PDA

View Full Version : Where can I find the actual text and implementation mechanism of the 86 mg ban


AJAX22
10-19-2010, 11:44 AM
I have an idea, and need to do some research.

But I need significant background on the 86 mg ban.

And the specific mechanism by which the processing department was defunded.

Any help would be appreciated

formerTexan
10-19-2010, 2:56 PM
from here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=132731

to here:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

AMDG
10-20-2010, 1:40 PM
I have an idea

I love it when AJAX has ideas... :D

I can't wait to hear this one.

Librarian
10-20-2010, 2:36 PM
And the Thomas record can be found here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthomas.loc.gov%2Fcgi-bin%2Fbdquery%2Fz%3Fd099%3ASN00049%3A&rct=j&q=congressional%20record%201986%20firearms%20owner s%20protective%20act&ei=gGC_TIXsM8KeOtCq7CA&usg=AFQjCNH5eH8DzxnfnQj_cd4m8MJ6KhHOyA&cad=rjt).

CSACANNONEER
10-20-2010, 2:45 PM
Tagged for later.

Window_Seat
10-20-2010, 3:34 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/icons/icon3.gif http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/icons/icon3.gif http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/icons/icon3.gif http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/icons/icon3.gif http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/icons/icon3.gif http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/icons/icon3.gif

ocspeedracer
10-20-2010, 3:35 PM
tagged

anthonyca
10-20-2010, 3:37 PM
This type of thing is why we can't let the gov regulate the Internet in any way.
Ajax is a genius. He could have his own fashion show also.

Kharn
10-20-2010, 3:42 PM
The ATF's processing department wasn't defunded for MGs, the NFA branch is still alive and processing forms, you're mixing the no-rights-restoration-for-felons (which has an annual stipulation in the ATF funding bill that gives no money to that department) with the MG ban (922(o) states no new MGs may be owned by civilians made after 19 May 1986).

AJAX22
10-20-2010, 4:00 PM
Guys it's just an idea, and it may not be a very good one. And as khan pointed
Out I don't have a very good background in the mechanisms beig used or the specifics. I have a lot of vague notions that I need to get fixed before this is anything interesting.

Are there any published interpretation letters by the ATF as to why they interpret the ban to not count themselves as an authorizing agency?

Aldo any case law for challenges or rulings based on it?

Mstrty
10-20-2010, 4:15 PM
Sure was a lot of (R) that cosponsored that bill. Including our very own Pete Wilson while he was a California Senator. I was in HS during the passage of this bill. What was the "climate of the time" that brought this bill being amended in at the 11th hour? Was the country still mourning over Reagan being shot?

MasterYong
10-20-2010, 4:38 PM
:popcorn:

AJAX22
10-20-2010, 4:40 PM
On a somewhat tangentially related topic, iirc bill Holmes received a formal letter that his pistol design was a machine-gun since a single components removal rendered it fully automatic... Is that letter published?

CHS
10-20-2010, 5:08 PM
I remember reading a while back (might have been on the '86 FOPA WIKI page) that the actual additions of the ban might have been in fact illegal.

Would be nice to see a challenge based on that.

formerTexan
10-20-2010, 5:22 PM
I read a little bit of the guncite link, and either the ATF or DOJ directed the treasury to NOT accept tax payments for post-86 form1/4s from non-LE/MIL/GOV. I'm sure there are a lot of procedural things that happened in a very gray area (that can be challenged) when the amendment was attached to FOPA.

In any case, one "clear" way to get standing in a suit is to submit a Form 1 to make a machine gun, get denied, and then sue your way up. Not sure if the "climate is ripe" for this kind of case though. Refer to Gene/Bwiese's comment about first dates and asking for certain "favors"...

AJAX22
10-20-2010, 5:34 PM
Were all just talkin and thinkin here...

Bit for the record I never had any problems with obtaining on the first date :p

ke6guj
10-20-2010, 5:41 PM
Are there any published interpretation letters by the ATF as to why they interpret the ban to not count themselves as an authorizing agency?

