United States vs Hoover - removal of NFA

[Acer-m14]

would you say the first machine gun .. ? granted it only had limited rounds .. but it was rapid fire ..

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I really really want a suppressed SBR

I think a honey badger is my dream gun.

I only need 1 kidney

 

[Edwardteach72]

I can see SBR’s and SBS’s being unrestricted along with maybe suppressors. I am unsure about machine guns as even before the NFA they were not that common simply due to cost. Guns like the Thompsons were extremely expensive brand new for what the average person then could afford.

Other gen 2 style machine guns are stupid cheap to produce and thus if not regulated by cost, could have become "common".

 

[RooftopKorean]

Forget the "machine guns" or "full auto". I'd rather have it for the suppressors, SBS, and SBRs.

I find it absolutely insane that suppressors which is probably one of the most basic pieces of equipment that prevents hearing damage and reduces noise is so highly regulated.

It's sad that politicians use Hollywood movies as the medium of what suppressors do/are; the tools of hitmen and assassins.

I mean for God's sake as liberal as most European countries are, they are more easily obtained and often encouraged.

 

[Edwardteach72]

I really really want a suppressed SBR

I think a honey badger is my dream gun.

I only need 1 kidney

Lmao imagine actually wanting anything made and sold by Q

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Lmao imagine actually wanting anything made and sold by Q

Just let me LARP dude

We all have our fantasy, regardless of how practical it is

 

[Edwardteach72]

Just let me LARP dude.

We all have our fantasy

I care enough to not want to see you spend money on garbage “¯\_(ツ)_/¯“

 

[Acer-m14]

I really really want a suppressed SBR

I think a honey badger is my dream gun.

I only need 1 kidney

i would take a 4 legged honey badger too ..

FBI just got bit by a fkin badger lol

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

It's a nice try but someone didn't read Bruen:

​

. . . the Second Amendment protects only the carrying of weapons that are those 'in common use at the time,' as opposed to those that 'are highly unusual in society at large.'​

The discussion in Heller on page 54 of that decision is pretty informative on this subject as well.

This was spelled out, in spades, in Caetano vs Mass.
To qualify for a restriction, the weapon must be dangerous AND unusual.
When asked how many stun guns were in circulation, the answer was around 20,000.
That count was considered sufficient fail the "unusual" test.

WHO possesses them is of no merit. If Canadians have them and are massing at the border for an invasion, they are in common use. If police have them, they are in common use. If our military has them, they are in common use. If the Russians have them, they are in common use. If criminals have them, they are in common use.

 

[Edwardteach72]

It's a nice try but someone didn't read Bruen:

. . . the Second Amendment protects only the carrying of weapons that are those 'in common use at the time,' as opposed to those that 'are highly unusual in society at large.'​

The discussion in Heller on page 54 of that decision is pretty informative on this subject as well.

Way to cherry pick lmfao...

 

[Edwardteach72]

Just let me LARP dude

We all have our fantasy, regardless of how practical it is

Also fuck Kevin. He's a garbage person

 

[C3D]

Way to cherry pick lmfao...

"Cherry pick"? Did you read the part of Heller on page 55 that effectively says M16 rifles can indeed be banned?

 

[Edwardteach72]

"Cherry pick"? Did you read the part of Heller on page 55 that effectively says M16 rifles can indeed be banned?

No In heller they said they were not considering if a ban on other guns like rifles was Constitutional.. they said it could be but that was not the scope of the case at the time..

Get back to your cherry tree


Also fyi.. fuck heller.. Bruen supersedes heller

 

[C3D]

No In heller they said they were not considering if a ban on other guns like rifles was Constitutional.. they said it could be but that was not the scope of the case at the time..

Get back to your cherry tree


Also fyi.. fuck heller.. Bruen supersedes heller

I'll make a last attempt to help you out with the most relevant paragraphs from Heller on page 55:

. . . We also recognize another important limitation on the​

right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi-
tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” [Citations omitted]​

​

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful​

in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and​

tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.​

And Bruen most definitely does *not* supersede Heller, they are to be read together.

 

[C3D]

There are a little over half a million machineguns registered with the NFA. Seems pretty common to me.

Unfortunately for us, probably not. The number of registered machineguns has always been somewhat apocryphal but 500,000 is a good estimate. The issue with that is twofold: 1. as a percentage of the guns floating around the US, estimated at 300,000,000, it's 0.167%, so not a lot, and more importantly 2. estimates vary but about 1/3 - 1/2 of that 500,000 number are in the hands of LE agencies and not the civilian population (i.e., the "militia" as Heller describes it).

 

[Edwardteach72]

I'll make a last attempt to help you out with the most relevant paragraphs from Heller on page 55:

. . . We also recognize another important limitation on the​

right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi-
tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” [Citations omitted]​

​

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful​

in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and​

tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.​

And Bruen most definitely does *not* supersede Heller, they are to be read together.

Okay lmfao cope and seethe

 

[Edwardteach72]

Unfortunately for us, probably not. The number of registered machineguns has always been somewhat apocryphal but 500,000 is a good estimate. The issue with that is twofold: 1. as a percentage of the guns floating around the US, estimated at 300,000,000, it's 0.167%, so not a lot, and more importantly 2. estimates vary but about 1/3 - 1/2 of that 500,000 number are in the hands of LE agencies and not the civilian population (i.e., the "militia" as Heller describes it).

