Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-16-2016, 10:44 AM
submaniac submaniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Viriyapanthu v. Jones 14-55187 Machinegun Registration - 9th affirms lower court

I would appreciate it if people could post links on other forums back to this post so that people who don't regularly visit here can know what's going on.

Notification was received from the 9th Circuit at the end of September that they are setting this case for oral arguments early next year.

Background

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549. Lopez involved a high school student who had brought a gun to school and was convicted under 18 USC §922(q) (“The Guns Free School Zone Act of 1990”). The U.S. Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. As the court explained, the United States was formed when the individual states agreed to cede a portion of their sovereignty to the national federal government.

The power of the federal government is limited only to those powers that the states gave the federal government in the constitution—e.g. the enumerated power of taxation, the authority to regulate interstate commerce between the states, etc. A ‘general police power” to enact criminal law is exclusively reserved for the states and prohibited to the federal government. In Lopez the Supreme Court held that the “Gun Free School Zone Act” was unconstitutional because the federal government lacked authority to enact the law as there was no showing that the law furthered the federal government’s interest in regulating interstate commerce between the states.

Based upon U.S. v. Lopez, in 2003 the 9th Circuit held the machinegun ban (18 USC §922(o)) unconstitutional in U.S. v. Stewart (2003) 348 F.3d 1132. Stewart was selling Maadi-Griffin parts kits on the internet and Shotgun News. During a search, ATF found a machinegun that Stewart had made from homemade parts. The 9th Circuit overturned the conviction and held §922(o) unconstitutional on grounds the parts that Stewart made didn’t travel across state lines, and didn’t affect the federal government’s interest in regulating interstate commerce.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005) U.S. 1 in which a medical marijuana patient filed suit against the federal government over the right to grow cannabis at home. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the government holding that homegrown marijuana—even if it does not pass across interstate lines—falls within congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

Based upon the Gonzales decision, the government appealed the Stewart decision to the U.S. Supreme Court which ordered the Stewart decision vacated and the 9th Circuit to reconsider the case in light of Gonzales v. Raich. The 9th Circuit then upheld the conviction. U.S. v. Stewart (2006) 451 F. 3d 1071.

Present Case

The case now pending before the 9th Circuit is Viriyapanthu v. B. Todd Jones (ATF Director) 14-55187. The problems which caused Stewart to be reversed are fixed and the issue of the MG ban is being sent back to the 9th.

This time the “illegal machinegun possession” was not because someone decided to make a MG. In this case the MG was a result of ATF reclassification which now leaves people stuck holding onto illegal unregistered machineguns without knowing they are in possession of a machinegun and without actually having done anything wrong

The U.S. military decommissions firearms by cutting the receivers and selling them as scrap metal to the public. The ATF sets criteria for destroying a machinegun so that it is “demilitarized” (or “demilled”) such that it is no longer considered a “machinegun” and can be sold without complying with NFA transfer requirements. AK47 parts kits are generally sourced from overseas, cut to ATF specifications, and imported into the United States and are built into legal semi-auto.

The problem is that the USDOD cuts its MG receivers to different specs than the ATF. MG’s cut to DOD specs and sold to the public as scrap, are considered unregistered MG’s in the eyes of ATF. In addition, ATF changed its demil specs throughout the years, so that an MG that was legally cut to a prior ATF spec and once considered “scrap metal”—is now considered by ATF to be an illegal unregistered MG.

922(o)
18 USC §922(o) only applies to machineguns made after 1986 and states:
(o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

Hypothetical: A machinegun is manufactured in 1985. In 2014 the MG is decommissioned and scrapped in accordance with currently existing ATF specifications. In 2015 you purchase the demilled scraps as part of a parts kit that you received by mail order (which is legal as during this time it is legally considered scrap metal which does not need to be transferred under the NFA). After sitting in your garage for 2 years, you turn the scrap pieces into a functioning semi-auto in 2017. In 2018 ATF changes specifications on what type of cuts are necessary to be considered “demilled”. The pieces you received were not cut to 2018 ATF specifications, and as a result ATF deems those scrap metal pieces you have to be an “unregistered machinegun”. In 2017 what you thought you were making was a legal semi auto made from pieces of scrap metal. In 2018 you find out that what you possess is actually an illegal unregistered machinegun that you had made from other bits and pieces of illegal machinegun.

Question: Did you actually violate 922(o) since the MG came into your hands by means of “lawful transfer and possession”—which is an exception under 922(o)? This is the issue that is before the 9th Circuit.

