Hollis v Lynch update thread.

>>28407687
Bumping because this is extremely important.

The court will eventually rule against us and they'll provide some totally nonsensical reasoning for their ruling.

I was actually wondering what was going on with this. thought it simmered down and died like every other time something like this happens

>>28407771
Courts move slow

>inb4 >>>/pol/

>As Amicus aptly pointed out, “The idea is laughable that, if someone showed up at Lexington and Concord with an M-16, his commanders would have turned him away, saying ‘Take it home, that’s far too effective a weapon to use against the Redcoats.’”
Top kek

I can't wait for machine guns, /k/

>>28407831
You're going to be waiting a few years, that's if the government doesn't just say "lolno." The court has not even heard oral arguments yet.

>>28407871
And that assumes they even want to make a decision on the case

File: image.png (89KB, 1272x1152px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1272x1152px

>using the same-sex marriage ruling against obongo

>>28407687
jesus that was glorious, it's like a document intended to troll the shit out of obongo

only problem is that the way everything's been framed, any ruling will either be "lol well fuck you guys win" or "eat dick nigga".

Who wants to place a wager on which one the govt is gonna go with?

File: image.jpg (38KB, 392x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 392x500px

>>28407687

Mfw .gov btfo with this brief.

I want to believe....

Mark my words, this is how it'll go down:

>the whole bundy thing up in Oregon right now
>media will be "pushed" to give it more exposure
>all of a sudden police are shot at from someone from the militia
>all hell breaks loose
>media begins demonizing anything gun related
>all gun right related things in court are rejected due to political climate

>>28407687
While I think their argument is pretty airtight, it doesn't really matter: they're up against the government, and the law is (in a practical sense) whatever the government decides it is.
I don't think they will win because the government simply will not let them, even if it means being illegal, unconstitutional shitstains (as though they aren't already).

File: scalia on queer marriage.png (25KB, 480x525px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x525px

>>28407769
This, unfortunately. One day they rewrite Obamacare on the fly, saying oh, we can judge the intent of the legislation better than the people who wrote it. Three days later they say pic related.

The rule of law is pretty much a dead letter these days.

>>28409655
Scalia is great

>>28409655
Again with the gay marriage?

Maybe you need to look into seeing a therapist or something. You're very angry and obsessive about something that doesn't affect you, and your fixation on and attempts to shoehorn an argument about it regardless of context suggests you have some deep-rooted issues that maybe you need to talk through with someone before you give yourself a heart condition.
Anyways, to the actual topic at hand: That brief was fucking fantastic. Hopefully this gets the consideration it merits.

>>28409384
"eat a dick nigga"
It's the government, they'll find some way to say fuck you, we do what we want.

>>28409855
Phil is a family-values fanatic. Ignore him

>>28409855

Don't feed the cuck tripfag with the attention it so desperately craves, please.

>>28409594
>all of a sudden police are shot at from someone from the militia

I read that as "shot at from someone from the media".

Which is probably what would actually happen.

>>28409855
>regardless of context

It shows that the Supreme Court majority are exactly the sort of cum guzzling faggots you're currently white knighting for

File: image.jpg (326KB, 822x1118px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 822x1118px

>>28409965
Forgot pic

>>28407769
At some point they risk losing what little legitimacy they have left.

>>28407771
The courts are slow as usual, the government trying to get it dragged out as long as possible doesn't help. This nolo guy seems pretty based though.

Can I have some background, as a retard?

>>28410010
Guy submits a Form 1 to make a post86 machine gun as a Trust, ATF approves it, they backpedal, he calls bullshit and takes them to court

File: 1375261695048.jpg (42KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 413x395px

>>28407831

File: image.jpg (121KB, 464x760px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 464x760px

>>28409976
>a greeter position at Walmart was suggested due to Obama's extensive experience at shaking hands
>as well as his special smile
>his special smile
>a greeter position at Walmart

T O P K E K
O
P
K
E
K

>>28410026
How did he convince them to do that? I thought the ATF would try to disarm everybody if they could.

>>28409655
Phil, much as I dislike homosexual unions too, there isn't a leg for the government to stand on in regards to banning it. Unless they abolish the whole idea of legal unions of course.

>>28409655


If we can use this to get new machines guns all the better.

>>28410078
They manipulated the rules to the point where they decided that a trust isnt a person, but the ban on autos specifies only people cant make them, with no mention of trusts.

Essentially, they tried to screw us out of something else and opened up this can of worms.

>>28410094
kek, someone's getting fired. And by fired I mean two weeks paid suspension with full benefits and a baller pension plan.

>>28407687
Can anyone post the brief here?

>>28410214
This.

I can't read the brief, it leads to a blank page.

>>28410214
STANDING
A. Mr. Hollis Has Standing To Bring His Second Amendment Claim
Appellees claim that “regardless of the outcome of this suit, therefore, [Hollis’]
asserted injury would not be redressed.” App. Br. p. 12. This is false. Texas does not
independently ban machineguns, and but for the federal machinegun ban, Hollis would
be allowed to possess machineguns registered with the BATFE. As demonstrated in
Hollis’ Opening Brief, Hollis has standing to bring his challenges to the offending
statutes. However, if this Court were to state that machineguns were protected by the
Second Amendment, it is clear that any prohibition on manufacture or possession by
Texas law fails, no matter if they are a party or not. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct.
2584, 2606 (2015) (finding a right to same-sex marriage and that states must recognize
lawful marriages performed in other states). Obergefell is fatal to the government’s
contention that Texas must be a party or that a pronouncement from this Court that
the Second Amendment protects machineguns would not have an effect on state law.
This is simply incorrect. But as stated in Hollis’ Opening Brief, Hollis attempted to
negate this issue by requesting at least two times to amend.
However, as briefed more fully in the Opening Brief, even if this Court finds that
Hollis does not have standing to pursue his claim against the NFA, it still should find
that Hollis has standing to pursue the remainder of his claims against the GCA’s
complete ban on post-1986 machineguns.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
2

1/20?

