Court Ruling on Machinegun Possession

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,325
Location
WA USA
Since 1986 machine guns have been more restricted than other NFA firearms like sawed off shotguns and silencers.
§922. Unlawful acts
(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to-
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Click to expand...

Recently in the case USA v Tamori Morgan in the US District Court, it seems that Section 922 (o) might no longer be in force. Maybe, eventually. Or not.

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr10047-35
The motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The
motion to dismiss on Commerce Clause grounds (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Click to expand...

https://www.news2a.com/national/us-district-court-judge-defends-machine-gun-possession/
In a case known as US v. Morgan, Tamori Morgan was charged with two counts of possessing a machinegun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He possessed an Anderson Manufacturing, model AM-15 .300 and a so-called “Glock switch” which allows a firearm to fire as an automatic weapon.

This court decision is likely the first of its kind, and could pave the way for a brand-new flavor of litigation as gun rights groups capitalize on the significance of the ruling and run with it in related litigation. It could also be overturned by another court that digs up archaic analogues that ‘satisfies the state’s burden’ as required in Bruen.
Click to expand...

Ranb
 
Finally, the rights of machine gun owners are being accepted! This is brilliant news for would-be school shooters to live out their American dream. All 2nd Amendment lovers should feel a surge of pride gush from their stomachs over this.
 
As far as I know, only one person has used their registered machine gun to commit murder in the USA.
 
Ranb said:
As far as I know, only one person has used their registered machine gun to commit murder in the USA.
Click to expand...

“Registered” machine gun? Is that because they are illegal unless grandfathered in? The thread is about legalizing machine guns.
 
Metullus said:
There is no reason for anyone outside of military personnel to own a machine gun. Period.
Click to expand...
Why not?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess "I want one" is technically a reason.

I guess a more accurate statement is "there is no practical reason why anyone outside the military to own a machine gun". (They aren't necessarily useful in hunting, their usefulness in personal defense is questionable, I am unaware of any significant sport shooting events that would involve machine guns.) Maybe I'm not 'creative' enough, but I can't think of any practical uses a civilian might have for a machine gun. Maybe you can enlighten us?

So the question is whether the reason of "I want a machine gun" should outweigh the potential harm that could be caused if such a firearm were used in the commission of a crime (such as a mass shooting). Many people accept that handguns and rifles have enough practical uses to outweigh the potential risks.
 
Segnosaur said:
Well, I guess "I want one" is technically a reason.
Click to expand...
"I want one" seems to be a not unreasonable response.

Segnosaur said:
I guess a more accurate statement is "there is no practical reason why anyone outside the military to own a machine gun". (They aren't necessarily useful in hunting, their usefulness in personal defense is questionable, I am unaware of any significant sport shooting events that would involve machine guns.) Maybe I'm not 'creative' enough, but I can't think of any practical uses a civilian might have for a machine gun. Maybe you can enlighten us?
Click to expand...

Well, they are interesting mechanically. They are fun to shoot, and, while you might be reluctant to recognize the fact, recreational shooting is, in fact, a sport.

Segnosaur said:
So the question is whether the reason of "I want a machine gun" should outweigh the potential harm that could be caused if such a firearm were used in the commission of a crime (such as a mass shooting). Many people accept that handguns and rifles have enough practical uses to outweigh the potential risks.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that if the claim is that my possession of an automatic weapon is somehow outweighed by the harm it is likely to cause it is not unreasonable to expect that the claim be supported by something more than "just because".
 
Good news- it’s yet another product range gun manufacturers can now make money from. What’s the 2nd amendment good for if it isn’t for profit?
 
Lothian said:
In that case the USA clearly needs to initiate a mass amnesty, where anyone can hand in a legal or illegal hand gun and be given in exchange a registered machine gun. The murder rate would be near zero in no time.
Click to expand...

Please don't give them ideas.

I agree with most others, this is a ******* stupid ruling but we've already had someone defend it by saying "me wanting one is reason enough, so stop whining" in this thread. I know this will go on for pages, but that's all this thread is going to be in its entirety. A bunch of reasonable people saying there's no reason to have one, and the "others" that insist that wanting one is reason enough. The "others" know that opening up machine gun possession will undoubtedly raise the death toll in mass shootings, or street crime, but, hey, they're super fun to shoot and the "others" enjoying shooting is worth the body count.
 
Last edited:
Metullus said:
"I want one" seems to be a not unreasonable response.
Click to expand...
I want a lot of things that the public at large is benefitted by me not having.

Well, they are interesting mechanically. They are fun to shoot, and, while you might be reluctant to recognize the fact, recreational shooting is, in fact, a sport.
Click to expand...

You know what else is fun? Dynamite. Hand grenades. Pretty sure a small nuclear detonation could be pretty damned entertaining.

It would seem to me that if the claim is that my possession of an automatic weapon is somehow outweighed by the harm it is likely to cause it is not unreasonable to expect that the claim be supported by something more than "just because".
Click to expand...

Ok. So what do we have by way of evidence for a availability of automatic weapons used in killing people in *waves hand vaguely* that general direction? Do drug cartels or military use them when available?
 
a_unique_person said:
That's not a meaningful statistic. The gun in question is the preferred style of weapon of the mass shooter.
Click to expand...

Nope. The preferred style of gun for both mass shooters and individual murders is the handgun. For obvious reasons.
 
Thermal said:
True. But the highest fatality shootings sure seem to have the letters A and R appearing disproportionately.
Click to expand...

Disproportionate compared to what? Compared to how many models of guns there are? Compared to how many guns of each type are owned? What's the basis of comparison here?
 
Ziggurat said:
Disproportionate compared to what? Compared to how many models of guns there are? Compared to how many guns of each type are owned? What's the basis of comparison here?
Click to expand...

Anything you like, really. The weapons used in our highest fatality mass shootings look distinctively similar in a lineup, and nothing at all like the typical sport shooting or hunting firearm.

And yes, I know what you are getting at. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle sold in the States (not sure if it is #1 in guns overall), so one might expect to see them more often. But as you pointed out, we don't. Most are handguns, till you reach that efficient mass killing stage, then we have our lone standout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom