Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/21/2001 7:23:09 PM EST
If someone actually had the stones and built a true M-4 full-auto 14.5 inch barrel and the rest. Then walked into a Cop Shop and turned himself in. Wouldn't US vs Miller be a good defense since in Miller they stated that the NFA was legal because a SB Shotgun had "no purpose in the Militia" and an M-4 being current issue to the US Army (With Laser Guided Ammunition according to ABC) would be of use to the Militia. Especially if the individual was activly involved with a state recognized Militia Orginization as defined in the Dick Act. Just a thought I do NOT intend on doing this any time soon. Would like to hear the Legal Scholars opinions on this. AdTechArms
Link Posted: 11/21/2001 8:36:36 PM EST
No. The GOPA of 1986 prohibited the manufacture of new machine guns for private parties. Miller does not apply.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 6:51:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/22/2001 6:44:39 AM EST by Kharn]
Dave_G: I believe you are mistaken. US v. Miller's conclusion was the Supreme Court requesting that a lower court issue a finding of fact on the issue of a short barreled shotgun being a useful militia weapon or not. The text of the Miller decision indicates that if the SBS were found to be a weapon useful to the militia, it would be protected under the Second Amendment, but the finding of fact was never made, as Miller had died by that time. A newly manufactured, fully automatic M4 would be useful to the Army, as they have purchased new machine guns in such a configuration after 1986. Thus, it would seem that US v. Miller would protect the manufacture of a post-86 machine gun by a non-SOT. Kharn
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 10:55:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 11:36:11 AM EST
Kharn, The GOPA of 1986 is clear. No new machine guns may be manufactured for private parties. Period. The courts have upheld that provision of the GOPA of 1986 repeatedly since it's enactment, Miller notwithstanding. Even if US v Emerson is decided favorably by the US Supreme Court, it is possible that the machinegun or even the assault weapon laws may remain in effect.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 4:07:59 PM EST
The recent decision from Emerson states that the 2nd is not an absolute right but more like the 1st amendment. Any restrictions must be treated with the same scrutiny as the 1st. Thus, just like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected under the 1st, machine guns will probably not be so under the 2nd for the same judges at the fifth circuit. The SBR component of the M4 maybe decided different by these two judges on the fifth, however.
Link Posted: 11/22/2001 7:41:28 PM EST
stator, Don't count your chickens...
Top Top