>>28410306
II. AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WOULD NOT BE
FUTILE
Appellees then turn to the amendment request by Hollis and state that it would be
futile to allow Hollis to amend his Complaint. App. Br. 35. This is false. Amendment
of the Complaint would have satisfied all standing issues the District Court with which
it took issue. For instance, if Texas would have been added as a party, and Texas law
brought into the picture, the government’s argument on redressability would be moot.
Alternatively, if Hollis were allowed to amend and voluntarily dismiss his challenge to
the National Firearms Act, then Texas’ safe harbor would still exist and a favorable
ruling from the District Court would redress his injury. Amendment is not futile, and
Appellees’ stating that it would does not make it so. Hollis respectfully requests that at
a minimum, the case be remanded to the District Court with instructions to allow Hollis
to amend his Complaint.
III. DISCOVERY IS NOT FUTILE AND WOULD PROVE HOLLIS’
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM
Discovery is also not futile in this case as it would prove Hollis’ contention that the
BATFE has allowed post-May 19, 1986 machineguns to be transferred to nongovernmental
entities. Hollis complied with the required affidavit setting forth a
plausible basis for believing that the BATFE has approved and allowed post-May 19,
1986 machineguns to non-governmental entities, and also attached a letter, from the
BATFE to Hollis’ response to the government’s Motion to Dismiss. ROA.433. Hollis
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
3

2/20?

>>28410323
could prove through discovery, if allowed, that the BATFE is violating his Equal
Protection right, however, the lower court did not allow this discovery, and without it,
Hollis is unable to prove what the BATFE denies has ever happened. Namely, whether
any post-May 19, 1986 machineguns have been transferred to non-governmental
entities.
In Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended (Jan. 27, 2003), the
Ninth Circuit struck down an exemption to California’s assault weapons ban that
applied to retired law enforcement officers. Similarly, discovery here would allow Hollis
to prove that the BATFE has allowed others (perhaps even ex-BATFE agents) to
possess post-May 19, 1986 machineguns. At the very least, this disparate treatment of
Hollis would require a rational basis review. If this Court finds that possession of a
machinegun implicates the Second Amendment, which District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570 (2008) seems to indicate, then it would require a higher means-end scrutiny
application. Regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, under Silveira, the disparate
treatment of private citizens would fail Equal Protection review.
On this Rule 12 dismissal1
, Hollis proffers to this Court (and the lower court) that
the BATFE has allowed private citizens to possess post-May 19, 1986 machineguns and

1 This Court reviews “a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, ‘accepting all
well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” Priester
v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2013) cert. denied sub nom. Priester v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 134 S. Ct. 196 (2013) (quoting Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458,
461 (5th Cir.2010)).
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
4

3/20?

>>28410334
that he has actual knowledge of at least three Form 1 approvals of post-May 19, 1986
machineguns, and a reasonable belief of others. ROA.367. But without discovery, these
facts cannot be proven. See also Opening Brief, pp. 50, 51. The lower court largely
ignored the factual information provided in Hollis’ Response to the Appellees’ Motion
to Dismiss because it was not attached to the Complaint. Accordingly, if amendment
was granted, this information would be attached to the Complaint and thus, would be
considered by the court. Likewise, demanding that a plaintiff such as Hollis to come to
court with every scrap of imaginable information and requiring it be attached to his
complaint would obviate any need for discovery in any case.
IV. THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES, PRIMA FACIE, TO
HOLLIS’ MACHINEGUN
Appellees advise that states “have long restricted other weapons deemed dangerous
and uncommon.” Appellee Br. p.18. See also Fn. 4. While this Court is not bound
by a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, the following is instructive. In State v. Herrmann,
2015AP53-CR, 2015 WL 7432597 (Wis. App. Nov. 24, 2015), Herrmann was convicted
of keeping an automatic knife (a switchblade) in his home for self-defense. Wisconsin
bans possession of automatic knives. Wisconsin argued the same as the state always
argues: protecting the public. Yet in Herrmann, just as the Appellees here, the state cited:
no evidence to establish that [attacks with switchblades] actually exists to
any significant degree. Again, the State has the burden to establish that §
941.24(1) satisfies intermediate scrutiny, and it must do so by showing the
existence of real, not merely conjectural, harm. See Turner Broad. Sys., 512
U.S. at 664.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
5

4/20?

>>28410306
>complete ban on post-1986 machineguns
That's not true, posties are legal to own. They just cannot be transferred or made by unlicensed persons.

Unless he is referring to the several thousand dollar price tag that amounts to a defacto ban.

>>28410353
Appellees confuse what the Supreme Court stated in Heller’s interpretation of United
States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). That the Gun Control Act (and the machinegun
ban) was not at issue in the 1939 Miller case does not change that the Supreme Court in
Heller stated set forth here for full context
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider
eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's
phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading
of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's
restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be
unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller 's “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in
tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia]
service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied
by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at
179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men
bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like selfdefense.
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons
used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were
one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98
(1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American
Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in
which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose
announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the
Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as shortbarreled
shotguns.

5/20?

>>28410387
D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008). Clearly, in 2008, the Supreme Court
could have commented on the Gun Control Act, yet chose not to. That Miller predated
the Gun Control Act has no bearing on the Supreme Court’s commenting solely on the
National Firearms Act and that a reading of Miller to protect “only those weapons useful
in warfare” would be “startling” does not equate to a pronouncement from the Supreme
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
7
Court that machineguns are not protected arms. Quite the opposite, Heller directly held
that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Id. at
582. M-16s are bearable arms. Appellees concede that the prefatory clause of the
Second Amendment “suggests one purpose underlying the Second Amendment,” and
the Supreme Court was correct when it held that the prefatory clause “does not suggest
that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right…”
Id. at 599. (underlining added). App. Brief. p. 20. As Amicus aptly pointed out, “The
idea is laughable that, if someone showed up at Lexington and Concord with an M-16,

>>28410409
his commanders would have turned him away, saying ‘Take it home, that’s far too
effective a weapon to use against the Redcoats.’” Amicus of GOA, pp. 11-12.
Appellees likewise quote to Senator Ted Kennedy, quoted in 132 Cong. Rec.
9,602 (1986) when he stated, “The only thing that has changed about the machinegun
situation since the 1968 act … is that machine guns [sic] have become a far more serious
law enforcement problem.” App. Br. 5. But in 1984 at a hearing before Congress,
then-Director Stephen E. Higgins testified about the NFA and lawfully registered
machineguns specifically. Director Higgins stated,
These weapons are held by collectors and others; only rarely do they figure
in violent crime. In this connection, the question of why an individual
would want to possess a machinegun or, more often, a silencer, is often
raised. We would suggest that ATF’s interest is not in determining why a
law-abiding individual wishes to possess a certain firearm or device, but
rather in ensuring that such objects are not criminally misused. The
regulatory scheme for dealing in or legally possessing NFA weapons and
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
8

