Maryland AWB case Snope v Brown going to SCOTUS. (Formerly Bianchi v Brown & Bianchi v Frosh)

[HARRYM]

Once something is established as "truth" or "unthinkable not to be so", reversiing it is very difficult.

For example, the battle for restoring gun rights to non-violent felons will probably never be won.

Well, Machine guns they raised the fee to a point to where back in the day it may as well have been a ban. Listening to the give and take during Heller I was a bit taken aback by Scalia casually throwing that out there and getting ready to hear the worst.

 

[Dench]

I could totally live with machine guns being legal with the bozo ATF process.

Never will happen though. Scotus is useless

 

[HARRYM]

I could totally live with machine guns being legal with the bozo ATF process.

Never will happen though. Scotus is useless

Not illegal, just heavily regulated. Criminals modify guns all the time to turn them full auto but nobody wants to talk about it....they don't want some folks to realize the regulation only affects law abiding Americans.

 

[Dennis in MA]

He also said banning machine guns was appropriate.

You're not getting legal machine guns in the era where any of these judges are alive. Civil rights take decades to hammer out.

Look at how the blacks were treated post Civil War up through. . . . 1970 or so. Hell, Boston still had a bussing issue in 1975. It takes a LONG time to change minds.

I just talked with a gun buddy a couple of days ago. "They should expand background checks." I pulled up hard like my horse was headed for a cliff. "Look, I'm not sure I should be able ot own guns. So I think it's OK for them to ban certain people from owning them and I might be one of them." Note - he has NOT given away or sold all of his guns. So. . . . . it's really "those people" argument. Which he tossed out next. "Imagine if anyone in Brockton could walk into a hardware store and buy a gun. It would be mayhem."

He's wrong. 2A has those pesky Shall not be's in it.

Same with the judiciary. As far as anyone is concerned, 1934 (38? 36? Whatever) is sacrosanct. Until a set of judges a few decades from now comes in and say, "wait a second. This is an infringement on 2A rights!"

Remember - in the 1800's, the freedom of speech was often restricted. Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. And in the 1920's, THE NINETEEN TWENTIES, it was legal to not allow Indians to control their own money because "they aren't responsible enough." Federal courts ruled that. Could you imagine that today?????? No. Rights improve over time. Same with 2A. It is only going to get better. But not overnight.

 

[HARRYM]

You're not getting legal machine guns in the era where any of these judges are alive. Civil rights take decades to hammer out.

Look at how the blacks were treated post Civil War up through. . . . 1970 or so. Hell, Boston still had a bussing issue in 1975. It takes a LONG time to change minds.

I just talked with a gun buddy a couple of days ago. "They should expand background checks." I pulled up hard like my horse was headed for a cliff. "Look, I'm not sure I should be able ot own guns. So I think it's OK for them to ban certain people from owning them and I might be one of them." Note - he has NOT given away or sold all of his guns. So. . . . . it's really "those people" argument. Which he tossed out next. "Imagine if anyone in Brockton could walk into a hardware store and buy a gun. It would be mayhem."

He's wrong. 2A has those pesky Shall not be's in it.

Same with the judiciary. As far as anyone is concerned, 1934 (38? 36? Whatever) is sacrosanct. Until a set of judges a few decades from now comes in and say, "wait a second. This is an infringement on 2A rights!"

Remember - in the 1800's, the freedom of speech was often restricted. Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. And in the 1920's, THE NINETEEN TWENTIES, it was legal to not allow Indians to control their own money because "they aren't responsible enough." Federal courts ruled that. Could you imagine that today?????? No. Rights improve over time. Same with 2A. It is only going to get better. But not overnight.

Yes, the Constitution has been bastardized since it's inception.

 

[1sern]

You're not getting legal machine guns in the era where any of these judges are alive. Civil rights take decades to hammer out.

Look at how the blacks were treated post Civil War up through. . . . 1970 or so. Hell, Boston still had a bussing issue in 1975. It takes a LONG time to change minds.

I just talked with a gun buddy a couple of days ago. "They should expand background checks." I pulled up hard like my horse was headed for a cliff. "Look, I'm not sure I should be able ot own guns. So I think it's OK for them to ban certain people from owning them and I might be one of them." Note - he has NOT given away or sold all of his guns. So. . . . . it's really "those people" argument. Which he tossed out next. "Imagine if anyone in Brockton could walk into a hardware store and buy a gun. It would be mayhem."

He's wrong. 2A has those pesky Shall not be's in it.

Same with the judiciary. As far as anyone is concerned, 1934 (38? 36? Whatever) is sacrosanct. Until a set of judges a few decades from now comes in and say, "wait a second. This is an infringement on 2A rights!"

Remember - in the 1800's, the freedom of speech was often restricted. Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. And in the 1920's, THE NINETEEN TWENTIES, it was legal to not allow Indians to control their own money because "they aren't responsible enough." Federal courts ruled that. Could you imagine that today?????? No. Rights improve over time. Same with 2A. It is only going to get better. But not overnight.