The Documents.
This is ATF’S brief.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1R...ew?usp=sharing
This is Appellant’s brief.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1R...ew?usp=sharing
This is ATF’S current M16 demil specs which require 3 criss-cross cuts.
http://i60.tinypic.com/ruqohv.jpg
This is the DOD’S 2011 demil specs (which require two cuts resulting in 3 pieces) which was filed by ATF in the case.
http://i61.tinypic.com/16lhc8k.jpg
__________________
Many thanks to the AK-Build team...California's version of Khyber pass.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-16-2016, 10:59 AM
submaniac submaniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FAQ

What are the objectives of this suit?

Open up the machinegun registry. The lawsuit is to force ATF to amnesty register these guns, or in the alternative, if ATF refuses to register—to have them held exempt from registration requirements. In other words, for firearms which ATF previously allowed to be sold as scrap and for which ATF subsequently reclassified into a machinegun, ATF cannot simply seize and confiscate. Instead ATF must give the owners an opportunity to legally register as an MG for the law to remain constitutional. Without giving the owners an opportunity to register, the MG ban would not have a valid purpose for either taxation or regulation of interstate commerce and would amount to a constitutionally prohibited federal police power.

Put another way: I could not find a way to overturn the MG ban completely so people could make a brand new MG; what I’m trying to do is create a legal loophole to give “another option”. What this lawsuit aims to do is to force ATF (on constitutional grounds) to allow gun owners to take a demilled receiver, register it with ATF as an unserviceable MG, file a form 1, pay $200, take the pieces to a class III smith/manufacturer to be turned into a functioning and LEGALLY owned MG.

The ultimate goal is to have more MG’s available so middle class folks can afford to get into full auto. With the cost of a legally registered M16 at $30-40k, only the wealthy or really dedicated have them.


These demilled receivers look like crap--are they even useable?


It seems to me that most demilled receivers have at least enough material left on them that they could be easily turned into a (legally registered as a MG) drop in auto sear. As for me, if this suit succeeds my plans are to use an AR blank weld the demilled pieces onto it and remil the entire receiver. If there is a will there is a way, and if it can be done at less than $30k, you’re ahead of the game. The hard part is to have it legally registered. Once it’s legally registered to you as an MG you can have it fire full auto.

Won’t this lawsuit cause the guys who already own an MG to take a dump on the value of their guns?

Doubt it. I’m going to make an analogy to comic books and baseball cards. Some comic books/baseball cards are worth millions. Their value is based upon the rarity and the condition. However, even rare comic books are not actually worth that much if in poor condition. You can go out and buy the first appearance Spiderman for only a couple hundred dollars if it’s in poor shape. The one that is a 9+/10 that is worth the big money. The guys who have MG’s that weren’t cut up are the guys who own “mint condition” pieces that will always be worth more than the guy who has some cobbled together pieces of metal. An actual factory built 1960’s Shelby Mustang can hit several hundred thousand dollars to millions while a guy who converted a standard Mustang to Shelby spec has a car worth far less. With demilled receivers the supply is still nonetheless limited to pre-1986 demils which are eligible for registration under the lawsuit. It is not the same situation as if the MG ban were repealed and people are allowed to make unlimited new MG’s. The faucet on MG registration has been completely closed for 30 years. This lawsuit opens the faucet a little bit more so there are more MG’s available, but the faucet will not be open all the way. You will see a trickle not a flood. After all the eligible demils have been MG registered, it will return to drought conditions.

Where are we at with the case?

Notification was received in the last week of September the court is scheduling the case for oral argument sometime in January 2017 (however a March argument date was requested due to scheduling conflicts). I was being kind of quiet about this case until I got more information. I do not yet know which judges will be assigned to the hearing panel. There are 3 judges on an appellate panel, and approximately 30 judges available in the 9th Circuit. There is approximately a 1/3 chance that at least one of the judges will have participated in Peruta.

Why is an M16 being used for the test case instead of an AK-47?

Because the M16 is U.S. made and the serial numbers of the firearms are registered onto the National Firearms Transfer Registry and Transfer Record (NFTRTR), (making them easier to establish that they are pre 1986) which isn’t the case for AK47’s because they are foreign made. In addition, the AK47 makes a very poor test case due to the fact that there are so many different variants made in different countries. The M16 is easier because they were pretty much all made by Colt, and cut up by the same folks (e.g. U.S. DOD).

So will the AK-47 or other pattern MG’s be benefitted from this case?