>>28410414
silencers is straightforward and provides safeguards which are adequate,
in normal circumstance, to ensure that the firearms remain in the hands
of law abiding individuals.
Armor Piercing Ammunition and the Criminal Misuse of and Availability of Machineguns
and Silencers: Hearings on H.R. 641 and Related bills Before the Committee on the Judiciary, 98th
Congress, 1st Sess. 132 (1984). ROA.439-440. (underlining added). Director Higgins
testified that “registered machineguns which are involved in crimes are so minimal so
as not to be considered a law enforcement problem.” Id. One of these individuals is
not telling the truth. Either machineguns are a scourge upon law enforcement, or
lawfully registered machineguns, owned presumptively by law-abiding citizens, are not
a law enforcement problem.2
Director Higgins’ testimony makes far more sense as
criminals are not going to go through the onerous National Firearms Act registration
scheme, pay the tax, wait six to nine months for approval, and then and only then,
commit their crimes. Senator Kennedy may have intended his comment narrower in
scope, as only applying to non-registered machineguns, but nonetheless, Director
Higgins’ testimony is dispositive of the law-abiding citizens’ possession of
machineguns, i.e., that it is NOT a law enforcement problem. But the Supreme Court

2
Senator Kennedy’s ipse dixit aside, if the Appellees’ position mirrors the Senator’s, then it can easily
be proven with hard data and facts and the Appellees should be required to prove their contention.
However, any machineguns lost from failed sting operations, including to the extent any that were
involved in Fast and Furious, should be excluded from any dataset.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
9

>>28410353
>While this Court is not bound by a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, the following is instructive.
>>28410414
>We would suggest that ATF’s interest is
And right there is where the Supreme Court decides they can't be bothered hearing the case.

Was fun to follow this, though.

>>28410433
has already rejected the notion that banning arms for the law-abiding is justified to
prevent unlawful use by criminals. Heller at 636.
Appellees state, “Indeed, ‘a machine gun’s destructive capacity makes it highly useful
for protecting commerce in contraband such as narcotics.’” U.S. v. Kirk, 105 F.3d 997,
1004 (5th Cir. 1997) (Higginbotham, J., concurring). App. Br. p. 28. Do cases speaking
of criminal misuse of tools apply to Hollis? Should Congress ban cars that exceed
seventy miles per hour because the majority of states limit speed on the interstates to
seventy miles per hour and that perhaps, some of those cars are also utilized in
transporting contraband such as narcotics? Rhetorical questions aside, the burden is
on the government to demonstrate law-abiding citizens’ misuse of machineguns. They
cannot.
In fact, Appellees concede they do NOT address law-abiding ownership of
machineguns. THIS case is about Hollis, a law-abiding citizen, who applied for, and
received, permission to make a machinegun from the agency tasked with enforcing the
firearms laws. THIS case is not about protecting narcotics commerce or any other
criminal misuse of a machinegun. But as stated supra, Appellees’ argument is foreclosed
by Heller. Heller at 636. Appellees’ attempt to shift the burden to Hollis to “dispute
that a machine gun [sic] would be significantly more dangerous than a handgun if used
in a crime, or that more criminals would choose to use machine guns [sic] were they
readily available” is not the way this works. App. Br. p. 28. Hollis has no duty to prove
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
10

>>28410441
the governments’ contention. Hollis is not a prohibited person, and the Second
Amendment applies, prima facie, to his M-16.
As discussed in Hollis’ Brief, the term “person” is defined in the GCA to mean “any
individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock
company.” See 18 U.S.C. § 921. The term “person” does not include an
unincorporated trust. Appellees argue that Hollis’ interpretation of the statute “would
render the Act meaningless by allowing anyone to avoid its prohibitions by establishing
an unincorporated trust.” App. Br. 33. Congress writes the laws. If Congress wanted
to preclude “unincorporated trusts” from owning machineguns, even post-May 19,
1986 machineguns, they would have included the term “trust” in the definition of
“person.” Congress did not. This ties in with Hollis’ allegations that the BATFE has
allowed transfers of post-May 19, 1986 machineguns. However, since the district court
denied the Rule 56(d) relief, Hollis is unable to conclusively prove that this has
happened, even though Hollis submitted an affidavit in support of his Rule 56(d) relief.
ROA.367. This relief ties in to Hollis’ Equal Protection claim, and without this
discovery, Hollis is precluded from proving what is essential to his Equal Protection
claim.
While Hollis does not concede that a felon could own firearms as a Trustee of an
unincorporated trust, as Appellees allege,
3
the law banning felons from owning firearms

3 See App. Br. p. 33.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
11

>>28410452
did not come into existence until 1968. In 1968, Congress included in both the
Omnibus Crime Control Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618,
Title I, § 101, 82 Stat. 1213, statutory provisionslimiting firearms access by persons with
“criminal background[s],” S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 28 (1968). These provisions include
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which provides that “[it] shall be unlawful for any person . . . who
has been convicted in any court of[] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year . . . to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” This statute post-dated the National
Firearms Act, which was adopted in 1934, thirty-four years before the Gun Control
Act’s felon dispossession statute. If 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is poorly written, it is not the
job of the agency to rewrite it how it sees fit. The Supreme Court has plainly stated
“that an agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the
statute should operate.” Util. Air Reg. Group v. E.P.A., 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2446 (2014).
The government’s fear-mongering about felons does nothing for its position on
machineguns as this case is not about a felon in possession as Hollis is a law-abiding
citizen and not precluded from firearm ownership.
Interestingly, Appellees allege that machineguns “are not well suited for any private
lawful purpose” and that “[machineguns] are no more useful for self-defense than are
nonautomatic guns in all but a tiny fraction of civilian uses.” App. Br. P. 27. It is
peculiar because the government stated in a prior request for proposal that, “DHS and
its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
12
for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is
required.”
4

>>28410414
Stephen Higgens is probably the only director of the BATFE that had respect among gun owners