Imagine being so cucked by heller and openly happy about it... lmfao... but mUh HeLlEr DeCisIoN

 

[spat]

Unfortunately for us, probably not. The number of registered machineguns has always been somewhat apocryphal but 500,000 is a good estimate. The issue with that is twofold: 1. as a percentage of the guns floating around the US, estimated at 300,000,000, it's 0.167%, so not a lot, and more importantly 2. estimates vary but about 1/3 - 1/2 of that 500,000 number are in the hands of LE agencies and not the civilian population (i.e., the "militia" as Heller describes it).

500,000 is probably in the same neighborhood as the number of current model corvettes on the road.

Are corvettes so unusual as to fall afoul of the "dangerous and unusual" clause ?

I will fault SCOTUS for not more clearly defining the concept. I expect that means they'll have to revisit it.

It doesn't actually matter what % of guns they are. It only matters how many of them exist.

Nothing with half a million examples in circulation should be considered "unusual" enough to fall afoul of that clause.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Also fuck Kevin. He's a garbage person

Curious on the story?


I have no idea

 

[Jchrisls]

If rescinded they would could increase the tax stamp amount. $20K instead of $200.

Wasn't that similar to the actual cost of the tax stamp at its inception ( meaning adjusted for inflation)?

 

[Grimscale]

"Common use" as of 1934.
How many machine guns were there between civilian owned, military owned, and police owned?

If it was common enough for the .gov to want to ban them, then it is common enough to be covered under the 2nd.

There is no historical evidence that "machine guns" or full auto was restricted at the time the 2nd was ratified.


I just realized, this also means we can build and possess cannon!

 

[nortatoga]

"Common use" as of 1934.
How many machine guns were there between civilian owned, military owned, and police owned?

If it was common enough for the .gov to want to ban them, then it is common enough to be covered under the 2nd.

There is no historical evidence that "machine guns" or full auto was restricted at the time the 2nd was ratified.


I just realized, this also means we can build and possess cannon!

You listen to Joe Biden to much, You always could build and posses a cannon.

 

[nortatoga]

I'll make a last attempt to help you out with the most relevant paragraphs from Heller on page 55:

. . . We also recognize another important limitation on the​

right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have​

explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those​

“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think​

that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi-​

tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual​

weapons.” [Citations omitted]​

​

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful​

in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be​

banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely​

detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,​

the conception of the militia at the time of the Second​

Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens​

capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of​

lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia​

duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as​

effective as militias in the 18th century, would require​

sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at​

large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small​

arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and​

tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim​

ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the​

protected right cannot change our interpretation of the​

right.​

And Bruen most definitely does *not* supersede Heller, they are to be read together.

I don't think you are reading that correct.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Wasn't that similar to the actual cost of the tax stamp at its inception ( meaning adjusted for inflation)?

$4,000

 

[Saltwater60]

I can see SBR’s and SBS’s being unrestricted along with maybe suppressors. I am unsure about machine guns as even before the NFA they were not that common simply due to cost. Guns like the Thompsons were extremely expensive brand new for what the average person then could afford.

I just loved the Al Capone and the untouchables story when I was a kid and I’d love a Tommy gun. I’d even be happy with a semi auto one and a 50 round drum mag and a few sticks for it. Add in the WWII story of using them and that’s my dream gun.

 

[Saltwater60]

Forget the "machine guns" or "full auto". I'd rather have it for the suppressors, SBS, and SBRs.

I find it absolutely insane that suppressors which is probably one of the most basic pieces of equipment that prevents hearing damage and reduces noise is so highly regulated.

It's sad that politicians use Hollywood movies as the medium of what suppressors do/are; the tools of hitmen and assassins.

I mean for God's sake as liberal as most European countries are, they are more easily obtained and often encouraged.

And they are much louder than what the movie portrays they don’t make the pew, pew nose. It is sad and I’ve often said the same because stupid people on social media say the same with assassins using them. I always said to myself show me where one was used in a crime??

 

[Saltwater60]

Unfortunately for us, probably not. The number of registered machineguns has always been somewhat apocryphal but 500,000 is a good estimate. The issue with that is twofold: 1. as a percentage of the guns floating around the US, estimated at 300,000,000, it's 0.167%, so not a lot, and more importantly 2. estimates vary but about 1/3 - 1/2 of that 500,000 number are in the hands of LE agencies and not the civilian population (i.e., the "militia" as Heller describes it).

Every large or medium sized, and many small police forces have selective fire M4’s. My towns police force does. They have single and three shot burst ones as far as I understand it. I have that from a good source for my police force. They also have 30 round mags. I’d say that’s common enough then add in the civilian use ones and the ones at ranges and I’d say there are plenty.
Here is a list of registered weapons per state, many states have no registration requirements so many could be seen as strictly a registration of machine guns, but who knows and this is just an estimate. Texas alone has over a million.

U.S. number of registered weapons by state 2024| Statista

Texas was the state with the highest number of registered weapons in the United States in 2024, with 1,136,732 firearms.

www.statista.com

 

[C3D]

Double posted

 

[C3D]

Okay lmfao cope and seethe

I frankly don’t understand your immaturity and/or the somewhat personal nature of your attacks, but I suppose on the Internet you have to deal with all types. I posted the relevant quotations from the case, you posted nothing except insults. Do you also have an implicit assumption that I want a different outcome than you, which again I don’t understand? If you know something different in either of the two cases that supports your position, I encourage you to post it and not come across in the way you are

 

[Edwardteach72]

Keep clutching those pearls lmfao