Here's a thought...
...if this lawsuit as described on the 1934 group's website is successful, it would be a BIG gun in the armory for use in a later legal action against the 1986 ban on further manufacture and importation of civilian transferrable machineguns.
Here's my line of reasoning: The basis for the NFA and the method of regulation of machineguns is TAXATION. By law, taxes MUST be collected. The ban of 1986 directly prohibits the BATF from collecting that tax, though the law REQUIRES all due taxes to be paid. CONFLICT!!! You can't register and pay the tax if you want to, and that's not legal!
There is a clear Constitutional issue as well. As we all know "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If it's not possible to OBTAIN a firearm by legal means,
I'd say that's an infringement. Yes, all existing pre-86 machineguns are grandfathered if they're registered, but stopping the supply of new ones is clearly an attempt to keep people from getting them, and that's an infringement.
Also, the NFA of 1934 specifically forbids gun registration. Yet, all registered transferrable machineguns are registered, and that's as plain as the nose on your face.
I don't claim to be the originator of any of these concepts, by the way. But I do think about the problem, and I think that a few good lawyers could put together a case that would strike down some of these laws forever. Having
the 1934 group's case as a citable reference would add a lot of clout to the challenge, too,
so hope and pray that it is decided favorably for us gun owners.
No CLEO should be allowed to keep us from having any firearm if our background check comes out clean, we have no significant criminal history, and we pay the fees and fill out all the right forms. It's not the CLEO's business. I think the case will decide that.
CJ