Yes. AK and other pattern MG’s will be benefitted. The idea is first to establish the precedent for this using the M16 because it is an easier test case. If the precedent is established for the M16, then the same principle can be extended in subsequent cases to apply to AK, M14, Thompsons, etc. The trick is first have one court establish it as precedent one time first, so it can be used in other cases.

I also do not know what ATF’s demil specs are for the AK47. It was difficult enough to get info on the M16. If you have an AK pattern rifle made from a demilled receiver, the AK demil specs may or may not have changed. It is unknown at this point what AK’s may possibly be affected by ATF reclassification. What is known is that M16 specs changed in 2002 and anything demilled before 2002 is now considered possession of an unregistered MG by ATF. If you have an AK rewelded from a demilled receiver the bad news is that it might be considered a MG by ATF, but the good news is that you may be able legally register it as an MG shortly.

But I don’t know for certain if what I have is pre 1986 or not, so can this still help me?

Yes. If you have ever seen a raw imported parts kits, you will know that they aren’t necessarily in the best shape and the markings like serial numbers, etc. are missing or illegible. The original MG that the parts kit was from could have been made in 1971 for all we know. However, keep one thing in mind: it is the government’s burden is to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is NOT your job to prove that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. If the demilled gun is assembled back into a functioning gun, the original pieces are going to be cut and the markings removed. It was not considered a firearm so you were under no legal obligation to preserve the S/N. The government can’t prove it wasn’t a pre-1986 MG, and they have the burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that you did anything wrong.

What demils would be eligible for MG registration?

The firearms potentially eligible for MG registration would be (1) factory made MG’s (2) that have been made prior to 1986 (3) which were cut to previous ATF approved demil specs. The point is that you must be able to make an argument that your possession was by “lawful transfer and possession”. So for example if you have the rear half of an M16A2 (the A2 has a reinforced buffer tube attachment and is marked “burst” instead of “auto” on the selector), the A2 was first introduced before 1986 and made after 1986. Without the front section which contains the serial numbers you cannot trace it back onto the NFTRTR. However, a plausible argument could be made that it was manufactured prior to 1986 because it very well could have been. Compare that with an M4 or M16A4 which were first introduced well after 1986. Those you will NOT be allowed to register under this lawsuit.

Why did you refuse to surrender the machinegun to ATF?

Because it was legally required in order to have standing to file suit. “Standing” is the ability to sue file suit and unless you can demonstrate that you are affected by outcome. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2006) 554 U.S. 570 there were originally six plaintiffs. Five of the six plaintiffs were dismissed because they lacked standing—leaving Heller as the only remaining plaintiff—because he was the only one of the plaintiffs who actually applied for a permit.

What people don’t realize that in order to have standing to challenge the machinegun ban, you must actually have a machinegun. If you don’t have an MG the case will be dismissed because you don’t have standing. In the 9th Circuit, when you surrender an MG you lose your ability to challenge the law as a criminal law; instead the “due process” analysis is only the due process applicable to civil forfeitures. See United States v. TRW Rifle 7.62x51mm Caliber, One Model 14, (9th Cir. 2006) 447 F.3d 686. If I surrendered the MG to them, the case would be handled as a civil forfeiture. By refusing to surrender, I would be potentially facing arrest and have standing to challenge the law as a criminal law instead of a civil forfeiture proceeding.

Another thing that people don’t realize is that an attorney is prohibited from advising a client to commit a crime, even in order to do a test case. That’s like a doctor testing a cure for AIDS by giving a healthy person AIDS in order to see if the cure works. So the only way that this case could be heard was by me using myself as a guinea pig. I believe in the strength of my case. I believed in the case so much that I am putting my own butt on the line to prove it.

After the suit had commenced, I was then diagnosed with thymus cancer and a potentially fatal heart condition. Ultimately ATF began backing down from their demand to surrender and have not forcibly attempted to take it—which may be related to the fact that there was an election year approaching, and arresting me over this would not have been a “good thing”. So far the siege of Thermopylae between me and ATF has been going on for 3 years.
__________________
Many thanks to the AK-Build team...California's version of Khyber pass.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-16-2016, 12:20 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

good for you can you post your opening brief. You have your reply brief linked but not the opening brief
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-16-2016, 12:44 PM
submaniac submaniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you.

I would---but I am actually kind of ashamed of it. The deal is that I wasn't aware that to request an extension to file a brief in the 9th Circuit--the extension request must be filed more than 7 days from the due date of thef. I found that out the hard way and had to rush it to avoid dismissal--and then I made alot of typos and sloppy writing that I don't want to be read publicly.