>>28410465
Select-fire simply means that the firearm can function as either semiautomatic
or fully automatic. The Appellees cannot claim machineguns are not valid
for personal defense for civilians and then extol their virtues for their own personnel.
It is not a logical conclusion.
Appellees state that Hollis “waived” his argument regarding the statutory argument
on trusts. App. Br. p. 29. This is simply not true. Hollis mentioned the statutory trust
argument on the following pages of his brief: pp. 5, 6, 7, 11, 34, 35. Further, this entire
case stemmed from the Appellees’ approval of Hollis’ Form 1 to make a machinegun
and then subsequent unlawful revocation. Appellees’ claim of waiver is simply not
applicable. Appellees’ citation to U.S. v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603, 609 n.1 (5th Cir. 2013)
does not suggest a claim of waiver in this case, as that footnote states, in part, “[h]aving
failed to present substantive argumentation on point, it is deemed waived.” As Hollis
further briefed on page 34 of his Opening Brief, “the plain language [of 18 U.S.C. §
922(o)] excludes ‘unincorporated trust’ from the definition, this court (and the BATFE)
should not read into the statute what is not there.” (case citations omitted). Waiver this
is not.

>>28410478

4
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&ta
b=core&_cview=0 (underlining added) (last accessed December 27, 2015).
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
13
Hollis’ Equal Protection argument is subsumed in his Second Amendment argument
as the District Court’s analysis of Hollis’ Second Amendment claim “was required for
the court to reach its holding for Hollis’ Equal Protection claim.” Opening Brief, p. 19.
As such, there has been no waiver of Hollis’ Equal Protection claim. Additionally, as
stated supra, Hollis’ contention that he be allowed Rule 56(d) discovery was essential to
his Equal Protection claim and he was not afforded that relief in the lower court.
CONCLUSION
Hollis asks this Court to uphold the Second Amendment and find that the Second
Amendment protects his ownership of an M-16. The Fifth Circuit, in United States v.
Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 (2002), announced a
position different from all other Courts of Appeal by scrutinizing text, history, and
tradition of our nation when it found the Second Amendment conferred an individual
right to keep and bear arms. There is no question that Hollis’ M-16 is the quintessential
military and militia rifle of its time, and thus, is protected under the Second
Amendment.

>>28410128
>And by fired I mean two weeks paid suspension with full benefits and a baller pension plan.

That only happens when it's a member of the public that you fuck over.

>>28410306
Thanks

>>28410379
Post-1986 MG's can only be owned by FFLs that hold SOTs to sell to Govt and other FFLs with SOTs, those they are banned for private ownership unlike pre-1986 MGs

>>28410465
>>28410478
>Gubmint says you cant use auto funs for self defense/protection
>Gets them for personnel, stating self protection
>Lawyer throws the hippocracy at SCOTUS

>>28410533
Except the BATF allowed transfer of post 89 MGs into private hands of the right palms are greased.

>>28410519
Can someone post more specifics on who the ATF allowed to continue to possess posties? What gun was it? What was the reasoning for allowing this?

Stephen is bretty cool

>>28410547
They allowed trust to form 1 post 1986 MGs when no one knew about the "loophole", once the average person knew they wanted to stop it.

>>28410554
Nobody knows because they won't release that information, because they know if they do they're fucked.

File: 1448224737929.jpg (47KB, 650x586px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 650x586px

>>28410554
We dont know, thats why he's filing for discovery.

>>28410568
Yea, too bad he got fucked over by his own agency during Waco and resigned despite being lied to about the whole situation

>>28410576
>>28410571
So if this information is not available, then how come they are saying this happened if they don't know?

FOIA won't work, since the BATFE is somehow not an "agency"

>>28410576

source of that pic?

>>28410554

There was an incident where a amnufacturer who (ostensibly) misunderstood the regs sold several post-86 M60 belt feds to private citizens.

Due to being incompetent fuckwits, the ATF didn't notice until after they had been sold, paperwork was filed, and the customers were in possession.

They are allowing the customers to keep them, however they are non-transferable and the families will have to surrender them when they die.

File: tumblr_nuaep9HVSb1s71q1zo1_1280.jpg (626KB, 1200x1467px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 1200x1467px

>>28410590
first hand accounts, stories etc. There is a belief ex BATF and other govt agents were allowed new MGs post 86. I feel the govt's fighting this, is a signal he's onto some legit shit. Even if this is false, the case may proceed.

This is a multipronged attack

>>28410606
4chan.

>>28410611
Sounds like this happened literally a month or two after the ban passed. They would be on the buyers like flies to shit.

>>28410611
>Surrendering 7.62x51 Belt Feds
>Implying someone won't go out in a blaze of glory, M60 in the dominant hand, American Flag in the other

>>28407982
Where did it say that?

>>28410590
The Hughes Amendment had an interesting side effect. If you read Chapter 18, 922 (o) it is not a ban per say but demands Government approval for the manufacture and sale of a machine gun after May 19,1986, the date of enactment. There have been rumors floating around for years that certain politicians have been registering machineguns and selling them.

Recently, evidence of this came to light when the BATFE screwed up and confiscated an MG that was listed as a transferable that had been sold to a donor of a political person who once he received the firearm, stopped donating. The gun in question wasn't even in production in the 1980's. It was first produced in the mid 1990's.

This problem crosses party lines, and even both sides of the gun control debate. In 2005, a BATFE employee let it slip that one of the top gun control advocates currently in Congress procured a machine gun and got BATFE to register it on a form 1 as a transferable. Why? Well, the gun was obtained for about $700. This elected official sold the gun for $18,500 with much of the money going into a severely depleted campaign fund. How do we know about this? Well, this elected official sold the gun and gave a file with the gun that contained the original sale price and a copy of the original form 1 dated to August of 2004. The owner was concerned and contacted BATFE.

The firearm was a Colt M16A2 made in 1993.

An M60 belt fed machine gun sold for $1200 or so in 1985. Today, that same gun will get $25,000. If a politician can buy an MG or acquire one for a few hundred, it's a hell of a way to fund a campaign at a 1000% profit or more per item.

In 1989, BATFE published a comment where they stated that there were 130,000 registered transferable machine guns in the NFRTR. In a recent edition of Small Arms Review, the BATFE are quoted commenting that there are over 185,000 transferable MG's in the registry.

>>28410691
see
>>28410306
&
>>28410323

>>28410723
Thanks.

>>28410710
That's a post from Democratic Underground from 2008. That story is bull.

Reminder: the court rules based upon what ever political belief its members hold.

