New MGs legal for Oklahomans to own?

[Koshinn]

Ok I know I'm 20 yrs late to the party, but:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15990839115637936483&hl=en&as_sdt=0,37&sciodt=0,37

U.S. v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir.1992)

I don't have access to Westlaw or LN so I have no idea if this has been overturned, but cert was denied and I know other circuits flat out don't follow the 10th.

If it hasn't been overturned, that means we can legally make new MGs in OK...

 

[Phildo64]

That would be SO awesome!

 

[Nimaro]

I can't afford to feed my semi autos!

 

[Phildo64]

I can't afford to feed my semi autos!

BUZZ KILL! Damn, I miss prices last year I'm building my first AR and I ain't gotz no ammo....I'm a sad panda.

 

[Drebin]

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]

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.

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

 

[Koshinn]

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.

 

[AKguy1985]

Doesnt the 86 ban trump state law? I mean, federal trumps state law........right?

 

[jdgabbard]

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]

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."

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