacture of new MG's was approved through a court case like this coming down against the 86 act, the prices for new MG's would plummet as the supply has been artifically limited for 20 years now.
Prices would go down before they would go up.
And it would also keep them from enforcing the second amendment as written. Meanwhile all of us not in DC will still have our RKBA infringed upon by various state and federal "Laws", that are not really laws since they are in violation of the Constitution.
Simple: find a willing dealer, pay for it, submit the paperwork & tax - the dealer hangs on to it until the paperwork clears.
Might not stop 'em from doing so on some other trumped-up charge.
bump
Like the ever popular : Conspiracy to violate federal firearms laws.
After Kelo, who knows what would happen?
The Supremes basically told city and state governments "Do what thou will, it's none of our business"
Same fate for the 2A?
Maybe, who knows? Would you take that chance?
I might, but the war chest and argument had better be correct.
It's a bill not a rule, but you're correct it won't go anywhere as a stand alone bill. However it's provisions are quite likely to be "cut and pasted" into some "must pass" legislation. The original AWB was filed as several separate bills, with slightly varying provisions, (HR 1472, HR 1706, S 639, HR 893 (which would have banned all semi automatics, pistols, rifles and shotguns), HR 3184, and others, one of those, was pretty much incorporated wholesale into the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" aka "The Crime Bill", aka "Bill's Crime".
Well, not exactly. This case can still be appealed to the Supreme Court by the loser, that is the government of DC. If the SC were to uphold this ruling, then it would have national precedent. You don't have to have dissimilar rulings in different circuits to appeal to the Supreme Court, but it does increase the chances that they will decide to hear the case. We have dissimilar rulings on whether the second amendment protects an individual right already. In fact we had them after Emerson, but in that case the government *won*, even though in what was likely "dicta", the 5th circuit court said that the 2A protected an individual right, while the 9th circuit, and others have ruled that it does not. In this case the government (of DC) lost and the court based it's decision on an individual rights reading of the second amendment. In this (DC) case, as in Emerson, there was no question of applicability to the states, since both were originally federal cases.
If this NJ case is appealed, which is likely, to the State Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome the loser could appeal to the US Supreme Court. Hopefully that would happen after the SC rules the second to protect an individual right, leaving only the question of applicability to the states.
It may not be our choice, the other side may force a case to the Supreme Court, and get the ruling they want. They don't seem quite as fearful as we seem to be.
Best we find out now which way the wind blows. The makeup of the Court is certainly not going to get any better before 2009, if then, the Senate 'Rats won't allow it. After the 2008 elections, it's a new ball game, but it could be even worse than the current situation, with the Dems beating the Corruption and Political Influence Drum for all they are worth, and the MSM faithfully parroting what they say.
Yes. Quit waffling, make a decision, and move on from there. For too long there has been tremendous energy spent on bickering one way or the other - pick one already. At least with a negative verdict we'd at least know where we stand and could fight from there. ...and gee, maybe we'll get a POSITIVE verdict and actually be able to largely end all this BS!
This verdict only applies in DC.
Yes, if it goes to SCOTUS it will apply nationwide - though only thru subsequent cases, as SCOTUS upholding this Parker verdict still only literally affects 2-3 laws in DC (yes, it creates powerful precedent).
Upshot is we now have enough differing high court verdicts that SCOTUS will have to take an RKBA case soon.
I'd bet DC won't appeal. Other mayors (Chicago, LA, NYC, etc.) will pressure the DC mayor to leave it be, as a pro-RKBA SCOTUS verdict would have massive far-reaching effects, while coping as-is can be managed. The anti's will cut their losses rather than face high risk of total loss.
Prices would go down before they would go up.
Prices of guns would eventually drop, due to economies of scale with larger production runs. But prices of individual parts and components can rise, at least initially. And as later runs incorporate modifications meant to increase or simplify production, original parts and examples can command premium interest and costs, as with more desirable pre-64 Winchester rifle production.
And, equally pernicious: the same language then turns up in state legislation, allowing creeping incrementalism to erode previously-held liberties in those locales where enough fellow travellers can arrange passage of such acts.
It also works the other way, when states, like California, from whose AW ban much of the "criteria" in this bill is taken, get away with infringing the right of the people, it encourages their federal legislators, and those from like "minded" states, to try to do the same to the rest of us.
But we passed the Volkner Act in 1985, which made it illegal for a civilian to own a machine gun that was manufactured after 1986. There are about 300,000 legal machine guns in private hands that can be transfered to a civilian. This is why they are called transferable.
If you are the buyer for a police department, you can get an MP-5 for about $1500.00. You can get an M-16 for about $800.00. These guns can not be sold to civilians. That's why a twenty year old M-16 sells for more than 25 times what it is worth. The supply is limited. Right now you can buy a Bushmaster AR-15 for about $1,000.00. The M-16 has one additional part - the auto sear that sells for $32. So your new M-16 would be on the rack for $1032.00
Or you could make your own.
To make an AR-15 rifle go full automatic, you need a hole drilled in the lower receiver and six parts.
hammer: $15
sear: $32
trigger: $12
disconnecter: $6
selector: $37
bolt carrier: $78
Total: $180
These parts are for the M-16 and the M-4. There are millions of these rifles and the government keeps ordering new ones and repair parts. Several companies make them. Even if the Supreme Court struck down the Volkner Act on Monday, the cost of the parts won't rise significantly for two reasons. First, even if you paid for the parts and your dealer had them in hand, it takes six weeks for the BATFE to approve the transfer. You've waited this long to have a machine gun, you're going to wait another six weeks to have a machine gun, why not wait a month until any price spike disappears? A few people would pay a premium price, but probably only a few. Shooters are notoriously cheap. In all likelihood, a rush of applications would bog down the BATFE, so you'd end up waiting longer than six weeks for the paperwork.
The second factor is the ammunition cost. An Uzi fires at 950 rpm. Even if you reload your ammunition, the Uzi will fire a six dollar box of ammo in about three seconds. That's $120.00 per minute. As one shooter put it, shooting a machine gun is like throwing twenty dollar bills in a fire. For that reason alone, many shooters really don't want one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.