New MGs legal for Oklahomans to own?

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Koshinn

Koshinn

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
553
Reaction score
0
Location
Altus
Last edited:
D

Drebin

Sharpshooter
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Location
Sand Springs
Give it a try bro! If it works for you I might just do it too but I won't be first. Hell I'd even register and pay they tax if I had to but they won't even let us do that the bastards.
 
Koshinn

Koshinn

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
553
Reaction score
0
Location
Altus
Drebin said:
Give it a try bro! If it works for you I might just do it too but I won't be first. Hell I'd even register and pay they tax if I had to but they won't even let us do that the bastards.
Click to expand...

That's the crux of the argument, its legally impossible to register a new MG.
 
Last edited:
Koshinn

Koshinn

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
553
Reaction score
0
Location
Altus
Wait disregard. I don't think its valid for what I want to do.

It's late at night, but rereading Dalton for the 3rd time, I missed that the feds only charged him under the NFA, but not under 922(o). If they had, they probably would have succeeded. But 922(o) must then rely on interstate commerce instead of taxation like the NFA.

922(o) lacks the interstate commerce hook that 922(q) contains.
Would that make 922(o) unconstitutional in the same way that 922(q), the GFSZA, was found unconstitutional until the addition of the commerce clause hook? If it was, it would probably make Dalton moot in the process, but just thinking out loud at 230am.

I know US v Stewart said 922o was ok, but that's 9th and no one likes the 9th. Also its based on Wickard and Raich which assume that the maker/farmer needs the wheat or marijuana, and if he can't grow it for personal use, he'll get it from interstate commerce, thus personal growing affects interstate commerce in. MGs are not a "need" in the sense that if I don't have one, ill die from back spasms or my livestock will starve. So the idea that if I can't make one for myself legally means that I'll buy one illegally across state lines is flawed because it I can't make one legally, I am not going to become a felon. So me making a MG does not deprive the illegal interstate machine gun black market of a sale.

I really should sleep.
 
Last edited:
jdgabbard

jdgabbard

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
409
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
Only if it's constitutional, and in order to do that it has to be over a power specifically given, or be a matter of interstate commerce. The is what was going on with the (montana?) law a while back that said "if we build it here, and it doesn't leave, you cannot say it is interstate commerce, and thus is legal." But I believe the USC said "Yeah, but not in this case."
 
Koshinn

Koshinn

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
553
Reaction score
0
Location
Altus
jdgabbard said:
Only if it's constitutional, and in order to do that it has to be over a power specifically given, or be a matter of interstate commerce. The is what was going on with the (montana?) law a while back that said "if we build it here, and it doesn't leave, you cannot say it is interstate commerce, and thus is legal." But I believe the USC said "Yeah, but not in this case."
Click to expand...

The Montana case is at the appeal court level right now, the supreme court has not heard their case yet.
 

Similar threads

Dave70968
Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Police in Major Fourth Amendment Case, Eliminates Provocation Doctrine
2 3
Replies
21
Views
2K
Glocktogo
Glocktogo
Desperado DLX

Latest posts

Top Bottom