Blow to the NFA?

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

show_public_doc (uscourts.gov)

[Sedalia Dave]

Very Interesting

[Blackwater 53393]

In the Department of Justice and in anti gun rights organizations everywhere, there is gnashing of teeth and multiple cases of apoplexy!!

 

No real cause for us to celebrate yet, but the cracks are widening and there’s a trickle of hope!!

[Ranger Dan]

There is another case I have heard about. Montana I think, where an individual was denied a tax stamp to build a machinegun under the same statute and he is suing the ATF/Gov on 2A grounds. There are plenty of cracks in NFA already. Could take a while but it's looking good.

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

[Sedalia Dave]

About time a lawyer uses their head and actually forces the government to prove their case.

[Blackwater 53393]

What many people don’t know about NFA and the Miller case that is so often sited, is that the case was basically FORFEITED because Miller failed to appear!

 

It has been said, (and I can’t say whether it’s true or not) that Miller was held by a federal agency and prevented from appearing!!

 

EDIT!!!

 

I went back and did a little looking!  Miller’s attorney didn’t appear either, claiming that he wasn’t paid and couldn’t afford to travel!!  The more I read about this case, the more fishy it all seems!!

Apparently, NO legal argument was presented on behalf of Miller!!  

As to the statement that a sawed of shotgun had no military purpose, many of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalry troops employed short barreled shotguns in their actions!!  Anyone who says those troops and their tactics were not “effective” is a bald faced liar!!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 2 by Blackwater 53393

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

Makes ya wonder , if the DOJ , has been crooked , longer than ya might think ? 

 

  Chickasaw Bill 

[Blackwater 53393]

Actually, I don’t wonder at all!!

[J.D. Daily]

Today Miller is meaningless.  Heller is the controlling precedent.  Heller states that arms in common use can't be banned.  Heller defines in common use as arms that Are NOT BOTH Dangerous AND Unusual.  Scalia stated arms like machine guns as defined by the NFA are unusual.  One has to believe 5 of the current SCOTUS justices belief differ from Scalia's re. machine guns to strike the machine guns are unusual.   They likely would do so because of Bruen which all 6 justices that signed the majority opinion or concurring opinions.  Bruen enumerates the judicial process required in 2nd Amendment cases.  I. The plaintiff(s) show that the text of the Amendment is implicated by the regulation.  II. The state must prove the regulation is consistent with historical traditions.  Historical is 1792 and maybe through 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified.  Unless at least 2 of the 6 who voted for Bruen have a personal reason modify Bruen the 10th circuit's ruling will be affirmed.

At the very least they could avoid the NFA and strike the Hughes Amendment from the 1986 FAOPA opening the machine gun registry.  Then the infringement is limited to the open ended time for ATF background check plus the $200 excise tax.  Excise taxes are generally unconstitutional if applied to constitutional activities.  Unless you are a hoplophobe or own transferable machine gun(s) mooting the NFA or opening the registry is something to look forward to. 

[John Kloehr]

On 8/24/2024 at 7:27 PM, Blackwater 53393 said:

What many people don’t know about NFA and the Miller case that is so often sited, is that the case was basically FORFEITED because Miller failed to appear!

 

It has been said, (and I can’t say whether it’s true or not) that Miller was held by a federal agency and prevented from appearing!!

 

EDIT!!!

 

I went back and did a little looking!  Miller’s attorney didn’t appear either, claiming that he wasn’t paid and couldn’t afford to travel!!  The more I read about this case, the more fishy it all seems!!

Apparently, NO legal argument was presented on behalf of Miller!!  

As to the statement that a sawed of shotgun had no military purpose, many of Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalry troops employed short barreled shotguns in their actions!!  Anyone who says those troops are their tactics were not “effective” is a bald faced liar!!

 

 

This is one of those cases which is right on the law but missed on the facts. Shorter shotguns do fall into the purview of the 2nd, Miller had no representation therefore the judges had no knowledge his shotgun was protected. It fit in the shotguns used in trenches during the war.

 

Today, the civilian carbine standard is 16". I'm trying to find definitive proof, but it looks like the military issues semi-auto rifles with 14.5" barrels. So a 14.6" rifle can't be an SBR.

 

More important is that Miller protected arms (outside of machine guns and bigger munitions) which were useful in military service as part of the Militia. The ruling only missed on the fact Miller's firearm was protected. 

 

Miller is still controlling, Heller and Bruen dealt with protection inside and outside the home in the general community; in no way did these rulings limit Miller.

 

Miller addresses the current 2A  challenges as to arms "most useful in military service." Do not let Miller get ignored, AR15s fit the definition, and I think they do so with a 14.5" barrel.

[Tell Sackett SASS 18436]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:19 PM, J.D. Daily said:

Today Miller is meaningless.  Heller is the controlling precedent.  Heller states that arms in common use can't be banned.  Heller defines in common use as arms that Are NOT BOTH Dangerous AND Unusual.  Scalia stated arms like machine guns as defined by the NFA are unusual.  One has to believe 5 of the current SCOTUS justices belief differ from Scalia's re. machine guns to strike the machine guns are unusual.   They likely would do so because of Bruen which all 6 justices that signed the majority opinion or concurring opinions.  Bruen enumerates the judicial process required in 2nd Amendment cases.  I. The plaintiff(s) show that the text of the Amendment is implicated by the regulation.  II. The state must prove the regulation is consistent with historical traditions.  Historical is 1792 and maybe through 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified.  Unless at least 2 of the 6 who voted for Bruen have a personal reason modify Bruen the 10th circuit's ruling will be affirmed.

At the very least they could avoid the NFA and strike the Hughes Amendment from the 1986 FAOPA opening the machine gun registry.  Then the infringement is limited to the open ended time for ATF background check plus the $200 excise tax.  Excise taxes are generally unconstitutional if applied to constitutional activities.  Unless you are a hoplophobe or own transferable machine gun(s) mooting the NFA or opening the registry is something to look forward to. 

Yeah, the people (like me) who can afford machine guns these days would lose a fortune, but I can live with that. But that’s ME. Other’s probably feel differently!

[Still hand Bill]

With the recent FRT and bump stock rulings I could see the machine gun registry getting opened up again as a way to deal with “banning” those items.  While it has not been brought up just making them illegal and having no recourse is unreasonable seizure, which could be ruled unconstitutional.  Yet an open registry would let you keep the item or be paid for it.  Since some states prohibit nfa item ownership it would be a ban for those people.  
 

I am sure those who have invested in machine guns will fight getting the registry opened as it will devalue their investments.  

Edited September 5 by Still hand Bill

[Subdeacon Joe]

I recall reading several years ago that the US government ordered several thousand shotguns having barrels less than 18 inches length for WWI.

[John Kloehr]

5 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

I recall reading several years ago that the US government ordered several thousand shotguns having barrels less than 18 inches length for WWI.

This is what I was referring to by Miller being right on the law and wrong on the facts. And why the arguments for banning civilian ARs must fail.

 

And if the military is issuing semi-auto carbines with 14.5" barrels, I don't see how they can be restricted as SBRs.

[Subdeacon Joe]

52 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

This is what I was referring to by Miller being right on the law and wrong on the facts. And why the arguments for banning civilian ARs must fail.

 

And if the military is issuing semi-auto carbines with 14.5" barrels, I don't see how they can be restricted as SBRs.

 

Exactly.  If Millers case had been presented all that his lawyer would have had to do was show that the government had purchased them for the military.  But, since his case wasn't presented, of course there was an " absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

Edited September 6 by Subdeacon Joe