Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
New MGs legal for Oklahomans to own?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Koshinn" data-source="post: 2126235" data-attributes="member: 18314"><p>Wait disregard. I don't think its valid for what I want to do.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>922(o) lacks the interstate commerce hook that 922(q) contains.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I really should sleep.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Koshinn, post: 2126235, member: 18314"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
New MGs legal for Oklahomans to own?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom