How do we get rid of the Hughes Amendment?
Do we wait till we have the Congress and the White House?
Or do we go through the Supreme Court?
Printable View
How do we get rid of the Hughes Amendment?
Do we wait till we have the Congress and the White House?
Or do we go through the Supreme Court?
Pony up a few hundred $K and look for an attorney who has the time (years) to take it on.
What Jim said. We need either 218 reps, 51 senators, and a President.
Or we need to catch Dave Kopel or Alan Gura with a lot more free time than I think they have right now.
While anything is theoretically possible, I think the best solution is waking up tomorrow in a parallel universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by SG1
I can't think of any politician, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on, that would get up and say "yep, I'm voting to lift restrictions on machine guns". I'm certainly in favor of that amendment going away, but cannot see it happening in my lifetime with how risk-averse most politicians are with regard to their reelection ambitions.
on its way of going buh-bye...
then Raich happened and then US v Stewart .. Home Made Machine Guns affect interstate commerce... Then go all the way back to Wickard v. Filburn for that one.
Good Job Drug Warriors ! You Sure Showed Us ! Congrats !
Thus the Firearm freedom things on the State level - where they are arguing a rollmark of Made in the whatever state makes them Substantially Different, and thus would be compliant with Raich
Dont count on Gura. According to him the SC has no interest in ruling on machine guns are protected. If you look at some of the cases they have rejected that seems clear infringements in the light of Heller and McDonald.. well you will see he has a point.
ETA: Then take a gander at US v Miller where the govt lied its ass off in front of the court to get the NFA made constitutional
Realistallly, you have a better likely hood of getting SBR/SBS, as there is no good rational basis reason that a 15.9 or hell 7 in, 10.5 whaterver, barrel is much different than 16. Concealment? So what! Pistols exist and are carried by million so people every day. Suppressors, as a hearing safety device, off the NFA before any FA.
Even then i give it.. 5%, maybe 10%.
Id love to be wrong though.
I agree. The reason we have the SBR/SBS parts of the NFA is because originally handguns were going to be included as well and the SBR/SBS laws were designed to close a loophole. To get the law to pass they had to pull handguns out of it but forgot to also remove the SBR/SBS language (well some forgot, others figured any trouble they could cause for gun owners was good).Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbeyond
In this day and age it would be easier to get suppressers back too as they're "health and safety" devices ... not assassination or poaching tools.
Full auto and "Destructive Devices" are going to be the hardest things to get unrestricted (if ever).
I really wish I would win one of the multimillion dollar lotteries. If I ever do I will be the anti-Bloomberg.
Yea suppressors... Oh i forget the same.. but it was a Senator or congress critter, who wanted them on there because he was afraid people were going to poach the Kings deer.
Now some states allow hunting suppressed !
Ha !
Yeah, I guess that's because nobody had invented a much quieter projectile weapon that, oh I don't know, maybe used a taunt string to propel a tiny spear ... surely nobody who was out to hunt without a hunting license would consider such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbeyond
I just posted a thought on this very topic in another thread.....pasted below...
Something like this could dramatically (not completely, but closer to reality) increase access while giving the ol' one-finger-salute to the restriction in question.....
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/122447-...P-thread/page4
I couldn't agree more, Politicians are too scared to do anything either party may disagree with. They no longer really work for the people....rather, themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Not applicable. Select fire guns while issued to LE agencies do not get distributed to all LE's on the street. I know 3 dept's who have the fortune of obtaining the M-14 (yes M-14) the DOW offered to agencies for IIRC $1 per rifle. Those rifles sit in safes , not accessible unless EXTREME Emergency.Quote:
Originally Posted by DireWolf
[MODS: Searched for some keywords and dates to see if this had been posed already. Please delete this if it has]
Came across this article, regarding a potential "loophole" in the GCA.
The argument is based on the term "person" not being broadly defined in the GCA (like it is in the NFA) to include trusts etc.
Let me know what you think ...
SHORT VERSION: http://bearingarms.com/great-time-bu...ew-mgs-trusts/
LONG VERSION: http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/05/14...ns-for-trusts/
I can't disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
I'm more intrigued that someone has not 'found' the loophole years ago.
I don;'think it would ever make it to court.
The way things are going, if there IS a loophole, it will be closed by Executive Order, rather than via a Legislative or Judicial process.