This deals with 18 USC 922(0) I don't think I'm reading this right because it seems like it's saying that when the 86MG ban was enacted and they stopped accepting registration and taxes for NFA items that the NFA was effectivly repealed(the tax code part). Id that right? If thats the case than WTF are we all doing not making our own LLs or DIAS' or RRs. It would seem that we now have that right according to this thing(again if I understand it right, which I porbably don't)

This is the last part of the decision

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED

So can any of you lawyers out there translate this into plane ol' english for my non legalese speaking self?

If a machinegun was made after  May 19, 1986, there's no need for the $200 tax, because it can only be used by a Gov't agency  (who are exempt).  

ETA:  What case is this from?  LINK?  

Quoted: If a michinegun was made after  May 19, 1986, there's no need for the $200 tax, because it can only be used by a Gov't agency (who are exempt).   ETA:  What case is this from?  LINK?

Link is at the top in red. The case is United States v. Rock Island Armory, Inc., 773 F.Supp. 117 (C.D.Ill. 1991)

The thing is is that the manufacture and saleof NFA weapons made after 5-19-86 applied only to civilians. I take this to mean that since they stopped accepting tax payments, and registration the government effectivly repealed the NFA(chapter53 of the tax codes) as far as civilians go. That would mean we could , build and own them without having to register them as they repealed the section of the tax codes that says we have to pay the tax.

Anyway I don;t know if I'm reading it right or not thats why I asked for the translation from one of our many lawyers.


ETA important info

The superseding indictment alleges that Defendants committed act in respect to the making and registration of "firearms," i.e., machineguns, (Footnote 1) in the years 1987 and 1988 which violated parts of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. sections 5801 et seq. Specifically, Count I alleges in part that Defendants conspired "(a) to manufacture firearms in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5822 (Footnote 2) and 5861(f) (Footnote 3) [and] (b) to knowingly deliver into interstate commerce firearms in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5822 and 5861(j)..."(Footnote 4) Count 2 alleges that in 1988, Defendants made machineguns "in violation of the registration provisions of Title 26, United States Code, Section 5822," which is alleged to have violated 26 U.S.C. sec. 5861(f). Count 3 alleges that Defendants delivered into interstate commerce the same machineguns as in Count 2, and that these machineguns "had not been registered as required by the provisions of Title 26, United States Code, Section 5822," in violation of 26 U.S.C. sec. 5861(j).

Interesting...

It looks like they are saying that because 'the secretary' has declined to accetpt tax payments, people cannot be accused of tax evasion...

There's probably more not pasted here, that still references the crime of NON REGISTRATION.  

Quoted: Interesting... It looks like they are saying that because 'the secretary' has declined to accetpt tax payments, people cannot be accused of tax evasion... There's probably more not pasted here, that still references the crime of NON REGISTRATION.

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986,   the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED

According to this it seems like the whole of the NFA is now as they state either repealed or unconstitutional.
If the whole thing would fit in one post I'd have just posted the whole thing. I hate having to do multiple posts to get a whole artical/whatever in a thread.

I think, if you read up on this a little further, is that you can be busted for possession of the machinegun but not for failure to register it or pay taxes on it if it was manufactured after 5/86.  

link to another case...

www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/dalton.html

Quoted: I think, if you read up on this a little further, is that you can be busted for possession of the machinegun but not for failure to register it or pay taxes on it if it was manufactured after 5/86.   link to another case... www.giwersworld.org/mgiwer/mgiwer5/dalton.html

I started reading it but before I lose the thought, the whole case is based on the fact that he vioplated the NFA, but the NFA states you can't posses/transfer an NFA weapon if made after that 5-19-86 without paying the tax/registering the weapon. However this case(the Rock Island case) says that the requiremnents of the NFA no longer apply because the .gov is no longer accepting registration or tax payments on weapons made after said date. So if the whole of the NFA were to be no good because of that, than possession is not an issue because the law that says you can't posses it is no longer valid.

Ok back to reading the case you posted.


From the rock Island case

This issue was again resolved adverse to the government in United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 294, 56 S.Ct. 223, 226, 80 L.Ed. 233 (1935). A statute provided for a federal assessment for one who violated a state liquor law. The Court held that it would be invalid "if, in fact, its purpose is to punish rather than to tax." Id. No federal jurisdiction existed to enforce alcohol Prohibition, because the Eighteenth Amendment had been repealed. Id. Similarly, no federal jurisdiction exists to ban mere possession of machineguns, and the NFA provisions at issue are not supported by the tax power to the extent they enforce a prohibition rather than taxation

NFA states you can't posses/transfer an NFA weapon if made after that 5-19-86 without paying the tax/registering the weapon.

This only applies to Short Barreled Rifles and Short Barreled Shotguns which are still legal to register.  Machineguns are the only NFA weapons affected by the "5/19/86" date.

It is my understanding that the feds did not appeal this ruling so that there would not be any precedent, a longstanding tactic of the IRS.

922(o) has it's own penalties for MG manufacture/etc...

Another interesting thing about the Rock Island case- they do tal about possesion

As applied to machineguns made and possessed   after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are

   

A quote from your link...