Doesn't the "Suspension Clause" in the Constitution gives the power to suspend habeus corpus during rebellion?

 

[pastera]

He also said banning machine guns was appropriate.

As did Alito
We aren't getting relief through the courts - we need Trump to force a repeal of the Hughes amendment along pulling SBR/SBS and silencers from the NFA.

 

[Joeldiaz]

As did Alito
We aren't getting relief through the courts - we need Trump to force a repeal of the Hughes amendment along pulling SBR/SBS and silencers from the NFA.

I actually do think at least SBRs could be saved through litigation using the common use test, but first we would need SCOTUS to toss out AWBs nationwide, which at the moment seems like a Herculean task for them. However, I agree that machine guns and silencers have to be resolved through legislation.

 

[xtry51]

Brandon actually has a great way to score wins.


View: https://youtu.be/IpgS7I5S_FU?si=PSOVgCruSQKK4F3N


TL;DR is appoint a progun ATF director and have them volunteer to testify in court on cases to say under oath many enforcements are violations of the law. Essentially you throw the cases, creating precedent.

 

[T-Unit]

As did Alito
We aren't getting relief through the courts - we need Trump to force a repeal of the Hughes amendment along pulling SBR/SBS and silencers from the NFA.

More or less. The courts are not willing to touch anything related to the NFA, so it's going to take a movement within a political party to repeal Hughes and alter the NFA. The biggest hurdle there will be the Senate, it's full of RINOs, and then the President would have to be willing to sign it and that President is going to be pressured by those around him not to do it because "machine gun bad."

I think with support for suppressor deregulation, there is potential we could ass short barrel deregulation in that as well. In 2025 with the AR being as easy as it is to put a stock on that has a 7 inch upper and braces being as widespread as they are the Short Barrel laws are antiquated. Even when this was passed in the 1930s it didn't stop the gangsters back then from doing it anyway.

 

[MickeyD’s]

Brandon actually has a great way to score wins.


View: https://youtu.be/IpgS7I5S_FU?si=PSOVgCruSQKK4F3N


TL;DR is appoint a progun ATF director and have them volunteer to testify in court on cases to say under oath many enforcements are violations of the law. Essentially you throw the cases, creating precedent.

I want whatever he’s smoking , such a pipe dream

 

[Coyote33]

and that President is going to be pressured by those around him not to do it because "machine gun bad."

I thought his sons were pro 2A.

 

[Coyote33]

So, today being Friday again, is there another chance of some report or another being released with good information?

 

[T-Unit]

I thought his sons were pro 2A.

I've yet to see Eric or Don Jr with an AR in their hands.

 

[pastera]

So, today being Friday again, is there another chance of some report or another being released with good information?

Next scheduled conference is 21 Feb

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2024TermCourtCalendar.pdf

 

[Coyote33]

I've yet to see Eric or Don Jr with an AR in their hands.

Don Jr. trolls Hillary Clinton with AR-15 showing her behind bars

'Symbols depicting different warriors are about as common in gun culture as hating President Trump is in the oped pages of the New York Times,' Don Jr's spokesman said Monday.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Best I can do for now:

1. Eric Trump discusses guns, hunting, and the Second Amendment | Buckeye Firearms Association
2. https://hellogiggles.com/eric-trump-guns/

 

[sbhaven]

I could totally live with machine guns being legal with the bozo ATF process.

Never will happen though. Scotus is useless

Yep. No not likely to happen any time soon if ever. The average joe doesn't care about machine guns and likely a large portion of this country would be perfectly fine if they were banned. There are likely few (if any) judges who would apply the text, history and tradition standard to a machine gun and rule the NFA as unconstitutional. And there are likely few (like less than the fingers on both hands) politicians who would go on the record and touch the third rail (repealing the NFA and allowing unfettered machine gun sales/possession). It is likely political career suicide to do so. Pretty much the only people who care about the issue of getting rid of the NFA, are a small minority of gun owners.

Want to tackle the NFA? Then start by building up a large solid base of cases going after other gun laws and getting them ruled unconstitutional. Never really understood why some swing for the fences with NFA rather than going after the lower hanging fruit that would create the ladder to eventually get to the NFA.

Getting suppressors out of the NFA purview is something one can probably build support behind politically. One can point to other countries (particularly European countries) who allow suppressor use. There are several avenues to use as attack vectors (hunting, hearing protection and "hey look Europe does it"). If one took a serious run at it, and got the White House behind it ,they might be able to get enough votes to swing the issue to get suppressors removed from the NFA. But machine guns? Not going to happen.

 

[T-Unit]

Suppressors on their own are not lethal and they don't increase the damage done, nor do they make the guns silent, which is why we have to correct the terminology that it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor.

The other low hanging fruit is the SBR and SBS. Point to the widespread use of braces and how they're not being used in crime like the anti gunners say they will if SBR's were repealed. That will still take decades to get undone and even if they are at the federal level the states will still want to keep them banned because the Supreme Court refuses to slap them down.

