[brich2929]

You may be unaware that there are currently 2 court cases that are challenging the Hughes Amendment 18 U.S.C. 922(0) which was an Unconstitutional Amendment that was added on and passed with the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
Basically, that Amendment banned civilian ownership of and machine gun manufactured after May of 1986. From that moment on, the supply of machine guns has been a fixed quantity, which has driven up the price of these guns astronomically.

In a challenge to Hughes, 2 individuals filed a Form 1 application with BATFE to make a new machine gun and both paid their required "making tax" of $200- both individuals were approved to make the guns- in at least one case and actual firearm was made. Subsequently, BATFE siad that they had made "an error" in issuing the tax stamps/authorization and revoked approval.

One of these cases is filed in the 5th Circuit (New Orleans) and is now titled Hollis v. Lynch (formerly Hollis v. Holder) and the second case is filed in the Third Circuit (Philadelphia) and is titled Watson v. Lynch (formerly Watson v. Holder).

These cases are the strongest challenge ever given to the Hughes Amendment's unconstitutional ban on these weapons and Oral Arguments are set for the first week of April, 2016. If you'd like to come see history being made right here in our back yard, I'll add details following this post.

Dick Heller's (D.C v. Heller) 2nd Amendment Organization has teamed with the litigants and their legal counsel to fight these cases in the courts.

For further info, including a link to donate to the cause, click this link: https://hellerfoundation.org/hvh/
If you'd like detailed information on the case, you can follow this thread over at AR15.com: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/168148 ... ase__.html The first page of the thread contains all information to date and the thread that follows details the day-to day discussions of the case and potential implications.

Shockingly, there are gun owners who DON'T want to see these cases succeed- selfish NFA firearms owners who think only of their privileged selves or their monetary investments. In my opinion, those people represent some of the Worst of the firearms community.

Feel free to add your questions and thoughts below. I'll also try and post some of the New Media articles that deal with this case.

[Kuntryboy816]

Shockingly, there are gun owners who DON'T want to see these cases succeed- selfish NFA firearms owners who think only of their privileged selves or their monetary investments. In my opinion, those people represent some of the Worst of the firearms community.

So, say the argument is won in favor of the Plaintiffs... would that constitute a full reversal of the ban and liable the BATFE to refund the tax amount to all who've been forced to pay it over the years? This is kind of a facetious question but I think it bears some validity. Why should those who have been forced into paying into something that was illegal from the get-go not get their $$ back?

[brich2929]

Shockingly, there are gun owners who DON'T want to see these cases succeed- selfish NFA firearms owners who think only of their privileged selves or their monetary investments. In my opinion, those people represent some of the Worst of the firearms community.

So, say the argument is won in favor of the Plaintiffs... would that constitute a full reversal of the ban and liable the BATFE to refund the tax amount to all who've been forced to pay it over the years? This is kind of a facetious question but I think it bears some validity. Why should those who have been forced into paying into something that was illegal from the get-go not get their $$ back?

There are (from my understanding) a few ways this could go- A refund hasn't been mentioned.

1. The plaintiffs win and NFA is struck down.
2. Plaintiffs win and Hughes is struck down. We all get to posess newly made machine guns (still have to pay the $200 tax). A new boom in firearms awaits.
3. Plaintiffs get to keep THEIR machine guns only. Lawsuits will be filed (Equal Protection).
4. Nothing changes. On to the next fight.

[brich2929]

I'd also like to report that Dick Heller will be attending the Oral Arguments and Lunch/Dinner so this will be your chance to meet him and dine with him. I think there may be lots of great discussion as well.

If you're planning on attendingOral Arguments, Lunch and /or dinner, please respond in this thread.

[NormH3]

Quite frankly I think we have bigger fish to fry. There are states that prohibit certain semi automatic handguns because they have a magazine that can hold 17 rounds. Automatic "machine guns" are a don't care for many fire arm owners including myself. It's all about priorities.

[MrCoolDale]

Quite frankly I think we have bigger fish to fry. There are states that prohibit certain semi automatic handguns because they have a magazine that can hold 17 rounds. Automatic "machine guns" are a don't care for many fire arm owners including myself. It's all about priorities.