This case is related to this which I am trying to get attention for: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...4#post18997904
__________________
Many thanks to the AK-Build team...California's version of Khyber pass.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-16-2016, 7:16 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I pulled the opening brief off of pacer. There are some things I'd do different but I thought it was competently done. I think the legal theory is fascinating. At the end of the day I can't say much. I already litigated and lost a machine gun case in the 5th circuit last year on 2a grounds. I look forward to your arguments. I will listen to them for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-17-2016, 7:39 AM
MountainLion's Avatar
MountainLion MountainLion is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tarzana
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For some background, please review:
  • Viriyapanthu v. Regents of the University of California: he lost a plagiarism case during law school.
  • Viriyapanthu v. Suriel: he lost an anti-SLAPP case.
  • "In the matter of Paul Viriyapanthu, member number 220325": he was involuntarily put on inactive bar status, due to failure to pay his debts to clients.
Not a good track record. All these cases have some very bizarre legal theories. Ultimately, not successful legal theories.
__________________
meow
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-17-2016, 8:11 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainLion View Post
For some background, please review:
  • Viriyapanthu v. Regents of the University of California: he lost a plagiarism case during law school.
  • Viriyapanthu v. Suriel: he lost an anti-SLAPP case.
  • "In the matter of Paul Viriyapanthu, member number 220325": he was involuntarily put on inactive bar status, due to failure to pay his debts to clients.
Not a good track record. All these cases have some very bizarre legal theories. Ultimately, not successful legal theories.
There is absolutely no reason to come on here and insult the guy. He isn't asking anybody for money he just wants to share his case. If you are going to try to rip into him then at the very least do it on the merits of this actual case.

IN his defense as to why he is on inactive status he has cancer as the Court notes which is why he can't work to pay off certain court fees. You have 7 posts since joining in 2009 and you use one of them to slam this guy? Take what I assume is a personal grudge else where unless you want to debate the merits of this case.

Last edited by wolfwood; 10-17-2016 at 8:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-17-2016, 9:16 AM
MountainLion's Avatar
MountainLion MountainLion is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tarzana
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have never met this gentleman, and until this morning, I had not heard of him. There is no personal grudge. It is also hard to see how quoting court cases he was involved in can be considered an "insult", as they are a matter of public record.

But his case begins with the Lopez decision, which has been mooted by congress re-creating the GFSZ act, a fact that has been pointed out to him on this very forum, and which he fails to acknowledge. His second legal argument is that "King George III was mentally ill", and the case the develops along those lines. That lack of precedential foundation makes it likely that this case will end similar to the previous cases I listed.

You claim "he can't ... pay off certain court fees". The issue in that case is not court fees, but debt to one of his clients. That doesn't change the fact that he has a heart problem: I didn't see any reference to cancer, but maybe I missed that. But being ill doesn't improve his legal arguments.

Let's wait for Fabio to evaluate this case in more detail.
__________________
meow

Last edited by MountainLion; 10-17-2016 at 9:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-17-2016, 10:35 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,854
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

A truely amazing case. The government's classic application of the catch 22 principal. Best of luck.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-17-2016, 11:57 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 2,683
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Excellent details included all around. I find a lot of this pretty fascinating, watching our own government contradicting themselves etc.

Thanks for the info!
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-18-2016, 4:01 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,612
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Wow, if you could open the machine gun registry...even for just one year...that would be amazing. I've got a few demilled machine gun receivers that would most certainly fall under the category described. Of course I'd have to submit my form 1's in Oregon (second residence, possibly primary).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-18-2016, 10:19 PM
submaniac submaniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hi, Thanks for words of encouragement. It should be video and televised at the 9th circuit and be available online for a while. I really hope I can give back what was stolen.

And I am also happy everyone read it, and GOT it what I was doing. You guys are awesome thanks.
__________________
Many thanks to the AK-Build team...California's version of Khyber pass.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-18-2016, 10:21 PM
submaniac submaniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I pulled the opening brief off of pacer. There are some things I'd do different but I thought it was competently done. I think the legal theory is fascinating. At the end of the day I can't say much. I already litigated and lost a machine gun case in the 5th circuit last year on 2a grounds. I look forward to your arguments. I will listen to them for sure.
You are awesome, dude! Not just for me but to everyone. Was this the one in Texas with Stephen Stroumboleh? Has the appeal already been decided?
__________________
Many thanks to the AK-Build team...California's version of Khyber pass.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-18-2016, 10:37 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ya I work with Stephen. I also am doing the hawaii carry cases waiting for the Ninth with some other people. We should be fine since we asked for open or concealed carry.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-19-2016, 12:09 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,612
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

I like this because it's not addressing the 2A aspect directly. It doesn't impede on state law at all and your not asking to eliminate the ban altogether. It's not a fix to the problem, but it does sort of open pandora's box in a way. In the case that you do win, it'll be interesting to see how reopening the registry will do virtually nothing to increase crime or create more mass shootings. It'll be an excellent form of raw data to use when we do eventually get further along in repealing the Hughes Amendment...legislatively or in the courts.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-19-2016, 11:40 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainLion View Post
Let's wait for Fabio to evaluate this case in more detail.
Ask and ye shall receive lol.