Aldo any case law for challenges or rulings based on it?there is case law on the matter. The NRA sued ATF over it and lost. Farmer v. Higgins was the case IIRC.

ke6guj
10-20-2010, 5:43 PM
I remember reading a while back (might have been on the '86 FOPA WIKI page) that the actual additions of the ban might have been in fact illegal.

Would be nice to see a challenge based on that.yes, it was done by voice vote. The Nays had it, but Rangal said that they Ayes had it and ignored calls for a recorded vote. I've been told that the courts won't touch it because of separation of powers. And an ARFcommer was trying to find the video of it via Cspan, but somehow that video is not available. here is the link about that, http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1013300

CCWFacts
10-20-2010, 5:46 PM
The NRA has a page with quite a few references (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=130) on this.

Kharn
10-20-2010, 6:21 PM
yes, it was done by voice vote. The Nays had it, but Rangal said that they Ayes had it and ignored calls for a recorded vote. I've been told that the courts won't touch it because of separation of powers. And an ARFcommer was trying to find the video of it via Cspan, but somehow that video is not available. here is the link about that, http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1013300The courts will not get involved, it was up to the Congress of 1986 to protest the voice vote. Once the Speaker (or President pro tempore, for the Senate) says a bill has passed and the record states as much the courts consider it to have passed.

AJAX22
10-22-2010, 12:18 PM
Interesting...

I did some quick research on the vote and found that it did in fact go down in a rather shady way.

Here is a PDF I made of an excerpt of the relevant section of the congressional record.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4Zjc0NjAzZDItMDI2NS00MTUyL TgxNzAtMTk3OTM4YmQ1OWM5&hl=en

Here is a PDF I made of the full section in which the excerpt can be found

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDg4NWM3ODAtMTkxNS00MzE3L WE4MGMtMmQyOWVkMmFkZmIz&hl=en

Here is a text file of the relevant section.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4YTIyZTM5MmItYmIyYy00M2M4L TgwMmItODQ5YTIyNmUyNmNi&hl=en

Apparently someone found a text file of this on the web about a year ago and its been circulating widely... but no one thought to go to the source documentation to make a pdf of the original printing.... so everyone thinks its some kind of hoax. :rolleyes:

This doesn't really factor into anything, except that its an interesting bit of data.

I've also requested archival footage from cspan of the vote, for research purposes... so we'll see if that pans out.

This whole issue is Interesting... but not particularly relevant

formerTexan
10-22-2010, 10:11 PM
AJAX, have you seen this:
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/907/907.F2d.1041.90-8185.html

It looks like Apr 10th, 1986, at around 5:50-53pm was when Hughes introduced the amendment.

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 6:47 AM
there is case law on the matter. The NRA sued ATF over it and lost. Farmer v. Higgins was the case IIRC.Which was pre-Heller and McDonald, and given that prior to 2008 the 2nd Amendment had a virtual 100% losing streak since 1879 therefore making challenges to gun laws de facto impossible it's no surprise it didn't get anywhere.

FS00008
10-23-2010, 10:53 AM
TBH, rather than attacking the MG ban, I say we should attack the entire NFA system as a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SBRs and Suppressors are aids for those with disabilities and the NFA unfairly restricts access by adding another element of paperwork and certain transportation requirements etc.

Once NFA is gone, surely the MG Ban would fall within short order.

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 11:28 AM
The '86 ban is easier to attack than the whole NFA because it is arbitrary and has proven to serve no useful purpose and most laws like it pertaining to other subjects get struck down.

CHS
10-23-2010, 11:40 AM
The '86 ban is easier to attack than the whole NFA because it is arbitrary and has proven to serve no useful purpose and most laws like it pertaining to other subjects get struck down.

I agree.

I think the '86 ban and suppressors should be a fairly easy attack, with things like SBR's and SBS's attacked a little bit later on. DD's might not be so easy and getting MG's de-regulated will probably never happen.