>>28410710
So why can't you do a foia on them? Isn't the whole point of that law is so people can investigate and bring corruption like this to light

>>28410544
They've successfully been used by citizens for self defense too.

Thanks, Lord British.

>>28410750
They are a bureau, not a agency as defined by FOIA.

File: Hollis-v-Holder-Page-71-Stemple-M60.png (80KB, 738x950px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 738x950px

>>28410554
Pic related. It's suspected there were somewhere around 200 of these M60's all done the same way. But this is the only known letter and it's redacted so it doesn't actually count according to the government.

>>28410790
I'm not sure I actually understand the difference

>>28410796
Also as >>28410710 said it is legal for the ATF to approve post '86 machine guns to regular people, they just won't/don't do it.

>>28410710
>In 1989, BATFE published a comment where they stated that there were 130,000 registered transferable machine guns in the NFRTR. In a recent edition of Small Arms Review, the BATFE are quoted commenting that there are over 185,000 transferable MG's in the registry.

>registered
Yes.
>transferable
No.

That figure includes transferables, pre-86 samples, and post-86 samples.

The increase in the total number of MG's in civilian hands (police are civilians) coincides with the DoD passing out old M16A2's to any bumfuck sheriffs department that has enough LEO letterhead to file a request.

>>28409655
>coming from the guy who gaps to traps
We already know your gay Phil just admit it and move on.

>>28410554
The reasoning is they fucked up and went "oops. Just keep it."

>>28410796
This is almost as bad as those guys buying up cheap SWD M11/Nine's and "transplanting" their serial numbers onto post-86 guns like M4s, M1919s etc.

>>28410834
Police MGs are not owned by individual cops but rather by the department, they are not transferable.

>>28410900

Yeah, I know.

They're post-86 samples.

>>28410899
What.

>>28410834
>the DoD passing out old M16A2's to any bumfuck sheriffs department that has enough LEO letterhead to file a request.
>tfw when want to procure a full fun or two for the dept
>tfw when antigun chief would pitch a bitch fit about it and get us protesters
All I want is the brrrt once a year, is that so much to ask?

>>28410943
Here is your reminder that cops are just citizens.
If we're burning, you're burning with us.

>>28410943
just ask for a c-ram, it is a defensive weapon and can protect from the very real threat of IED mounted consumer drones

It seems legitimate and reasonable to me ¯\('-')/¯

>>28410938
Here's an example:

You go buy a Mac, when the dealer fills out the Form 4 to move it to your possession, you tell the dealer you want to list the model as M4, caliber as 5.56x45, the barrel length as 16" and the overall length as 40" and see what the ATF says when he submits the Form 4.If your Form 4 comes back approved, you tell him you want him to take a semiauto M4 off the rack, drill the autosear hole, weld the Mac's serial number over the M4's serial number and let you walk out the door with it.

The dealers exploited the paperwork jumble that is the NFA registry to conduct their scam and enrich themselves, while removing a large number of Macs from the registry

>>28410975
Didn't most of those guys get slapped with felonies and imprisoned?

>>28410975
This exactly. Although typically it was done with very expensive guns such as M60's or MG42's.
It was also a fairly easy scam to avoid if you did your homework and grilled the seller a little, i.e asked for a picture of the serial number. It mostly worked on greedy idiots who thought they were getting a transferable M60 for $15,000 and didn't stop to think about deals that are too good to be true.

>>28410818
Bureaucracy. Paperwork, legalities and loopholes.

FOIA was never intended to be open disclosure with the citizenry on government dealings, just the little tidbits they wanted getting out or could stand to lose.

>>28410606
It's a pool/tank with fake surroundings. When's the last time you saw an escalator with tile steps?

Probabaly some rich dude or some business.

>>28409594
What is a false flag, for 500.

>>28411395
So they're just being fags and saying nope were special. How the fuck are they going to sit there and say theres a difference between an agency and a bureau. They have agents, agencies have agents therefore theyre an agency.

Damn i would make a great lawyer

>>28410975
>>28411036
wait so they take a semi-auto gun, nig-rig on a serial number from a registered full auto Mac / other cheap gun, then scam people into paying for a fake "registered full auto" ?

>>28411598
No, its registered, assuming the ATF does not catch on and pound their ass.

They are saying their mac 10 is an AR, then disposing of the mac 10.

>>28411598
They take a semi-auto AR, nig rig a FA setup into the lower, slap on the MAC serial, dump the mac and make a neat and tidy profit. If the ATF doesn't wise up, and we all know the ATF is only around to do raids, steal shoe strings and shoot dogs.

>>28411642
>>28411766
OK so it's more scamming the ATF but there's the risk of getting caught so it can fuck over the buyer too

>>28411642
isn't it illegal as fuck to fuck obscure/damage the serial # on a firearm? in this case the AR's.

>>28407687
I'm gonna use some Supreme Court gay marriage level reasoning and say that not letting us have machine guns is denying us our dignity.

>>28413971
Their logic is the serial is intact, it's just on a different firearms now.
Retarded? Yes, that's how they got buttfucked.

>>28414375
Not only that, they're transferring a serial # from one firearm to another and destroying the previous one, in essence creating a new NFA item, no?

>>28410971
>It seems legitimate and reasonable to me
Still too 'provocative' for our chief. DHS is offering to pay for us to get active shooter training and he won't let us.

>>28411460
You'd make a horrible lawyer. If you actually check federal law you will find differing legal definitions as to what constitutes a federal agency and what constitutes a federal bureau.

>>28414071
Why not..

>>28411598
Correct. And it worked because the morons at the NFA branch didn't notice what was going on.

>>28407769
>>28409594
>>28409610
>>28409655
>>28409979
>>28410669
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkxDEDEYOsU

>>28410094
Wrong. If you could register new machine guns just by using a trust, it would defeat the Hughes amendment entirely. No Judge would let a loophole like that stand.

>>28418436
Well Hollis did exactly that and the ATF approved it.
That's what started this whole thing. It basically proves the ATF doesn't read Form 1's either considering their reaction when they realized what they did.

>>28418832
I thought he discussed it with them and they knew exactly what they were getting in to, but then tried to renege when they realized it could set a precedent.

>>28418897
The ATF approved it, panicked, then disapproved it. Hollis called bullshit and found a lawyer

So, I'm kind of retarded. Can anyone give me the quick gist of what's going on?