The op concedes that he is in possession of a "machinegun." Is he in possession of a machinegun because BATFE revised its destruction standards for M16s? In other words, does an item become a machinegun because it has not been destroyed in accordance with BATFE destruction standards?

(This question is not directed to anyone in particular.)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-19-2016, 12:22 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Ask and ye shall receive lol.

The op concedes that he is in possession of a "machinegun." Is he in possession of a machinegun because BATFE revised its destruction standards for M16s? In other words, does an item become a machinegun because it has not been destroyed in accordance with BATFE destruction standards?

(This question is not directed to anyone in particular.)
I would have to say no. In fact I would ask, "has if it has ever not been a machinegun?"

After demil, it was certainly unserviceable, but was it not still a machinegun? The plaintiff and the BATFE both seen to agree that it is.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler

Last edited by dustoff31; 10-19-2016 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-19-2016, 12:36 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
I would have to say no.
Yes, I agree. An item is a machinegun if it affirmatively meets the statutory definition of "machinegun," not because the item has not been destroyed in accordance with the destruction standard.

Question for the op (or anyone else, but I'd like to hear the op's answer): how do the 3 parts of the (twice) torch cut M16 receiver meet the statutory definition of "machinegun"?



*ETA I have never looked at or researched machinegun stuff before, I have a pretty good idea of why I think the legal arguments in the case are deficient but want to understand the logic a little better before summing it up.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 10-19-2016 at 12:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-24-2016, 8:26 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 568
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Isn't the rule "once a machine gun, always a machine gun"? I believe that is why the CMP can't sell M14s, even if they are converted to semi auto they were originally a machine gun so the bell can't be un-rung.

It's similar to CA's once a long gun ruling for AR/AK pistols. If it was ever configured as a rifle, it can't ever be built as a pistol.

So, in answer to the question it would appear that it was a machine gun. It was "de-milled" in accordance with ATF standards at the time, thus rendering it into chunks of metal the ATF did not consider to be a firearm, much less a "machine gun".

Subsequently, the ATF changed its spec for the de-mill (or is it de-mil?) process. Because those chunks of what used to be a machine gun are not cut up to the current standard, they are once again considered to be a machine gun, albeit a severely damaged one. I don't know if the ATF would realistically be checking in peoples garages for chunks of FAL or M16 receivers, but it could be an issue if you re-welded and rebuilt as a semi auto. The ATF would consider it still to be a machine gun. And of course, this type of ruling affects importation of parts kits, sale of US surplus to the CMP or private buyers, etc.

From what I gather, the "once a machine gun" policy is an "interpretation" that the ATF gave of existing law, and there is no "statutory basis" to speak of. It appears that it has been challenged successfully at least once, although I don't know if this case got any higher up the chain and was overturned or not.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a.../t-418695.html

