Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
My question to you is how is the part of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, that bans the civilian ownership and transfer of fully automatic firearms manufactured after 1968 constitutional? The second amendment clearly states "shall not infringe", now you can say that the NFA Act is possibly unconstitutional as well but seems to more or less fall under the governments right to tax, but the FOP Act seems to clearly violate the constitution. I want you to put your political (left or right) feelings aside and take this from a strictly constitutional stand point and give arguments as to wether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. If you need references to the act here is the bill summary http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&
Also share your feelings on the NFA act, because the right to tax is one thing, and 200$(although it was back in 1934)is not enormous today but it is a pain, however can you say that the wait time from the BATFE of 6-12 months is not an infringement on your rights?
Thanks,
-Chris
Re: Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
This is a legal forum, to assist people with problems. I have provided a link to the NRA website for questions regarding gun ownership laws.
https://www.nraila.org/secure/contact-us.aspx
Re: Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
If this is homework rather than just trying to incite arguments on the forum, I'd suggest your teacher wanted you to actually research the case law rather than just taking word of mouth stuff off internet forums. That law has been found in part to be unconstitutional.
I'd start with US v. Rock Island Armory.
Re: Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
Assuming this isn't a homework assignment and that you aren't an internet troll inciting an argument all I can say is:
Have you been living under a rock for the last coulple of years?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to individuals but allows reasonable regulation of firearms.
See DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.
As for the NFA, if you don't like it you are welcome to put up a few hundred thousand dollars of your money and take the matter up to the Supreme Court.
Re: Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
This is not a homework assignment. It seems to me like the banning a firearm seems to fall under the "shall not infringe" category. So regulation is one thing but banning is another. How is that not unconstitutional?
Re: Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
Because firearms aren't being banned broadly, only an extreme version, the full autos. Similar to jurisdictions baning pit bulls not being the same as telling people they can't have a dog, or putting speed limits on highways doesn't mean you can't drive, or bag limits or restrictions on certain fish doesn't make fishing poles useless, etc.
Re: Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986
Further, regulating the sale of weapons is different than the right to possess something. There's a good reason why the FEDERAL statutes are almost always restrictions on transfer rather than possession. Heller strikes down arcane laws on what you have to do to legally possess a gun in DC.
It's still near impossible to legally purchase a gun in DC. Rock Island, while only being currently binding in the district it was decided in, gives an insight into the judicial thinking on the FOPA restrictions you are talking about.