When the '34 NFA was passed (in order to "ban" MG's by taxing them unfairly) it was widely believed that they couldn't just ban MG's because it would be a, *surprise*, violation of the 2nd amendment. This is why they came up with a tax instead.

I don't see the NFA going away entirely. I believe that for things like MG's and DD's you'll always have a higher bar to membership in that club involving more paperwork and registration, HOWEVER, I see things like LEO signoffs, $200 taxes, and state laws banning MG's going away.

Regarding suppressors, AOW's, SBR's and SBS's, there are no rational reasons for their regulation as title 2 firearms. Suppressors should not be controlled as firearms at all, and AOW's, SBR's and SBS's should all be knocked down to Title 1 status. Right now they are arbitrarily and capriciously defined as being somehow more dangerous then a normal handgun, rifle, or shotgun, which we all know just isn't true.

ptoguy2002
10-23-2010, 11:53 AM
I agree.

I think the '86 ban and suppressors should be a fairly easy attack, with things like SBR's and SBS's attacked a little bit later on. DD's might not be so easy and getting MG's de-regulated will probably never happen.

When the '34 NFA was passed (in order to "ban" MG's by taxing them unfairly) it was widely believed that they couldn't just ban MG's because it would be a, *surprise*, violation of the 2nd amendment. This is why they came up with a tax instead.

I don't see the NFA going away entirely. I believe that for things like MG's and DD's you'll always have a higher bar to membership in that club involving more paperwork and registration, HOWEVER, I see things like LEO signoffs, $200 taxes, and state laws banning MG's going away.

Regarding suppressors, AOW's, SBR's and SBS's, there are no rational reasons for their regulation as title 2 firearms. Suppressors should not be controlled as firearms at all, and AOW's, SBR's and SBS's should all be knocked down to Title 1 status. Right now they are arbitrarily and capriciously defined as being somehow more dangerous then a normal handgun, rifle, or shotgun, which we all know just isn't true.

I think that SBS are going to be really tough to attack. SCOTUS has shown that they will not overturn precedent very easily with the P&I vs due process thing in Mcdonald, and IIRC they ruled in the Miller case that a SBS wasn't a militia arm, so you have precedent that SBS are a not covered under 2A. You'd have to try on the self defense bit of it, but you'd have to show "common use," which ain't gonna be easy.
Thats my un-educated, amateur take on it, FWIW.

ptoguy2002
10-23-2010, 12:01 PM
On suppressors in CA, I had the idea once that if you find plaintiff that is pregnant (can't put ear plugs on the kid in the oven very easily), have her request the permit from DOJ, get denied, and then sue on 2A grounds because she can't use a firearm for the next 9 months without fear of damaging the kid.
Or skip that completely and send in the form to the ATF, and have them deny you because they probably wouldn't approve a suppressor tax stamp for somebody in CA, and then sue them.

bohoki
10-23-2010, 12:02 PM
i loved the name "firearm owners protection act" what a crock huh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Librarian
10-23-2010, 12:13 PM
IIRC they ruled in the Miller case that a SBS wasn't a militia arm,
Well, not quite.

The case went to SCOTUS by direct appeal - there was no prior trial in which evidence on that point was presented; the opinion said they could not 'take judicial notice' of that.

Apparently, for an appeals court to assume a fact, it has to be as obvious as "water is wet"; to be fair, usually there is a trial where facts are briefed and testimony to the accuracy is taken.

I don't expect Miller to be very influential after Heller and McDonald.

CHS
10-23-2010, 1:15 PM
On suppressors in CA, I had the idea once that if you find plaintiff that is pregnant (can't put ear plugs on the kid in the oven very easily), have her request the permit from DOJ, get denied, and then sue on 2A grounds because she can't use a firearm for the next 9 months without fear of damaging the kid.


That's actually an excellent idea.


