That's why I suggested an M16. They've been around since the 1960's, so there should be a pre-ban one available someplace. And it would be impossible for the government to argue that such a weapon is not suitable for military use, given the government's own large-scale acquisition of such weapons for that purpose.
Problem is, what would happen in that case, is that if you had a group with funding sufficient to challenge the thing all the way to the supreme Court, the government would always have the option of not appealing any lower court ruling so as not to make a nation-wide precedent, which is essentially what happend in both the RIA and Dalton cases.
Ah, but there's the wrinkle. The government can drop a case against someone without having to acknowledge any particular reason for doing so. The government is not allowed to just hand out money, however, without legal justification. The government can't issue a refund of the tax paid without acknowledging the legitimacy of the refund, which would in turn require acknowledging the illegitimacy of collecting the tax.
I'm sure some bureaucrat would try to figure some way around that, but Thomson/Center was able to get a case to the Supreme Court (they won, btw) using precisely the approach described. In their case, however, the "weapon" was a kit containing a 14" barrel, an 18" barrel, a Thompson Contender, a stock, and a notice that the stock must never be assembled with the short barrel. The BATF claimed that was a "short-barreled rifle", while T/C claimed it wasn't. The Court sided with T/C.
I'ver read about that, but it has been a while. Do you have a reference for the opinion? I suspect it would be an interesting read.
The government can't issue a refund of the tax paid without acknowledging the legitimacy of the refund, which would in turn require acknowledging the illegitimacy of collecting the tax.
Good point. I kind of like the 'hoist by their own petard' aspect of that too.