>>28419007
>ATF states that trusts aren't people
>some guy points out that the ban on machine guns only applies to people, and applies for a machine gun tax stamp for his trust
>ATF approves
>ATF realizes they just let one of the proles own a machine gun
>ATF demands the tax stamp back
>guy sues

>>28419035
Ah, Excellent. Can you also give me the for retards versions of the briefs and responses?

>>28419057
short version from hollis's lawyers:
>if gays can marry in e.g. mass, e.g. texas must recognize that union as valid and lawful. This in effect precludes any federal ban on homosexual marriage.
>If e.g. texas states that individuals can lawfully own machineguns and silencers, e.g. mass must recognize that ownership as lawful and valid.

>>28419057
ATF basically tried to get it dismissed, court dropped it, they appealed, verbal arguments soon

>>28419164
Anyone reason why it would not work?

What is K buying when new full autos are legal?

>>28419375
>K

>>28419379
Not him, but let me help you out autismo
>/k/
Does that soothe your ass burn?

>>28419375
The feds really don't want it to go through. Hollis wants to escalate this to the supreme court though.

>>28419375
Filing about a dozen stamps and cranking out STENs

>>28419375
shoe strings and bottle openers.

>>28419375
American Citizenship.

>>28419375
>Anyone reason why it would not work?
The 4 jews on the supreme court

>>28419375
HMG StG-44 and read a super easy to find internet guide on how to convert to full retard.

>>28409655
Scalia's being an autistic retard here - the line of reasoning he's using is the same reasoning used to defend slavery and segregation.

I've bullshitted enough to recognize when somebody else does it.

I hope Scalia gets raped by a big homo

>>28419375
AKMSU

>>28419375
I'll convert my AR
or buy a AKM

>>28419375
G3 full auto trigger pack and grip

File: huh.jpg (47KB, 629x630px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 629x630px

Can I get a tl;dr? This thread is outrageous.

>>28419375
turning my AR-15 into an M-16!

>>28420748
See >>28419035
And
>>28419164

File: pedophile mick.png (99KB, 1165x844px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1165x844px

>>28409655
sounds like something you should be for.

>>28410750
>So why can't you do a foia on them? Isn't the whole point of that law is so people can investigate and bring corruption like this to light


Nope.

>>28419375
>What is K buying when new full autos are legal?

I just want a DIAS for muh AR-15.

>>28409655
>Caring about fag marriage

You probably think America was founded as a "Christian" nation as well.

>>28419874
>implying 14th amendment and Civil Rights Act weren't tremendous mistakes that opened the way to many of Americas current problems

Not exactly bullshit

>>28421106
If this appeal is successful the internet is going to be flooded with threads of dumbshits trying to figure out how to time DIAS's.

As someone who used to own one I'll just say that I'm glad I sold it and got a registered receiver instead.

>>28422741

I bet manufacturers will be modifying their 80% jig for a third hole, form 1 receivers will be easier to make than DIAS or even LL's

>>28422828
I'm betting the wait for form 1s shoots up instantly, and that within a week Congress enacts a new law to patch the loophole.

>>28422828
Such jigs already exist for C2's.

What all the DIAS kids don't realize is that AR's made in the last 30 years require machining to accept a DIAS (or regular autosear for that matter).

>>28422857
Only some, kid. Low shelf receivers are a thing.

>>28422857
Most lowers don't have sear blocks, webbing, or high shelves anymore. Most even advertise low shelves.

>>28422841
yeah, it will definitely be a "window of opportunity".

There are a couple of questions up in the air over this case. If the case is successful a trust can Form 1 weapons, however other language in the NFA restricts transfer given May '86. So who knows if they'll be transferable.

This becomes more important if 41P comes into effect as even in "gun friendly" states some CLEO's won't sign off on NFA at all, let alone MGs. hence why trusts were popularized in the first place. Hell my CLEO is a regional leader in the Oathkeeper movement, backed by the Tea party, and has progun shit on his campaign signs. Fucker won't sign off on anything NFA that's not a can.

>>28422884
>>28422896
Yeah? are the shelves at the exact dimensions of the 70's SP1? Because that's what most DIAS patterns require to operate without shimming.

>>28422841
>congress
>doing anything in a timely manner

Unless terrorists flew around over Jew York dropping Form 1s and NRA bumper stickers before crashing into the Statue of Liberty I doubt if such a bill would even make it out of subcommittee

>>28422924
Yeah, the lower shelves are literally advertised because they work with a RDIAS

>>28422924
Oh and alternately you can drill and tap to use a set screw to hold the DIAS to the rear takedown on your upper. Ghetto but then you don't have to shim.

>>28419375
Buying a select fire navy FCG/grip for my C93.

>>28411408

No you fucking retard it's from a flood in New York a few years ago, jesus fucking Christ.

>>28414436
The lawyer thing was a joke.
Granted my research is looking up wikipedia, but when the first line says every list is different and different government entities define agencies differently shits fucked up.

I also had no idea how many goddamn offices we have. How does more shit not get done with all these people working on so many different issues

>>28419562
Are you white?

File: Gas.gif (14KB, 332x477px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 332x477px

>>28419590
>1

>>28416852
That's kind of like saying "Engineer - easy job! Make it not break!"

>>28410750

No, the foia is designed to give the illusion of transparency, not actual transparency.

File: 1431693115805-0.jpg (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

>>28419375
M60e6

>>28409655
sick bantz scalia

>>28419375
Converting my PS90 into a bullet hose.

>>28419375
A green card.

>>28423681
It's literally just two parts that drop in.

>>28409979
That would be a comfort to me if only they cared about legitimacy.

>>28419375
Im a poorfag so Id probably just convert my 10/22

>>28410757
Wait, where do you see that M16 use as civilian and been effective at self defense?

Not shitting on you, I'm just requesting sauce.

>>28410547
>>28410710
Enter Leland Yee and Associates.

>>28411428
Almost guarantee that it won't be seen that way. Johnny Law will come down with believable fury upon the insufferable Homegrown Terrorists, and that's just the way the media likes it. Anyone smarter, more capable of delving into rhetoric, or investigative enough to refute their arguments based on fact will get chokeslammed into oblivion by the controlled media.

>>28414071
Or against our religious beliefs, if the /k/ubists can get their shit recognized.