As the government conceded at oral argument, the United States refuses to register or accept tax payments for the making or transfer of machineguns made after 1986. Thus, § 922(o), as applied to machineguns made after May 19, 1986, left the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act without any constitutional basis.

i.e.   They won't accept any tax on a machinegun manufactured after that date because, the transferror would be in violation of the law already by possession of said machinegun since it was not already registered before 5/19/86.

Quoted: NFA states you can't posses/transfer an NFA weapon if made after that 5-19-86 without paying the tax/registering the weapon. This only applies to Short Barreled Rifles and Short Barreled Shotguns which are still legal to register.  Machineguns are the only NFA weapons affected by the "5/19/86" date.

Look at the closing of the decision though they state possesion of a machinegun

As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED

BTT cuz I'd like a professionals opinion on this.

This decision, while legally correct, was quickly hidden away and legally disclaimed by chief judge posner, and most of the other circuits, by ignoring the legal logic and instead asserting the power of congress to do whatever they wanted whenever they want.

If you possess a post-86 as a private citizen, you will be convicted by the overmasters in the federal courts, even though the constitution and 150 years of caselaw say that the power to tax died when the tax was no longer accepted by the government.

Ya see why we don't play tag with the IRS or the ATF...because they both prosecute for whatever they want to...........and who hear still think that government is for the people, of the people. According to the Emerson case, I am entitled by the 2nd to the exact same gear as the military....how do you think that will work out?

If this actually had some traction, they'd re open the tax window ASAP.  

So basically what they're saying is that if you get busted for a newly made machine gun that you won't be charged with failure to register because they're not taking registration on newly made guns. But you'll still be charged with unlawful ownership of a machinegun, is that about it?

Quoted: So basically what they're saying is that if you get busted for a newly made machine gun that you won't be charged with failure to register because they're not taking registration on newly made guns. But you'll still be charged with unlawful ownership of a machinegun, is that about it?

yes, somewhat

Ok here's a question for the lawyers.  Last year the 9th Circuit Court overturned a conviction for a man who built a Sten in AZ, I think.  I think the reason for the overturn was that since he manufactured the reciever itself, and it never crossed state lines, he wasn't in violation of the interstate commerce laws.  The feds had I think 90 days to file an appeal, and never did.  Would this not set a legal precident for the manufacture of your own title II recivers?

Quoted: Ok here's a question for the lawyers.  Last year the 9th Circuit Court overturned a conviction for a man who built a Sten in AZ, I think.  I think the reason for the overturn was that since he manufactured the reciever itself, and it never crossed state lines, he wasn't in violation of the interstate commerce laws.  The feds had I think 90 days to file an appeal, and never did.  Would this not set a legal precident for the manufacture of your own title II recivers?

only in the 9th circuit states.   and even then you'll get busted if they want you.    What i have heard some people say is that everyone in the 9th circuit needs to start sending in applications to the BATFe for new manufactured mg's.   then we see what they do, and appeal the ruling (rejection)

in other words, you are in GA.   I would NOT recommend making your own, unless you want to go to court over it like the guy in AZ did.   If you do and you got a big legal warchest,   good luck on your suit.

Quoted: So basically what they're saying is that if you get busted for a newly made machine gun that you won't be charged with failure to register because they're not taking registration on newly made guns. But you'll still be charged with unlawful ownership of a machinegun, is that about it?

Yup thats what it kinda sorta, well I don't know. In the rock island case at the end the court says

As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional.

If you notice they say made or possessed after 5-19-86. So who knows. This case reads to me like the court said the NFA in reagrds to machineguns made after 5-19-86 is no longer valid because the .gov refuses to take tax payments and egistration for said MGs. But even at that than there is a problem with 18 USC 922(0) because that makes possesing an unregistered machinegun illegal. However if the tax code that says you have to pay a $200 tax and register the gun is no longer valid, than possessing an unregistered MG that was made after 5-19-86 ca not bemillegal, even under 18USC 922(0) because you can't even if you wanted to try, register  it and pay the tax. Those are the conditions of Possesing the gun. If the laws regarding the steps nessesary to posses are no longer valid, than it should not be illegal to posses the damn thing. And they could not(read should not beable to) charge you with possession of an unregisted MG because it does not have to be registered, because the law(tax code) that required that is no longer valid.

Thats my take on it I ain't a lawyer though thats why I asked for one to explain this shit. Sorry if it's a little hard to follow the thought process in the above post.

If someone can find a legal loop hole, let us know

Quoted: If someone can find a legal loop hole, let us know

Buy a registered, pre-'86 transferable and be done with it.

Trust me, if I could have bought my M16 for any less, I would have done it. I'm sure if there were any other way it could be done legally, it wouldn't have taken 18 years to be challenged in court. As for the 9th Circuit Court's ruling regarding Stewart, he basically made all of the parts of the machinegun, and it was a new design not resembling any legal machinegun. Thus it did not interfere with supply and demand of existing machinegun models. And chances are extremely good that SCOTUS will overturn it anyway. People who live in the 9th's jurisdiction have been sending in Form 1's to manufacture lightning links and drop-in auto sears, but the BATF hasn't acted on any of the applications.