Last edited by jrr; 10-24-2016 at 8:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-25-2016, 1:53 AM
Lifeisgood Lifeisgood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There does not seem to be any way that the appellant could comply with the law as it requires approval before taking possession. The ATF made the MG in an instant. How do you get approval prior to purchasing if you already own one? Maybe there was a grace period, but this is not stated in the papers. It would be a tall order to get the court's ok on this, but interesting arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-25-2016, 10:50 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
Isn't the rule "once a machine gun, always a machine gun"?
That wouldn't explain why the twice torch cut receiver in question was previously not a machinegun. The demil standards are another way of saying that the items cannot be "readily restored" per the statutory definition of machinegun. What is going on in this case is that the government has made a very persuasive argument -- using the OP's own concessions -- that "advancements in welding technology" mean that the three parts of the twice torch cut M16 receiver can be readily restored i.e. although they previously did not meet the statutory definition of machinegun they do now. The key thing here is that it is not the new demil standards that turned the pieces into a machine gun, rather the pieces meet the statutory definition of machinegun because of advances in welding technology. The pieces did not suddenly meet the definition of machine gun when the ATF changed its demil standard, they met the definition at some point prior to that time when welding technology had advanced such that the pieces could be readily restored. In the lawsuit the op blames the ATF for changing the standard but the reality is that the pieces met the definition of machinegun prior to and independently of the changed standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeisgood View Post
There does not seem to be any way that the appellant could comply with the law as it requires approval before taking possession. The ATF made the MG in an instant. How do you get approval prior to purchasing if you already own one? Maybe there was a grace period, but this is not stated in the papers. It would be a tall order to get the court's ok on this, but interesting arguments.
Disagree with the bolded language as explained above, but the central weakness in the lawsuit is the op's contention (with respect to the injunctive relief remedy) that the only way out of his "irreparable harm" predicament i.e., illegal possession of a machinegun, is amnesty registration. Besides having no authority for the contention, he government nukes the contention by arguing that the op can avoid prosecution simply by further destroying the receiver pieces and/or surrendering them. The op never challenges this and makes no coherent argument why amnesty registration is the only thing that can save him. If it were me, I would be thinking about settling this case by nailing down a bulletproof agreement by the government not to prosecute if the receiver pieces are (re)destroyed and/or surrendered.

The op's arguments that he meets the exceptions at 922(o)(2) and the as applied arguments are terrible. The government has solid authority for every one of its arguments and has a 100% chance of prevailing.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 10-25-2016 at 10:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-13-2016, 5:40 PM
GM4spd's Avatar
GM4spd GM4spd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The government has solid authority for every one of its arguments and has a 100% chance of prevailing.
This is exactly what is going to happen.
__________________
NRA LIFE (1974)

Since 1971 using/abusing my Colt ARs(thru thousands of rds) some Full Auto----no spares required.

I had a commission/USNR from 71-77 but neverconsider myself a Veteran.MyDad+4uncles/USMC/WW2/Korea/Vietnam. My Grandfather US Army WW1. No heroes,just regular folks--they were Veterans.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-19-2017, 5:56 PM
submaniac submaniac is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Set for Oral Argument on March 10, 2017. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar...aseno=14-55187

Video of Oral Argument will be found here (type in case 14-55187):
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

You can figure out what way they are leaning from watching the questioning during oral arguments. As stated previously, there's a pretty good chance that the panel will include judges who decided Peruta v. San Diego. You can gauge how likely they will vote based on their decision in Peruta. The identity of the judges assigned will not be known until 1 week prior to oral argument.

In the 9th Circuit, there is no "right" or requirement that the 9th Circuit conduct oral arguments on a case. If the case was so worthless, they could have simply denied it 3 years ago instead of going through the effort. If they are conducting oral argument, that means that they have questions that they want answered and that means they are thinking about stuff.

It may be jumping the gun, but I have already started a white house petition thingy requesting that President Trump (thank God he was elected instead of Hillary) order amnesty registration in the event that the case is successful. The petition is here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...on-machineguns

It would be nice if I could get 150 signatures so it could be published on the site. Yes, I know the case is not won yet, but I want things rolling so people can start registering by the end of the year.
__________________
Many thanks to the AK-Build team...California's version of Khyber pass.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-20-2017, 6:10 AM
Shell Shell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by submaniac View Post

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...on-machineguns

It would be nice if I could get 150 signatures so it could be published on the site. Yes, I know the case is not won yet, but I want things rolling so people can start registering by the end of the year.
Trump intervening could cause issues. DOJ and the AG take point on that.

If you want to start a petition, wait until Trump's second term and ask him to re-open the NFA registry. He could open it up for two more 15 day periods based on the law on the books. Any president can without authorization from Congress.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-20-2017, 8:53 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by submaniac View Post
Set for Oral Argument on March 10, 2017. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar...aseno=14-55187

Video of Oral Argument will be found here (type in case 14-55187):
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

You can figure out what way they are leaning from watching the questioning during oral arguments. As stated previously, there's a pretty good chance that the panel will include judges who decided Peruta v. San Diego. You can gauge how likely they will vote based on their decision in Peruta. The identity of the judges assigned will not be known until 1 week prior to oral argument.

In the 9th Circuit, there is no "right" or requirement that the 9th Circuit conduct oral arguments on a case. If the case was so worthless, they could have simply denied it 3 years ago instead of going through the effort. If they are conducting oral argument, that means that they have questions that they want answered and that means they are thinking about stuff.