>>28419375
One reason that it may not work is saying that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, but does mention firearms in the second amendment. Marriage was never mentioned in any amendments, but was loopholed into existence by saying that States have a duty to reciprocate legal statutes in other States (though this gets fucky with CHL reciprocation).

>>28419375
One of those things went through because they wanted it to go through, the other will not go through because they do not want it to go through.

See how that works? Magic!

>>28426197
>Or against our religious beliefs, if the /k/ubists can get their shit recognized.
Ave Nex Alea, brother.

They need not recognise us, just not stand in our way.

>>28419375
I've always wanted a FA 1911.

File: Hand_wound_Father_Serra_cropped_large.jpg (54KB, 480x383px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 480x383px

>>28426296
>FA 1911

>>28419375
Does Beretta still make the 93R?

>>28426349
https://youtu.be/c3UdbFTAEks
@1:04 or so

I'll take a select fire C96 clone with buttstock attached instead, but only after all other historical guns have been taken.

I also want a M1927

>>28426416
Normally only fat hands get hammer bite from a 1911 but a beavertail should be standard on a full retard.

>>28426441
>Normally only fat hands get hammer bite from a 1911 but a beavertail should be standard on a full retard.
Exactly.
>Muzzle rise levers rear of pistol down.
>Gun actively tries to consume your hand.

See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct.
2584, 2606 (2015) (finding a right to same-sex marriage and that states must recognize
lawful marriages performed in other states). Obergefell is fatal to the government’s
contention that Texas must be a party or that a pronouncement from this Court that
the Second Amendment protects machineguns would not have an effect on state law.
This is simply incorrect.


Can someone explain this in a loud slow voice so that i can understand what the fuck this means?

>>28426469
I think it's saying that the government has to acknowledge that Texas lets you make machine guns and not prosecute people who do, even though they're technically not legal.

File: 1433217500742.jpg (10KB, 290x270px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 290x270px

>>28426522
So basically we're fucking Lynch in the ass raw but she'll get away with it anyway because government?

>>28426522
States' Rights. Texas MG definition is "more than one bullet with one physical manipulation of a trigger pull" while federal law says "more than two bullets..."
Essentially, if you created a two round burst weapon, you're lawfully creating an MG in Texas, but not federally, so you're in the clear. The ATF doesn't like that, though, so your dog just got shot.

>>28426600
BUT IT CLEARLY STATES ON THE BOOK !MORE THAN! TWO
Why does the ATF hate America?

>>28426600
>>28426618
NFA definition of a Machine Gun is any firearm that fires more than one cartridge per trigger pull.

So, technically, if you developed a new firearm that fired bullets out of a single "cartridge" that held stacked layers of propellant and bullets (ie. Metal Storm) - it wouldn't be a machine gun, because it's only firing bullets from the one cartridge.

But this would mean that You would have to buy sealed cartridges of 5, 10 or even 30 bullets.

>>28426618
It also has the fucking 10th amendment on the books, which was JUST upheld as the champion of gay marriage across all states, as a state right and equivalence between states.

By that very logic, MA/CA/NJ/NY residents can become residents of Texas, build a 2 round burst weapon in Texas as a Texas resident, then move BACK to (wherever) and take their shit with them because of reciprocation. But MA is gay and won't let you own shit, CA is too busy trying to lock down domestic terrorism, NJ is too scared of a single bullet (looking at you, .50BMG), and NYC is a piece of shit for allowing Bloomberg to control an overwhelmingly rural state.

File: doublethink1.jpg (75KB, 640x927px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 640x927px

>>28426741
>It also has the fucking 10th amendment on the books, which was JUST upheld as the champion of gay marriage across all states, as a state right and equivalence between states.
This is what bugs me the most, the doublethink is unbearable.

>>28426686
If you continue to evolve the concepts of cartridge-less ammo, they won't count as machine guns because there's no cartridges.

This is fucked. Completely fucked.

So when will the next anything happen?

File: liberal fascism 130.png (101KB, 465x688px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 465x688px

>>28426794
There's no doublethink at all. They hate you and will use any pretext under any circumstance to harass, tax, disadvantage, trip you up, and fuck you over.

We went past the point where we could assume it was some sort of well-meaning cognitive dissonance a long, long time ago.

>>28427494
Got a source there pedobear

>>28427464
Who knows, the courts move slowly.
This has been going on since April at least, I don't anticipate a resolution we'd like for at least another year.
Verbal arguments haven't even started yet.

>>28409979
At that point, the only question is "right or duty?"

>>28419590
>>28423021
>>>/pol/

>>28422955
It's actually a shoop.

>>28419874

Slavery and segregation were good. Not all old ideas are wrong, and not all new ideas are better.

>>28407687

so what is the logic is flawless and their brief is airtight?

This will be the governments response

>nigga I run dis bitch; I aint gotta do sheeit

>>28410834
We should set up a town somewhere in the desert and make everyone in /k/ volunteer police.

>>28426794
True but leftist do not care about reality/facts.

>>28433620
>Slavery and segregation were good.

No, slavery is outdate, machines do way more work, cheaper, as the segregation, totally support it.

>>28414389

One would imagine.

If they transplanted the serial onto a 80% receiver, they may have a bit more ground to stand on.

>>28427396
So if we got caseless ammo to come in a single sealed block, then figured out a weapon system that could feed a portion of the cartridge at a time, it would not be a machine gun...

Possibly a cartridge that is in the shape of standard box magazines, that is just pushed into the top of a modified magazine.
Spring pressure would push the cartridge upwards.
Magazine feed lips would have to be fold (possible point of failure) to allow the entire cartridge to load at once.
Individual propellant charges/bullets would be separated by ceramic/metal plates, which would form the bottom of the chamber, then be ejected as the individual charges are fired, to prevent the entire cartridge from firing out of battery.

Think of a stack of caseless ammunition glued together with ceramic/steel strip's between them.
The firearm that utilises them would have to be specially designed as the magazine would feed directly into the chamber and the individual charges would from the bottom of the chamber.

This would prevent individual charges from being stripped off and then considered cartridges in and of themselves.
In addition, there would have to be a device that prevents the gun from firing more than one cartridge at a time - say for example, a spring that pushes a cam down into the magazine that separates cartridges and only resets when the trigger resets.
So, if you load two five charge cartridges, it will only fire five shots before needing the trigger to be reset.
This will be tied directly into the trigger mechanism, meaning you can't just cut it off if you want a machine gun - an entire new trigger assembly would be needed.

