US District Court Judge throws out Machine Gun possession charge.

[dogmush]

So this happened this week:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-tosses-machine-gun-possession-case-calls-ban-unconstitutional-2024-08-23/

The TL:DR is that a guy was up on federal charges for possession of a machine gun and a Glock Switch, and the Judge dismissed the charges because he said that the state had failed to show that the ban on machine guns (the NFA I assume) was constitutional under Bruen.

One assumes the feds will appeal, but they may be hard pressed to find a historical analogue to a ban on possession of military arms, given the private ownership of field pieces, mortars, warships, and various fast firing volly gun designs during the revolutionary period.

Lawyers are gonna argue though, and it would surprise me if the entire NFA fell, but I could see the ban on new, privat, machine gun registrations being struck down.  That is a defacto ban, where it would be stupidly easy to argue that SBRs and Suppressors, while taxed, are readily available.


Interested to see where this goes.  If you haven't already, consider joining FPC.

[Bogie]

One day at Knob Creek, I did a bit of wandering, and asking the question:
 
"If the government eliminates NFA restrictions, you will stand to see things like  you M16 rifle (or whatever) lose a LOT of money. Would you be okay with that?"
 
Almost unanimously, the collectors basically were of the mindset "I'm gonna buy a lot more machine guns then!"

[MechAg94]

I heard someone comment that the appeals court will overturn this.  However, we might see more and more cases like this.  Main problem I see if the SC may not throw out the NFA.  I think Thomas would, but I doubt a majority would. 

[Bogie]

Ideally, there will be a LOT more cases like that, resulting in an overburdened F-Troop Legal Team.

[Northwoods]

I heard someone comment that the appeals court will overturn this.  However, we might see more and more cases like this.  Main problem I see if the SC may not throw out the NFA.  I think Thomas would, but I doubt a majority would. 

They won't take it up if they can possibly avoid it.

[Bogie]

I will happily take small positive steps that are easy and damn near guaranteed, over a giant leap that quite likely won't happen. We were nibbled into our current state, and as was shown in the past 25-30 years, we've nibbled our way out of it.
 
And there's always some doof who insists that he's going to abstain from voting because he wants only perfection.

[Pb]

If even the MG registry was re-opened, you couldn't stop me from grinning for a week.

It won't happen. Judges on the supreme court have stated that MG have no protection as they are "dangerous and unusual weapons" despite there being no precedent for banning the ownership of "dangerous and usual weapons" in the text, history or tradition of laws or legal commentary in the USA.

[bedlamite]

I've always wondered if something from US vs Miller could be used for full auto:

In the 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.

The way I read that arms used in the military are protected under the 2A.

As a side note It also provides a definition of the militia: 

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should "contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, . . ."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/#tab-opinion-1936361

[HeroHog]

I still can't wrap my head around how they call short barrel shotguns illegal because they weren't used in war yet weren't they originally used in trench warfare? Doesn't that make it a militia qualifying small arm?  I'm pretty sure that Ithaca made short barrel shotguns for the military. Am I wrong? What am I missing?

[Northwoods]

I still can't wrap my head around how they call short barrel shotguns illegal because they weren't used in war yet weren't they originally used in trench warfare? Doesn't that make it a militia qualifying small arm?  I'm pretty sure that Ithaca made short barrel shotguns for the military. Am I wrong? What am I missing?

Miller died before the hearing.  Nobody bothered to present his side at all.  FDR of course didn't want the NFA overturned so government lawyers made that argument, nobody countered it, so it still stands today.

[dogmush]

I still can't wrap my head around how they call short barrel shotguns illegal because they weren't used in war yet weren't they originally used in trench warfare? Doesn't that make it a militia qualifying small arm?  I'm pretty sure that Ithaca made short barrel shotguns for the military. Am I wrong? What am I missing?

As far as I'm aware there was not a SBS in use by the US military at the time of Miller.  The variants of the WWI trench guns all had 20-ish inch barrels.  8f you went back to the early 19th century naval blunderbuss boarding guns would fit the SBS description, but we're muzzle loading, and not covered by the NFA.

At the time of Miller both SBSs and SBRs were not used by the military. At least not in any formal capacity.

I've often said it would be interesting to bring a case that AGREEs with Miller. That that weapons useful for militia use are the protected ones, then bring in a M4, and an M2.

[Pb]

I've often said it would be interesting to bring a case that AGREEs with Miller. That that weapons useful for militia use are the protected ones, then bring in a M4, and an M2.

Those sound like dangerous and unusual weapons, dogmush.   

[dogmush]

Those sound like dangerous and unusual weapons, dogmush.   

Not in Militia use.   

Heck the M4 is so not dangerous the DOD spent 25 years and untold millions to replace it. It's basically a nerf gun.   

[Pb]

I read the decision... the judge aboslutely nailed the "dangerous and unusual weapons" argument... He didn't really get into the large body of law and court precisdent specifiying the specific right to own military weapons though.

Anyway, there is at least one judge in the USA that really understands the Second Ammendment.  I don't really think any of them on the Supreme Court really do, probably excepting Thomas.