It may be jumping the gun, but I have already started a white house petition thingy requesting that President Trump (thank God he was elected instead of Hillary) order amnesty registration in the event that the case is successful. The petition is here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...on-machineguns

It would be nice if I could get 150 signatures so it could be published on the site. Yes, I know the case is not won yet, but I want things rolling so people can start registering by the end of the year.
good luck bro!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-20-2017, 10:04 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shell View Post
If you want to start a petition, wait until Trump's second term and ask him to re-open the NFA registry. He could open it up for two more 15 day periods based on the law on the books. Any president can without authorization from Congress.
Yeah he could. Well, technically the Sec. of Treasury would do it, but Sec of Treas is under the executive branch, so yes.

However...

I looked into this. If he opened up the registry, you could register new MGs, but these new MGs would still be in violation of 922(o). Registering them would remove one felony, but 922(o) is still there and it's a felony on its own. My conclusion (IANAL) is that congress needs to address 922(o) directly, or the courts need to strike it.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-21-2017, 5:54 AM
Shell Shell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Yeah he could. Well, technically the Sec. of Treasury would do it, but Sec of Treas is under the executive branch, so yes.

However...

I looked into this. If he opened up the registry, you could register new MGs, but these new MGs would still be in violation of 922(o). Registering them would remove one felony, but 922(o) is still there and it's a felony on its own. My conclusion (IANAL) is that congress needs to address 922(o) directly, or the courts need to strike it.
No disagreement there, but it would allow people to own their MGs out of CA.

Just because we live in CA doesn't mean we can't drive up to Reno, pull an NFA gun out of storage, and take it to the range.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-21-2017, 7:34 AM
PennypackPete PennypackPete is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Machine guns should come after other goals attained

I wish we could hold off on our machine gun goals until we start getting back our 2nd amendment rights to semi automatic sporting rifles and handguns.

Machine guns really scare the sheeple, and Bloomberg et al tries to mix-up terminology so that modern sporting rifles appear to be machine guns.

I believe that getting machine guns into the mix right now will not be helpful for obtaining public support for our other goals.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-21-2017, 10:54 AM
WolfAmongUs WolfAmongUs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 66
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PennypackPete View Post
I wish we could hold off on our machine gun goals until we start getting back our 2nd amendment rights to semi automatic sporting rifles and handguns.
There aren't meaningful federal restrictions on these things and there is no state structural support to fight for these rights in the states where they exist.

To suggest that we sit on our hands at the federal level so we can fight losing battles in Democratic strongholds is asinine.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-21-2017, 11:36 AM
PennypackPete PennypackPete is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nevertheless, bringing machine guns into the mix gives Bloomberg et al more opportunity for FUD to confuse the sheeple into thinking we want open carry of machine guns for all.

I'm just arguing strategy and public relations.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-21-2017, 3:22 PM
Alamedak9 Alamedak9 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PennypackPete View Post
I wish we could hold off on our machine gun goals until we start getting back our 2nd amendment rights to semi automatic sporting rifles and handguns.

Machine guns really scare the sheeple, and Bloomberg et al tries to mix-up terminology so that modern sporting rifles appear to be machine guns.

I believe that getting machine guns into the mix right now will not be helpful for obtaining public support for our other goals.
^^^^^^^^^
This
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-21-2017, 3:35 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shell View Post
[in response to my post about 922(o)] No disagreement there, but it would allow people to own their MGs out of CA.

Just because we live in CA doesn't mean we can't drive up to Reno, pull an NFA gun out of storage, and take it to the range.
No no...

You didn't follow at all.

Even if you could enter new MGs in the registry, they remain a federal felony to possess / transfer, due to 922(o):

Quote:
Originally Posted by 922o
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date [May 1986] this subsection takes effect.
Even if it's perfectly fine in the registry, it remains a felony unless it was lawfully possessed before May 1986. In other words, an amnesty, by itself, does not help us with new MGs.

An amnesty would allow people to get legal with unregistered NFA weapons other than MGs, but it wouldn't help with MGs.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.

Last edited by CCWFacts; 02-21-2017 at 4:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-21-2017, 3:39 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PennypackPete View Post
I wish we could hold off on our machine gun goals until we start getting back our 2nd amendment rights to semi automatic sporting rifles and handguns.
...
I believe that getting machine guns into the mix right now will not be helpful for obtaining public support for our other goals.
Completely agree. This is the wrong case, wrong time, wrong attorney, wrong argument and it will give us... the wrong result!

We should wait until a) Trump has replaced TWO justices b) Trump has filled the circuit courts with staunch originalists and c) we have established some good case law around AWs. All of that is YEARS away.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.