Or skip that completely and send in the form to the ATF, and have them deny you because they probably wouldn't approve a suppressor tax stamp for somebody in CA, and then sue them.

Nah, the only reason the ATF won't approve it is because it's illegal in CA. Otherwise all the ATF cares about is your background check and $200. You would have to sue the state.

Peter.Steele
10-23-2010, 1:28 PM
That's actually an excellent idea.




Probably a non-starter, unfortunately. See, it was the woman's choice to become (and then remain) pregnant. She placed her desire to procreate above her desire to to shoot.

CHS
10-23-2010, 1:38 PM
I think that SBS are going to be really tough to attack. SCOTUS has shown that they will not overturn precedent very easily with the P&I vs due process thing in Mcdonald, and IIRC they ruled in the Miller case that a SBS wasn't a militia arm, so you have precedent that SBS are a not covered under 2A. You'd have to try on the self defense bit of it, but you'd have to show "common use," which ain't gonna be easy.
Thats my un-educated, amateur take on it, FWIW.

Post-Heller and McDonald, the "militia" argument should be pretty dead and we could re-visit the SBS thing.

As far as self-defense, an SBS is no more or less dangerous or suitable for self-defense than a standard shotgun.

Common use can be applied to shotguns as a whole. They're all very common.

What you would attack is the arbitrary and capricious nature of the statute. Why are shotguns limited to barrels of 18" or more when rifles are limited to only 16", and handguns which fire the same rounds (Judge, anyone?) can have much less length of barrel than 18".

If we get strict scrutiny, the government would also have to show a compelling argument for the ban. If a shotgun with a 2" barrel is not any more dangerous than a trap shotgun with a 32" barrel, then why on earth is there some arbitrary cut-off at 18"? What about disabled people, dwarfs, or people of smaller stature like many women and children shooters where even a 18" barreled gun might be too large and heavy.

Regulating what can and can't have a shoulder stock and what can and can't have a barrel below a certain length really is the definition of arbitrary and capricious. ESPECIALLY since rifles and shotguns have different length requirements. You could make an argument that it's not as arbitrary if the cut-off was at least the same length.

ptoguy2002
10-23-2010, 1:54 PM
So who is going to knock up their wife or gf so we can all buy cans?

AJAX22
10-23-2010, 2:06 PM
I don't think a pregnancy is a durable enough condition to maintain standing in a suit.

A doctors note prescribing a suppressor for hearing loss prevention might be a better way to approach it.

Peter.Steele
10-23-2010, 2:08 PM
I don't think a pregnancy is a durable enough condition to maintain standing in a suit.

A doctors note prescribing a suppressor for hearing loss prevention might be a better way to approach it.



Try and take it out of the hands of the ATF entirely? Get it regulated as a medical device by the FDA instead? :D

CHS
10-23-2010, 2:09 PM
Try and take it out of the hands of the ATF entirely? Get it regulated as a medical device by the FDA instead? :D

I think they should be sold in the same aisle as the safety glasses and hearing protection :)

anthonyca
10-23-2010, 2:37 PM
On suppressors in CA, I had the idea once that if you find plaintiff that is pregnant (can't put ear plugs on the kid in the oven very easily), have her request the permit from DOJ, get denied, and then sue on 2A grounds because she can't use a firearm for the next 9 months without fear of damaging the kid.
Or skip that completely and send in the form to the ATF, and have them deny you because they probably wouldn't approve a suppressor tax stamp for somebody in CA, and then sue them.

Genius. We can go on tv and into court and say, it's for the chiiiillldrreeeeeennn.

armygunsmith
10-23-2010, 3:55 PM
I already have some hearing loss from my time in the Army, mybe I'll ask my doctor for a written recommendation to prevent any further hearing damage.

AJAX22
10-23-2010, 4:20 PM
It would be interesting.... Well worth the co-pay.... Then submit your application to the state of CA for a license to own a silencer... Then file the federal paperwork to make or buy one...


