Not only is this FRAUD (similar to using stolen VINs), it conspires against the NFA Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 regulating FFL holders.
Basically, these idiots (ON PAPER) were taking this gun, worth $200.00 in 1986, $3,000.00+ today) :
and turning them into much more valuable.....
Thompson Submachineguns that sell for $11,000 to 50,000.00
...and belt fed....
M1919 that sell for $15,000-40,000.00
Boys will be boys.
Are you anti 2nd amendment or do you just automatically side with the state against anyone they claim is a criminal?
I don’t have a problem with it.
Tho’ why anyone would pay that much for a Thompson is beyond me.
All these laws should be considered UN Constitutional. Our masters have made automatic firearms the toy for the rich. A poor man can only dream about exercising his right to keep and bear arms.
All these laws should be considered UN Constitutional. Our masters have made automatic firearms the toy for the rich. A poor man can only dream about exercising his right to keep and bear arms.
Seems like they don't have the authority. And the 2nd just underlines that.
/johnny
I don’t see any evidence that any of their customers felt defrauded. These honorable gentlemen sought to wade through the blatantly unconstitutional morass of gun control laws, and create some valuable firearms that collectors can use and enjoy.
Let me repeat: They were CREATING VALUE.
And the fedgov prefers its government monopoly on machine guns, so it ruins these men who have never committed a real crime against others in their lives.
I know people who have (legally) taken an old HK that was licensed as a machine gun, and taken the legal key element and installed it on a rare belt-fed HK parts kit. Lots of work, but it added $20,000 of value, and the buyer was delighted.
You seem overly affectionate with the worst of gun control laws.
NFA revisions need to be repealed. The citizenry needs to be as well armed as the military in order to maintain the balance required by a Republic
We should NB that the 1986 legislation was the handiwork of supposed “conservative” William J. Bennett, pundit, gasbag, gambler and all round two-faced meddler in American politics.
Hard to violate an unconstitutional law. Where is the exception for federal government to regulate firearms in the Second Amendment? I hope I’m on the Jury, Not guilty.
A fellow by the name of Stewart was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. A search of his residence found homemade machine guns, so the feds prosecuted him for that, too.
He was convicted on both counts. On appeal in 2003, the Ninth upheld the conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. However, it overturned his conviction for the homemade machine guns, saying the Commerce Clause did not allow the feds to regulate them.
The US appealed the Ninth's ruling to SCOTUS. In 2006, SCOTUS remanded the case back for reconsideration in light of Raich [2005]. The Ninth then reversed itself and said the Commerce Clause does indeed allow the feds to regulate such things.
And drug warriors cheered the Raich decision.
Not that much different from this.
http://www.brpguns.com/categories/Machineguns/Stemple-Takedown-Guns-%28STG%29/
Sure these guys were scammers but, how about we repeal the 1934 and 1968 laws on full autos so civilian buyers are not limited to only purchasing existing pre-1986 machine guns?
If one can qualify for the transfer and ownership of a machine gun (plus afford the ammo) let a legal citizen or resident own one. Actual crime with full autos is almost non-existent.
U.S. v. Dalton (1991) The Money Quote:
The government is correct that a statute is repealed by implication only when that statute and a later statute are irreconcilable. See, e.g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 533, 549-51 (1974). In our view, however, that is exactly the situation here. Sections 5861(d) and (e) punish the failure to register a machinegun at the same time that the government refuses to accept this required registration due to the ban imposed by section 922(o). As a result of section 922(o), compliance with section 5861 is impossible.
Accordingly, we vacate Dalton's conviction and reverse with instructions to dismiss the indictment. In so doing, we recognize that the illegal possession of a machinegun is a most serious matter. However, it is precisely because this conduct raises such grave concerns that the government must exercise its prosecuting responsibility with care. The decision to proceed under an inapplicable statute has resulted in a constitutionally infirm conviction.
Mpmey quote:
The enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o) in 1986 removed the constitutional legitimacy of registration as an aid to tax collection. This is because the government interprets and enforces sec. 922(o) to disallow registration, and refuses to collect the tax. Farmer v. Higgins, 907 F.2d 1041, 1042-44 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. - , III S.Ct. 753, 112 L.Ed.2d 773 (1991). Thus, sec. 922(o) undercut the constitutional basis of registration which had been the rule since Sonzinsky.
Finally, the prosecution quotes an enactment passed in 1968 that the provisions of Title I of the Gun Control Act shall not modify or affect the National Firearms Act. (Footnote 15) However, the 1968 Congress cannot bind the Congress of 1986, which decided to ban transfer and possession of machineguns. P.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 453 (May 19, 1986). (Footnote 16) Further, a Congressional declaration in 1968 does not solve a constitutional problem which arose in 1986. The ban enacted in 1986, and the government's refusal to accept registrations and tax payments, simply left the registration requirements with no constitutional basis. It is the duty of the judiciary to declare such laws unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison, I Cranch. 137, 176-77, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).
In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts l(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.
Naturally, the government refused to appeal these decisions, as it completely destroys their entire victim disarmement regime, as codified by the 1934, 1968, and 1986 GCAs.
I remember back in 1968-1970 some company in Phoenix was selling new Thompson look alikes. Semi auto and ATF legal. They were advertised in the pages of gun magazines at that time.
Then the ATF called them all in and confiscated them when it was found that if you held in the safety and pulled the trigger it would go full auto.
Good thing they didn't drill any holes in the receivers, since each hole can be considered a seperate machinegun, per BATFE declaration. Hey, look: The air around us is just FILLED with unregistered machineguns. And if you breathe in any air, you're in possession....
Except that the BATFE, the agency in charge of such infractions, has no authority to do so because their original authority came from congress’s taxation-of-everything authority.
Now that the BATFE has nothing to do with collecting tax-revenue, as it is wholly under the DOJ and not the Treasury, they have no authority to deny the manufacture of machine-guns.
Legal precedent:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm
Furthermore, even using the bastardized definition of Ex Post Facto [laws] that the USSC has for more than a century (ie that only criminal laws may violate the ex post facto prohibition), the GCA is plainly contra-constitutional as it made every ex-felon (those with felonies, but had served their sentence) “prohibited persons” thereby altering their sentence.
The National Firearms Act revision of 1986 made it illegal for civilians to transfer or possess machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
This is what is called an "infringement". It is illegal under "shall not be infringed".