Last edited by CCWFacts; 02-21-2017 at 4:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-21-2017, 3:46 PM
WolfAmongUs WolfAmongUs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 66
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PennypackPete View Post
Nevertheless, bringing machine guns into the mix gives Bloomberg et al more opportunity for FUD to confuse the sheeple into thinking we want open carry of machine guns for all.

I'm just arguing strategy and public relations.
You are arguing we do nothing in the face of tactics our opponents will use and confuse with regardless.

Your opinion is worthless. This is not how you accomplish a pro-gun agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-21-2017, 4:42 PM
PennypackPete PennypackPete is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

WolfAmongUs,

Good luck with that!

My agenda is to regain 2nd amendment rights in CA for sporting rifles and handguns. After that, the sky's the limit.

It sounds like your agenda is exclusively about machine gun rights.

Unfortunately, the public will associate your agenda with my agenda, and that will not be helpful for my agenda.

But I wish you well.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:41 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfAmongUs View Post
You are arguing we do nothing in the face of tactics our opponents will use and confuse with regardless.

Your opinion is worthless. This is not how you accomplish a pro-gun agenda.
Come on, that's like saying, anyone who doesn't advocate an immediate full frontal charge is worthless.

We need a whole bunch of new judges (appellate and SCOTUS), and a whole lot of AW-related case law, before this case makes any sense.

There is a difference between brave and stupid.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:46 AM
WolfAmongUs WolfAmongUs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 66
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PennypackPete View Post
Idiocy
It sounds like your agenda is to do nothing, which is not very productive for the 2nd amendment activism.

Feel free to continue though, not getting in my way at all.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:03 AM
WolfAmongUs WolfAmongUs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 66
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Come on, that's like saying, anyone who doesn't advocate an immediate full frontal charge is worthless.
History is not written by sheepish men. California is filled with worthless gun owners and advocates, yes. None of you ****s stood up in non-compliance when open carry was banned. Where was the kind of fervor I you can spot during the I-594 protests and open defiance of the law and the lack of single arrest? I'm glad I don't share a state with you sniveling people anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
We need a whole bunch of new judges (appellate and SCOTUS), and a whole lot of AW-related case law, before this case makes any sense.
Who gives a **** about this case specifically? I'm talking about eying machine guns on the agenda. Why are you waiting for the courts to save you when the exact opposite is happening? While you wait and hope and pray everything will be okay, the courts have been developing anti-gun case law left and right. Meanwhile the good people of the United States have expanded carry and other improvements in law across the nation, while you people sit in your hovels and piss in fear at the liberal elites in the coast. Thankfully they aren't as foregone as this **** hole, and will rightfully give machines guns their place at the table of 2A issues, where they belong.

I thank God every day the rest of us don't look like Californian gun owners, or we might've had a the first female president this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
There is a difference between brave and stupid.
Right, I don't think you're brave.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:30 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Wow, amazing.

Quote:
None of you ****s stood up in non-compliance when open carry was banned
You're a coward if you don't right now convert your AR15 to full-auto and take it to the range and use it. Why not? Stand up for your rights! NON-COMPLIANCE!

Oh...

Like this guy, who achieved nothing other than free room and board for a few years.

Or like these guys who bravely stood up to Federal law? (Amazingly they got probation instead of prison, but I assume they are now federal felons and can't ever touch a gun again.)

I get the idea that sometimes people are afraid to do something they should do, and they make up excuses for not taking action, but that doesn't mean that all action right now helps us. It doesn't. Why don't you show us the way by, if you're so brave?
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.

Last edited by CCWFacts; 02-22-2017 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-22-2017, 6:01 PM
Shell Shell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 138
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
No no...

You didn't follow at all.

Even if you could enter new MGs in the registry, they remain a federal felony to possess / transfer, due to 922(o):



Even if it's perfectly fine in the registry, it remains a felony unless it was lawfully possessed before May 1986. In other words, an amnesty, by itself, does not help us with new MGs.

An amnesty would allow people to get legal with unregistered NFA weapons other than MGs, but it wouldn't help with MGs.
I misspoke. I meant to say guns prior to 1986. There are many guns that fall into that category, including previously permanently deactivated guns that now could be reactivated - or guns stored outside the United States that were manufacturered before 1986.

I am aware of the Hughes Amendment, I just didn't complete the sentence. Apologies.


Subsection (B) allows for transfer of machine guns built before 1986 that were not registered - possibly stored abroad. Those guns could be registered in a reopening of the amnesty window.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:18 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.