I disagree. There is no reason we can't be engaged in multiple fights. This isn't a one-or-the-other situation, we can do both.

If NFA is struck down, that opens up suppressors, which is something that's very big for me.

[Kuntryboy816]

Quite frankly I think we have bigger fish to fry. There are states that prohibit certain semi automatic handguns because they have a magazine that can hold 17 rounds. Automatic "machine guns" are a don't care for many fire arm owners including myself. It's all about priorities.

I don't think it's a "don't care" situation for most firearm owners at all. I believe it's more of a "too long & expensive of a process" type of scenario that tends to make people shy away from going through the process of obtaining these types of firearms. With all of the restrictions, hoops and BATFE involvement, it quite frankly scares a lot of people away from consideration of trying to procure/own them (which I'm sure was the gov's base motive in the 1st place).

I disagree. There is no reason we can't be engaged in multiple fights. This isn't a one-or-the-other situation, we can do both.

If NFA is struck down, that opens up suppressors, which is something that's very big for me.

Agreed.. if the NFA is struck down that would also have a ripple effect towards the "other fish to fry" such as mag limits and the like. Why concentrate so much on an individual aspect when you can solve them all (in theory) with one shot? (no pun intended)

[NormH3]

Perhaps my comment was misunderstood. I believe the average American doesn't understand why a citizen needs to own a "machine gun". We would have a better chance of convincing them that a 17 round magazine is really no more dangerous in the hands of a law abiding citizen than one that holds 10 rounds. Baby steps.

[pick_six]

As noted, 2 cases.

wonder if they will be talking ahead of time, between the districts. and the result/effect if we get a split decision.

and regarding the gun owners against, while FA is ammo expensive, i think their biggest incentive is the protection of their personal investment in FA products. it's been a while, but last time i read about this stuff, they were 20k+ ish for FA items.

if you've ever seen a DIAS (Drop in auto sear), they could be made by a good machinist for maybe $30, maybe even less. a few pieces of metal in the right shape, hinge, spring, and a couple of other small bits. full pocket in receiver. pretty slick little item.

those things would sell like hotcakes, if you just a stamp. and can afford the ammo. of course, the .fed would probably make stamps some ungodly $$$ to get a bigger cut of the action.

actually, i am kinda surprised, that the .fed.pol's haven't tried to increase the costs associated with stamps as well. back when things were approved, $200 used to be a huge hit, now not as big. the big thing most folks complain about is the turn-around times associated with stamp items.

[pick_six]

I kinda agree, and kinda not.

specifically, the a2a folks are moving so fast, in some places more then others, i think that if there is someone able to fight every point, it is best. wasn't gabby just in kilmington starting the next step, because ubc isn't helping?

being pragmatic, yes, i think some fights have higher probabilities of a win than others.

the nra took heat for exactly the approach, choose your battles, you are suggesting. they failed to show up in Washington and Oregon... or did very little.. to help fight the ubc there. bloomies spent like crazy. i think that was a low probability of a win, so maybe money was saved for better cases.

out my way, the state overrode all local ordinances regarding gun laws recently. the local library system is still bucking the flow and had someone taken into custody, and trespassed. their real issue was OC. the woman wasn't behaving badly, other then OC (OC, being bad only in the opinion of the .gov folks at the library). magically, it was just only trespass, attempting to make it look as if it wasn't OC related.

the good thing here is that, if the case wins, any .gov that violates state law is liable. unfortunately the limit is only to the amount of actual dollar damages occurred by fighting the charge. ianal, but i read that as court and lawyer costs incurred by the defendant. i could be a little off on that.

i think we need to work with big groups, nra/goa/saf/etc and work more to crowd fund these things.

Perhaps my comment was misunderstood. I believe the average American doesn't understand why a citizen needs to own a "machine gun". We would have a better chance of convincing them that a 17 round magazine is really no more dangerous in the hands of a law abiding citizen than one that holds 10 rounds. Baby steps.