So, tl;dr: When I get home, I'm drawing this up and starting a patent process.

>>28435702
Are guns that shoot electrically primed cartridges also considered not machine guns?

>>28435753

ATF already covered electric fired mechanisms as capable of being a machine gun.

>>28435306
That's the way things are going, but I think we still have a 50-100 year window where slavery would help America be more competitive economically

>>28435753
>>28435795
Exactly, there has to be a mechanical element to the firing method.
Electric ignition would be fine, if there was a level moving it out of position between cartridges, but at that point you might as well just use primer caps and a hammer.

>>28435795
Where? I never seen anybody cite a source for this and there are several electronic triggers on the market, like the 10/22 eTrigger, or the Matchgun MG2E

>>28435845
They have mechanical components that prevent someone from modifying them to fire full auto.
Also, he was talking about electronic ignition (think spud gun) on the actual cartridges.
That really wouldn't work though, as a bolt would still be required to eject the chamber seal after every charge is fired.

I'd want the cartridge to be a solid rectangle or 'banana' - how would I enclose the front of each charge?
Is there a ceramic or powder that could handle tough handling but literally vaporise upon ignition?
Or would I just extend the chamber seal to a shroud around the front of the bullet, so that each charge seals the bottom of the chamber and the front of the chamber.

If I went with the second option, the front shroud size could change size depending on the projectile, allowing for calibre swaps to be as simple as a different magazine for bullets with the same diameter or a magazine and a quick change barrel for different diameter projectiles.
Hell, if spring tension is put on the bolt (gun would have to be striker fired) it could easily space itself.

I'm also thinking a two part bolt, with a camming rear section that locks the chamber, connected to a square section at the front that seals the chamber and is not locked to the camming section, a high pressure spring between them would ensure the chamber is properly spaced and sealed.
Front section of the bolt would be swappable for left and right handed ejection.

This would make the bolt xbox hueg and probably require a buffer tube.
The weapon would still be short though, as the magazine feeds directly into the chamber and charges do not have to be stripped forwards.

>>28435702
>>28435916
Here

Does anybody know of any decent AutoCAD software - it's been a while since I've used any, so I don't know wat iz gud anymore.

>>28418208
Jack Donovan is literally such a faggot.

>>28430725
They're right sometimes y' know?

>>28419375
A bunch of cheap Draco and M85/M92 to turn into mgs and install folding stocks on.

>>28436059
Alright, I have a few suggestions from /g/.
When I get home I'll start playing about and start drawing it.
I might make it open source and distribute it to a few firearms manufacturers.

Once I design it should I send a copy of it to the ATF for a ruling on whether it violates the "one cartridge per trigger pull" rule.
Even if it does, it'd be a cool concept to make caseless ammunition feeding viable.

>>28436317
Be careful about that one, dude.

It might just be a mental exercise for you and your CAD abilities, but if you got raided we would never know unless some liberal media spotlight hits you.

Nobody knew what that faggot with a 3D printer was trying to do until he got one made...and even then, the ATF didn't officially care until he proved it could work. Now we have pending (or finalized, I don't recall) legislation from all kinds of angles telling us what we can and can't fucking do. Hell, the ATF tells us we can't have fucking shoestrings. What kind of shit is that?

>>28436505
I wouldn't make one, just a CAD file.
To be honest, I'm Australian, even a zip gun would ruin me for life.
A CAD file might be illegal if I had all the materials and tools set up, but I don't and won't.

>>28436317
Post it here for us.

>>28435820
>actually wanting to bring minorities into your country so a few can make some easy money
Yeah, nah.
Fuck off.

How does any of this matter when Obama is literally going to shut down all private sales without an FFL and background check and mandate everyone enter their shit purchased as of today into a government database?

>>28436808
I definitely will, I'll make two CAD versions, a semi and an auto; the semi should be legal to make in most US states where you can build an 80% AR, but it would require you to ensure it meets the OAL requirements.
The auto one would be for testing the NFA, if shoestrings can be machine guns, a machine gun can be a semi auto.

If the ATF boohoos it, nothing is really lost, because I like my theory. The main obstacle of the design would be the ammunition.

So, whilst someone with the tooling and expertise may be able to legally make the gun, they might not have anything to feed it.

Let me ask this

Black powder arms aren't federally recognized as firearms, correct?

If so; why are there no BP machine guns?

If they're not firearms, wouldn't electronic / motor-op triggers be free game?

>>28437114
While they did exist at the time of the signing of the bill of rights, they were neither very effective nor very functional.

By all means. If you can find a way to make a BP MG, that won't blow up in your face, go for it.

>>28436867
Because none of the things that you said are happening, shit eater.

>>28437256

All gun sellers must have an FFL under the new EO. Every single gun sale/transfer, even face to face must now have an NCIC check attached to it.

Basically, the EO instantly ends private sales of guns. Obama just became the best salesman for the Pawn business ever

>>28437273
It'll get challenged in the courts, because the definition of "being in the business of selling guns" is so vague and defacto ban-y that some dude trying to clear out his gun collection to pay off bills could get busted for not get an FFL to sell guns ONCE.

>>28409655
I thought you liked fag porn, Phil

>>28437251
The pressures of black vs Smokless powder are vastly different. It will almost always pop a muzzle loader should you use Smokeless instead of BP.

That in mind, creating a full auto firearm with the tolerances of only being able to handle BP pressures would technically be legal.

>No no no, this FA gun can only function with Black powder! It'd blow up if you used smokeless cartridges! :^)

Of course, now you come to the issue of BP fouling...

>>28437114
the law is about cartridges vs loose components, not smokeless powder vs black powder

>>28419375
Giggle switch M16A1

>>28419375
FA trigger pack for my PTR

>>28437349
Only if it is actually enforced as such which is not a given

>>28409655

>one man and one woman
>accepted by every nation until 15 years ago

Scalia is objectively wrong here because he ignores polygamy, which is legally practiced in several nations

>>28437273
And D. Trump has already promised to remove it

>>28423037
but that's not what an engineer's job is anon

>design something to barely do its job @ 100% or more markup in price
>average joe is a "low use" user anyway
>widget will now last 3 or 4 years
>average joe will then buy a new one

bumpity

>>28407889
Courts have to make a decision when they take the case, they can't pass.