There's not much we in Blue states can do, but this is something people in Red states need to demand out of their rep and senators. Problem is the dopey Fudd Boomers just keep sending McConnell types to the Senate to screw us.

 

[Picton]

Yep. No not likely to happen any time soon if ever. The average joe doesn't care about machine guns and likely a large portion of this country would be perfectly fine if they were banned.

There are several reasons for that. One of them is that MGs have a very limited use case. I've worked with them extensively, and I can't think of a hole they would fill in my shooting life; I'm not suppressing enemy fire nor am I maintaining an FPL, which are the roles MGs fill better than anything else they do.

Of course I support a man's right to buy an MG if he wants to, but I'd never bother. To that end, while I'd strongly object to an MG ban on constitutional grounds, I can't say it would affect me in the slightest. The ban would be less likely to mobilize or [further] radicalize me, to be truthful.

As you point out, you need political will to start that ball rolling. If I were a politician, owing favors to many constituents, the MG lobby would probably be pretty far down on my list. There are infinite things I'd need my political capital for, and most are more important than MGs.

Just calling it like I see it.

 

[MickeyD’s]

Yep. No not likely to happen any time soon if ever. The average joe doesn't care about machine guns and likely a large portion of this country would be perfectly fine if they were banned. There are likely few (if any) judges who would apply the text, history and tradition standard to a machine gun and rule the NFA as unconstitutional. And there are likely few (like less than the fingers on both hands) politicians who would go on the record and touch the third rail (repealing the NFA and allowing unfettered machine gun sales/possession). It is likely political career suicide to do so. Pretty much the only people who care about the issue of getting rid of the NFA, are a small minority of gun owners.

Want to tackle the NFA? Then start by building up a large solid base of cases going after other gun laws and getting them ruled unconstitutional. Never really understood why some swing for the fences with NFA rather than going after the lower hanging fruit that would create the ladder to eventually get to the NFA.

Getting suppressors out of the NFA purview is something one can probably build support behind politically. One can point to other countries (particularly European countries) who allow suppressor use. There are several avenues to use as attack vectors (hunting, hearing protection and "hey look Europe does it"). If one took a serious run at it, and got the White House behind it ,they might be able to get enough votes to swing the issue to get suppressors removed from the NFA. But machine guns? Not going to happen.

Yup need to get rid of bans of common items first then we can pivot and use the same rational to run down the line.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I'll catch some heat for this here but that's okay. We can all have different opinions. But to those who are hoping for action from Trump, I think you will be disappointed. The man who brought you red flag laws and bump stock bans isn't our friend on this issue. Also, right now he's got bigger fish to fry.

Vance is more of a friend on this issue.

 

[alan226]

I'll catch some heat for this here but that's okay. We can all have different opinions. But to those who are hoping for action from Trump, I think you will be disappointed. The man who brought you red flag laws and bump stock bans isn't our friend on this issue. Also, right now he's got bigger fish to fry.

Vance is more of a friend on this issue.

I don't think Trump is friend or foe. I think he doesn't care one way or another....

 

[Waher]

There are several reasons for that. One of them is that MGs have a very limited use case. I've worked with them extensively, and I can't think of a hole they would fill in my shooting life;

Massive feral hog eradication in the South. Sub guns were big with western farmers for dealing with coyote packs pre NFA.

 

[DarthRevan]

I'll catch some heat for this here but that's okay. We can all have different opinions. But to those who are hoping for action from Trump, I think you will be disappointed. The man who brought you red flag laws and bump stock bans isn't our friend on this issue. Also, right now he's got bigger fish to fry.

Vance is more of a friend on this issue.

He did bring us scotus appointments that brought us Bruen. Accidental friends are good too.

 

[T-Unit]

He did bring us scotus appointments that brought us Bruen. Accidental friends are good too.

Yeah and they turned around and have kept Snope and OST v RI in purgatory.

 

[PappyM3]

…One of them is that MGs have a very limited use case. I've worked with them extensively, and I can't think of a hole they would fill in my shooting life; ….

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CaxkfwhGbNE

 

[Picton]

TIL how feral hogs are hunted.

I thought people like @Broc Tuah merely slaughtered them with a knife like a real man.

 

[KBCraig]

I thought his sons were pro 2A.

Big game safari hunting doesn't mean pro 2A.

 

[KBCraig]

Suppressors on their own are not lethal and they don't increase the damage done, nor do they make the guns silent, which is why we have to correct the terminology that it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor.

Tell that to the NFA, which doesn't say anything about "suppressors". But it does define "silencers" as "firearms" and bans them without a tax stamp.

 

[Broc Tuah]

TIL how feral hogs are hunted.

I thought people like @Broc Tuah merely slaughtered them with a knife like a real man.

Hunting or spear are the only two acceptable ways to kill a wild hog.