1934 implemented the $200 tax/registration/background check scheme. In 1986, the Hughes Amendment made the transfer of machine guns manufactured after the enactment (ie: 1986) illegal. It DID NOT remove collection of the tax. You can still transfer a pre-ban machine gun if you pay your tax and register it.

The biggest problem with the 1986 ban was that it prevents new machine guns from entering the market and caps supply. So you can’t buy a new 2007 full auto Bushmaster M-16, you have to buy a pre-ban (1986 or before) Colt M-16. Since there is a finite supply they run $15,000 or more. Post-ban non-transferrables may only run $1500, but regular joe citizens can’t buy those because of the fucking Hughes Amendment.

On the upside, you can make a bundle by investing in machineguns. You buy a gun this year for $5000, and next year it’s worth $7000. Not a bad return on your money. And until Hughes is repealed, they’ll keep going up in price.

They won last fall in part by ignoring the gun control issue or by pretending they were pro-gun. With this coming up for review early next year, they won’t be able to do the same thing in 2008.

If the Supremes review and uphold, that will overturn DC’s law. The Bradys will then put tremendous pressure on the Dems to “do something” before the election; Hillary or Obama won’t be able to finesse the issue because they’ll likely have to vote on it.

If the Supremes review and overturn the decision, that will create a HUGE s#*tstorm that will blow the Dems away. They’ll HAVE to pass a law in Congress restablishing some type of individual right, and that will likely create a massive schism in the party between the McCarthys and the Blue Dogs. It will be 1994 all over again if they fail to do so.

Logically you’re right: DC is direct federal jurisdiction, so the decision (whatever it is) shouldn’t involve the 14th Amendment or the incorporation doctrine.

But this is the Nine Old Ones we’re talking about. They can, if they want to, choose to issue a sweeping decision that does consider the states. It wouldn’t be the first time the Court went beyond the reasonable bounds of a case and used it as the base for a wide ruling. No higher authority exists to say they’re wrong.

Isn’t that like a bank robber serving notice that he will continue to rob banks while he appeals his conviction for bank robbery? Why should he be allowed to do so without the expectation of consequences while he appeals? Why should Fenty be allowed to continue to break the same law they have just been told is illegal?

Jail should be in his immediate future. He should be there before I finish typing this, since he has already admitted his part in a conspiracy to continue breaking the law.

Grenades, rockets, and most destructive devices will be banned by defining them as anything but arms : given that every reference the Founding Fathers used was to pistols, blades, and rifles, that’s not a horrible choice. Same, for that matter, goes for machine guns, although it wouldn’t be supported by history or the dictionary.

Most importantly, the DC case can not incorporate the Bill of Rights. As a definitional event, even the best case scenario merely gives us additional ammunition to start a run for incorporation through another case. If we win, we can give gun rights a hefty push across the slippery slope.

If we lose… it’ll be interesting. I don’t think it’s a worthwhile maneuver, since this will motivate gun-fearing wussies a very noticeable amount, but you deal with the hand you’re played.

“We could lose at the Supreme Court. Game over.”

Nay, the game simply begins in earnest. To wit: “… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …”

Stock up on your watering supplies for the tree of liberty.

The ban on machine guns: In 1934, the $200 tax essentially prohibited all but the wealthy from obtaining them. In the 1980s, the tax was just a nuisance. In 1986, new transfer was banned.

This point reminds me of a precedent that somebody ought to mention in an amicus brief. The 1986 Act outlawed buying of automatic weapons simply by refusing to collect the tax that the 1934 law had imposed. If you have to pay the tax to buy the weapon, but you can’t pay the tax, then you can’t do the sale. Simple and effective. Except…

In 1991, there was a court case in Illinois that challenged the portion of the 1986 law that forbade the transfer of machine guns. The case was
U.S. vs Rock Island Armory, Inc and David R. Reese (773 F.Supp 117, Dist. Ct. Ill.) As I understand it, the district (trial) court struck down the law on the grounds that the provision of the 1934 Act used Congress’s authority to tax, not its authority over commerce or any other congressional power. Since the 1986 law made the tax unpayable, it rendered the original provision moot. For all practical purposes the tax no longer existed, therefore neither did the prohibition.

Unfortunately, the decision was never appealed. Which means that according to the convoluted way the court system works, the decision applies only within that single District Court’s jurisdiction.

If it goes to the Supremes and they go the collective route then the argument is over and those on the fence will know the 2nd goes nothing to protect their firearms at all other than the good will of the government.

The result, I would guess, would be a huge increase in activism and the issue would strongly come to the fore. Oddly enough there may be repercussions with Roe v. Wade as well since that ruling was made on shaky constitional grounds as well, regardless of what one thinks of abortion.

If the Supremes go individual right then that is a win also since the collectivist movement will have been shown to be wrong at the highest level.
The reality is that any individual rights argument will be narrowly framed, but it is a victory none the less as it asserts the individual right.

I am more than happy to take an all-or-nothing approach to this as a straight up or down on this is far better than the death by 1000 cuts we are suffering. At least we would all know where we stand.

To that BS, I say: For residents of DC who have been denied a basic human right for 30 years, it could NOT get worse.