Could work...

yellowfin
10-23-2010, 5:03 PM
Probably a non-starter, unfortunately. See, it was the woman's choice to become (and then remain) pregnant. She placed her desire to procreate above her desire to to shoot.Control over one's reproductive ability and choice is something courts respect and uphold: usually for abortion, but in this case it could be turned around on them. Self defense is now established as a right, particularly in the home, where gun blast is further magnified and therefore even more of a concern for damage. I think the biggest problem is the transient status of standing: the court process to get this put through plus time for stamp could total over 9 months. Someone wanting to have this happen would either have to have two kids back to back or at very least file on day 1 of being pregnant. Delay tactics would likely screw it up unless there is some legal means of mandating expedience due to time sensitivity.

ptoguy2002
10-23-2010, 6:20 PM
Once you get cans legal, then you can file suit to get AWs back.
How can I attach my [now legal] can to my pistol if it doesn't have a threaded barrel?

/threadjack

pitchbaby
10-23-2010, 6:59 PM
Does this mean we need a site named autoforall.com... :)

formerTexan
10-23-2010, 11:00 PM
Just a FYI, there is NO PERMITTING for silencers in CA. The ONLY WAY to have them legally without being some type of LE or military org, is to be a manufacturer of them. Get an FFL, play the CA DOJ games, then pay the SOT to the Feds.

ke6guj
10-23-2010, 11:04 PM
Just a FYI, there is NO PERMITTING for silencers in CA. The ONLY WAY to have them legally without being some type of LE or military org, is to be a manufacturer of them. Get an FFL, play the CA DOJ games, then pay the SOT to the Feds.or be a NFA dealer. Any FFL with an SOT can have silencers in CA, not just manufacturers.

jm838
10-24-2010, 1:40 AM
I like where this is going. A lot.

Chatterbox
10-24-2010, 8:46 AM
We may want to recruit people with hyperacusis for the silencer suit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacusis

AJAX22
11-15-2010, 4:29 PM
Interesting...

I did some quick research on the vote and found that it did in fact go down in a rather shady way.

Here is a PDF I made of an excerpt of the relevant section of the congressional record.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4Zjc0NjAzZDItMDI2NS00MTUyL TgxNzAtMTk3OTM4YmQ1OWM5&hl=en

Here is a PDF I made of the full section in which the excerpt can be found

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDg4NWM3ODAtMTkxNS00MzE3L WE4MGMtMmQyOWVkMmFkZmIz&hl=en

Here is a text file of the relevant section.

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4YTIyZTM5MmItYmIyYy00M2M4L TgwMmItODQ5YTIyNmUyNmNi&hl=en

Apparently someone found a text file of this on the web about a year ago and its been circulating widely... but no one thought to go to the source documentation to make a pdf of the original printing.... so everyone thinks its some kind of hoax. :rolleyes:

This doesn't really factor into anything, except that its an interesting bit of data.

I've also requested archival footage from cspan of the vote, for research purposes... so we'll see if that pans out.

This whole issue is Interesting... but not particularly relevant

Just a quick update, C-Span was dragging their feet so I did a follow up with them on the request and offered to pay for the footage if it would expedite things.

Sometimes I wish I was still interning at 20/20... the access to this stuff was substantially easier to come by...

AJAX22
11-17-2010, 6:43 AM
Ok, Cspan doesn't have it... total dead end

I've also hit a wall with vanderbuilt university's archives.

I've submitted a research request both at Columbia and at the library of congress so we'll see if they have anything over there.

AJAX22
11-17-2010, 8:20 AM
I found it!!!!

17:24-18:56 (VTA 0234)
http://lccn.loc.gov/91796846

So... Now I just need to pony up a couple hundered bucks to the library of congress and complete my order form (I have to ask my wife where the address of the new appartment is).

I don't think I'll spring for expidited service, its a couple extra hundered bucks, and my wife would kill me if I did it before I land a job.