ctdonath
Member
Here's an in-progress attempt at summarizing a suit against 922(o) (the post-'86 machinegun ban)
Blanks are "I know it exists, just don't have detail handy".
# references may not line up perfectly due to partial auto-numbering.
Very much a work in progress.
Thoughts?
Blanks are "I know it exists, just don't have detail handy".
# references may not line up perfectly due to partial auto-numbering.
Very much a work in progress.
922(o) challenge: a lot of people filling inexpensive suits (2nd Amendment requires BATFE authorize M4 transfers under 922(o)(A)), inducing conflicting rulings, and making SCOTUS address the issue under "equal protection".
(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.
Plaintiff: [name] [address]
1.WHEREAS plaintiff is age 38, male, able-bodied, and a citizen of the United States of America (resident of Georgia),
2.WHEREAS plaintiff seeks to lawfully take possession of an M4 machine gun, serial number __________,
3.WHEREAS lawfully authorized dealer __________ is willing to sell plaintiff said M4 machine gun indicated in #2, has received payment in full therefor, and is prepared to submit transfer paperwork in accordance with US Code _________,
4.WHEREAS US Code Title 18 Section 922(o)(1) prohibits transfer of said M4 machine gun indicated in #2,
5.WHEREAS the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (hereafter “ATF”) refuses to approve transfers to citizens of machine guns not complying with US Code Title 18 Section 922(o)(2)(B), and made this refusal common knowledge,
6.WHEREAS denial of requests for transfer of firearms regulated by US Code __________ (hereafter “NFA law”) constitutes an ongoing legal disability due to other transfers questioning the transferee of past denials of transfers, as demonstrated by federal forms ________, and thus constitutes a chilling effect upon submission of transfer request forms which transferee believes will be denied,
7.WHEREAS due to the chilling effect noted in #6, plaintiff cannot be reasonably expected to submit transfer forms until ATF gives general assurance that applications to transfer post-1986 machine guns will not be summarily denied,
8.WHEREAS US Code Title 18 Section 922(o)(2)(A) allows transfer of machine guns under the authority of a department of the United States,
9.WHEREAS the ATF is a department of the United States authorized to approve lawful transfers of machine guns,
10.WHEREAS the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution assures “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”,
11.WHEREAS US vs. Miller states the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies to “[arms of] the kind in common use at the time” (“The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”),
12.WHEREAS the M4 machine gun is commonly known to be a common weapon in the US armed services, with _________ M4s purchased by the US armed services in 2005 alone,
13.WHEREAS the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution specifies its own purpose by stating “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”,
14.WHEREAS the term “well-regulated” at the time of the writing of the Constitution indicated “well equipped” and “well trained” (not necessarily “heavily regulated by government” as is modern common meaning),
15.WHEREAS plaintiff is a member of the US militia per US Code _________, as matching description of plaintiff in #1,
16.WHEREAS US Code _________, as passed lawfully by Congress, compels plaintiff into the militia of the United States,
17.WHEREAS plaintiff seeks to do his part to arm and train himself appropriately as a member of the militia of the United states, and do so at his own cost, time, and burden,
18.WHEREAS plaintiff thus seeks to acquire an M4 machine gun, in consistency with #15, #12, #11, #8, #13, #10, and __________,
19.WHEREAS Congress presumably passes laws in accordance with the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment thereto,
20.WHEREAS it is reasonable to assume that US Code Title 18 Section 922(o) does not inherently conflict with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution,
21.WHEREAS it is reasonable to assume that the ATF should not act in a manner inconsistent with US Code Title 18 Section 922(o)(2)(A), the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and US Code [militia definition],
22.WHEREAS it is reasonable to conclude refusal by the ATF to approve the lawful transfer of an M4 machine gun to a member of the militia of the United States violates the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, as doing so prevents said militia member from obtaining common military arms to “keep and bear”,
23.WHEREAS lawfully purchasing arms from lawful manufacturers is inherently vital to the right to “keep and bear arms”, as it is unreasonable to expect militia members to build from scratch their own arms suitable for common military use,
24.WHEREAS violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution by an agency of the United States harms the security of the nation (to wit “a free state”) by denying members of the militia of the United States the right to lawfully obtain, by purchase and transfer with appropriate paperwork and tax payments, common military arms such as the M4 machine gun,
25.PLAINTIFF PLEADS the court find the ATF in violation of the Constitution and laws properly passed by Congress, due to the ATF's categorical refusal to authorize transfer of an M4 machine gun to plaintiff in accordance with [NFA law], US Code Title 18 Section 922(o)(2)(A), and the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution,
26.PLAINTIFF PLEADS the court direct the ATF to approve plaintiff's application to receive transfer of M4 machine gun serial number _________, upon submission of appropriate paperwork and payment of tax, and with ATF acting as the authorizing agency specified in US Code Title 18 Section 922(o)(2)(A),
27.WHEREAS if ATF's refusal to register machine guns manufactured after 1986 is found in compliance with US Code, then US Code Title 18 Section 922(o)(1) itself prohibits lawful members of the militia of the United States, as declared by act of Congress, from owning current arms suitable for militia use,
28.WHEREAS laws contravening a militia member's 2nd Amendment right keep and bear arms, particularly those common in modern military use per US vs. Miller, and that the right to keep and bear arms presumes the right to lawfully obtain said arms from a manufacturer thereof, must then be contrary to the Constitution and are thus invalid per _[unconstitutional laws are invalid]_,
29. PLAINTIFF PLEADS the court overturn US Code Title 18 Section 922(o) as irretrievably contrary to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution,
30.WHEREAS _[NFA law]_ was instituted by Congress as a taxation mechanism, taxing (among other types of firearms) machine guns,
31.WHEREAS __________ found _[NFA law]_ Constitutional solely because said law operates as revenue-gathering taxation, and specifically not Constitutional as a prohibition,
32.WHEREAS US Code Title 18 Section 922(o) bans ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1986, eliminating the taxation justification of a significant portion of the _[NFA law]_,
33.WHEREAS lacking the taxation justification for the post-1986-manufactured applicability of the [NFA law], [NFA law] exists only as a prohibition which, as noted in _________ (see #31), is not a Constitutional justification and thus is unconstitutional,
34.PLAINTIFF PLEADS that the court overturn [NFA law], at least as relates to taxation of machine guns manufactured after 1986, as no longer having a legitimate claim as a taxation mechanism, and as outright prohibition of transfer of machine guns manufactured after 1986 to lawful citizens and members of the militia of the United States is not authorized to Congress by the Constitution, and is indeed denied to Congress by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Thoughts?
