Is the ban on machine guns legal?

[Jackal]

Granted I realize that machine guns are legal but not really not everyone has thousands to buy one. Plus, you cannot buy new ones or make them yourself. Is it legal to create this kind of situation? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

[VeryPrivate]

The short answer: Yes. However, the "Ban" on Sawed-off shotguns was upheld by the courts because it was of no military value and therefore did not contribute to the militia. Taking this in reverse, it would, this decision implies that it is not legal to ban military weapons since they would be used in a militia. And in the intervening years, the military has adopted sawed-off shotguns for use in urban warfare. So based upon the logic of the original decision, sawed-off shotguns are not legal to ban either.

I once had the misfortune of hearing a Law School Dean speak at a graduation ceremony. He professed a great love for the written law. I immediately considered him a hypocrite, because you cannot profess to love the written, i.e unchanging, law and then spend your time teaching a bunch of students the "It's all how you interpret it."

People rarely think out their decisions, they prefer to rationalize. It does not matter to a Judge or Lawyer what the framers of the Constitution meant. They only care how they can rationalize their preconceived decision to justify it. So the ban may be unconstitutional, or just plain wrong, but it is not likely to change.

[RoyJackson]

Personally, I think the ban on selective fire and automatic weapons should be challenged...after SCOTUS reviews DC vs. Heller.

I expect a number of lawsuits challenging gun laws in the near future...

[CoyoteJack]

Considering how easy it is for convicted violent felons to rearm after getting early parole do we really want them to have equally easy access to full auto?

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by CoyoteJack

Considering how easy it is for convicted violent felons to rearm after getting early parole do we really want them to have equally easy access to full auto?

Easy access and NFA weapons are mutually exclusive.

Title II weapons aren't as quick and easy to obtain as non-NFA weapons. All transfers went through ATF in Washington, taking weeks or longer. Among the items being checked were not only the integrity of the purchaser, but also the legality of ownership in the venue listed on the paperwork. Not the sort of process a criminal would be likely to pull off.

This is one of the great ironies of gun ban logic...legally registered machine guns weren't being used in crimes, production was halted anyway.

The ban only affected new production, so most of the guns made up until the May 19, 1986 ban are still in circulation.

[CoyoteJack]

Point taken, but how does the ban affect pre '86 weapons that need replacement parts? Is it one of the anything but the receiver type things? It would appear that a the way the ban was done it was to prevent a build up of full auto weapon in civilian hands by preventing manufacturers from meeting demand with new weapons and limiting it to a dwindling supply of old ones. It also raises the price of getting one.

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by CoyoteJack

... how does the ban affect pre '86 weapons that need replacement parts? ...It also raises the price of getting one.

1. At the implementation of the ban, only the receiver was the controlled part of the machine gun. Thus, as long as the receiver remained a serviceable component, the rest of the parts could be easily purchased and thus maintained. The limiting factor would be the competence (or lack thereof) of the person performing the repairs.

Since then ATF, et al have "reinterpreted" the law to include any part unique to a machine gun in a misguided effort to further populate the US penal institution. For instance: M16 bolt carriers will function in AR-15s without firing in full auto, but ATF find possession of these two aforementioned items as tantamount to machine gun manufacture.

2. Price: simple supply and demand. The $430 M16 I bought decades ago was selling for $13k the last time I looked. This has given me pause more than once before taking it to the range.

[G21.45]

For instance: M16 bolt carriers will function in AR-15s without firing in full auto, but ATF find possession of these two aforementioned items as tantamount to machine gun manufacture.

Are you sure about this? The reason I ask is because I've seen brand new LE6920's, et al, with M16 bolts installed.

[nfafan]

Originally Posted by G21.45

Are you sure about this? The reason I ask is because I've seen brand new LE6920's, et al, with M16 bolts installed.

I've read the same thing elsewhere. There is a TON more work that needs to be done to create a select-fire AR than merely swapping bolt carriers. ATF needs to get a friggin grip.

Maybe with new production guns coming out with a "common" bolt-carrier, ATF isn't pressing the issue?? Or, maybe not with just the new guns??

Anyway, to get back on topic - it would take a major organization - or someone of Bill Gate's resources - to sue the govt in an attempt to have the May 86 ban lifted.

It'll never happen - too many folks have too much to gain by keeping legal NFA scarce and expensive, let alone the back-lash from the anti-gun crowd to support retaining the ban.

[G21.45]

Yeah, I think you're entirely correct. Some higher power has determined that these M16 bolts are, in fact, legal for domestic civilian use.

(Cause the first time I saw one I specifically asked the dealer what he was selling. He showed me several, in-the-box, brand new, Colt AR's and all of them had M16 bolts installed by the factory and subsequently distributed to the civilian market.)

You're right again, too: The ban is unconstitutional as all Hell; but, for a wide variety of reasons, it ain't going away anytime soon.