How the 86 Ban Happened.....

[PewPewPewCo]

So, the basis is that the denial is invalid? Based on a lack of authority to deny for that reason?

Technically, but not really true any more, someone requires standing to bring a case to the high courts. Standing means you have been harmed. For example the "friends of the Mississippi River" can bring a case against the local government for pollution of the river based on the harm that they can no longer peacefully enjoy the river. Or a gay couple can bring a case when their marriage license is denied.

It's supposed to prevent the S court from acting legislatively and simply adjusting laws, by now a days standing is hilariously easy to obtain, like the "friends of the Mississippi" example.

You could have showed your particularized harm by submitting a form 1 for a MG or a form 4 for a post 86 Mg. once denied you can show you have harm or standing. It never had to be approved and then withdrawn, simply denied at any point.

Their case is not to overturn the mg ban though, simply to state that it does not apply to trusts, only individuals.

*not legal advice

 

[Jcountry]

Technically, but not really true any more, someone requires standing to bring a case to the high courts. Standing means you have been harmed. For example the "friends of the Mississippi River" can bring a case against the local government for pollution of the river based on the harm that they can no longer peacefully enjoy the river. Or a gay couple can bring a case when their marriage license is denied.

It's supposed to prevent the S court from acting legislatively and simply adjusting laws, by now a days standing is hilariously easy to obtain, like the "friends of the Mississippi" example.

You could have showed your particularized harm by submitting a form 1 for a MG or a form 4 for a post 86 Mg. once denied you can show you have harm or standing. It never had to be approved and then withdrawn, simply denied at any point.

Their case is not to overturn the mg ban though, simply to state that it does not apply to trusts, only individuals.

*not legal advice

Interesting angle.

I am still not optimistic-but it would be nice to blow some kind of loophole in that idiotic ban.

Good luck to them. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

[Hayata]

I was in college back in '86 so was clueless about all this.

What happened to all the mg's in dealer inventories? Was there a grace period or something?

Oh, to have been informed and have money back then. I would have bought ever single 10/22 auto sear available...

 

[Jcountry]

I was in college back in '86 so was clueless about all this.

What happened to all the mg's in dealer inventories? Was there a grace period or something?

Oh, to have been informed and have money back then. I would have bought ever single 10/22 auto sear available...

Yeah-

I was like 16.

I had no idea either. I do remember seeing M-16s for sale at gun shows.... For like 250 or 300 more than an AR15. Also, MP5s, grease guns AKs, etc, etc. Auto sears, etc...
Guns shows were so much more fun back then.

I don't remember anything about a grace period. There is some controversy about the 68 "amnesty." I believe there was supposed to be a 60 day grace period, but it didn't last as long as advertised.

Damn. I need a time machine.

 

[Shemp]

If you think this SCOTUS is going to grant any loopholes I got a secure server to rent ya in my bathroom

 

[Jcountry]

If you think this SCOTUS is going to grant any loopholes I got a secure server to rent ya in my bathroom

I think the whole thing may be based kind of on the same logic that NFA trusts are based on.

That logic has always seemed tenuous to me-but still the trusts exist.

 

[Shemp]

I think the whole thing may be based kind of on the same logic that NFA trusts are based on.

That logic has always seemed tenuous to me-but still the trusts exist.

It's a lot easier to convince the gaggle that a suppressor isn't as horrifically deadly as a machine gun...

Hell, I bet a sizeable portion of gun owners probably don't think we need machine guns. That word is like a narcotic to the antis....it's just not gonna happen.

 

[Jcountry]

It's a lot easier to convince the gaggle that a suppressor isn't as horrifically deadly as a machine gun...

Hell, I bet a sizeable portion of gun owners probably don't think we need machine guns. That word is like a narcotic to the antis....it's just not gonna happen.

I share that same opinion, unfortunately.

If you really want to be shocked, started asking regular Joes whether or not civilians can legally own a MG. In my experience, at least 80% think we cannot.

 

[Strider12]

I share that same opinion, unfortunately.

If you really want to be shocked, started asking regular Joes whether or not civilians can legally own a MG. In my experience, at least 80% think we cannot.

More probably. I would say 95%