Gun rights question...the odds of winning in court?

Question

Gun rights question...the odds of winning in court?

Answer 1

You would lose.

The Supreme court judgements in DC v. Helller & Chicago v. Miller left open wiggle room for "reasonable" restrictions. You can buy one made pre 1986. That would be seen as reasonable.

Answer 2

you'd be better off working directly with the NRA, they'd have the power to push this through the courts much easier then a single person. better to be many with little then one with a lot when looking at constitutional challenges, gives more of a feel that it'll effect many people, not just a snobby rich guy.

Answer 3

You’re still alive! Never dreamed I would miss you but you’re a breath of fresh air compared to the trolls we have now!



Chance of winning a case like that? About the same as a snow ball in hell. Fact is its all about words and their meaning according to law. Infringed has new meaning thanks to some legal beagles. In fact if you brought back to life all the men who signed the constitution of the USA they would not be allowed on the senate floor, in the white house or any place proper identification is required. They don’t even have a SSI number! Most of them would be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. All of them would go on the potential domestic terrorist list. The media would crucify them as gun hugging right wing extremists. Some would be arrested and charged for owning slaves. All of them would be deported for no proof of citizenship. If they publicly spoke up they would be arrested for inciting a riot and for not having a permit for that gathering from the city. Some of them would be arrested for possession of controlled substances (yes some used drugs that are now illegal). They would probably be dragged off by the Feds and denied a lawyer or due process while they interrogated them. Al Sharpton would call for some of their deaths because they owned slaves. Riots would break out as constitutionalists clashed with progressive liberalists and communists. If they did allow them to a congressional hearing Im sure some of our forefathers would shoot to death a few congressmen or at the very least beat their @ss. And after they figured out what America turned into everyone of them would be disgusted.



Infringed;

transitive and intransitive verb to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way

Answer 4

EC is right. You need standing. Basically, you need to be charged with violating the law and then assert the defense that the law is unconstitutional. The smart money would be on you losing and being convicted.

Answer 5

If your case was good, you wouldn't have to put up your own money for the cost of going to court. In the leadup to the DC v. Heller case, the lawsuit was actually financed by the attorney himself (a Libertarian named Robert Levy who doesn't actually own guns). Not all of us law types are money-grubbing evil doers after all. And some of us like to shoot just as much as everyone else (plus it's good business to get yourself attached to a famous case).



The problem is that you lack a legal status called "standing", and you need standing to get in front of a court. This was addressed in DC v. Heller (well before it was called "DC v. Heller") back when it was in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Then there were 5 other plaintiffs in addition to Heller. Obviously those 5 didn't make it to the Supreme Court of the US in the famous case.



Why? Because they lacked "standing". The Court of Appeals figured that in order to have standing you need to have been injured by something. They figured that only Heller had standing because his application was denied. The other 5 lacked standing because they had never applied for a permit. Just wanting to have a gun and not getting it didn't count as an injury.



So in your case a likely outcome would be that you'd drag your lawyer to court, and they'd ask you if you'd been denied a machinegun. You'd say that you hadn't been denied one, it's just that they're hard to get. And the court would decide that you hadn't suffered enough injury to get standing and dismiss your case.



Well in reality your lawyer would have figured all this out when he pre-interviewed you in his office, but it's more fun to imagine a judge saying it.



Keep up the spirit though!



EDIT- By the way, the type of suit you're thinking of falls into a category called "impact litigation". This means that the case is brought with the primary goal of changing the way the law is interpreted for a lot of people (unlike disputing a traffic ticket for example). While impact litigation is very exciting, it can also be very dangerous. If you lose your case at a high enough level, then you set up a really bad interpretation of the law. For example, say you did make it to SCOTUS and they ruled that machinegun bans are in fact Constitutional. Then we'd have that as a law for at least a very long time (SCOTUS rarely overturns itself).



So when lawyers take these cases, they want everything to be PERFECT. They pick the person(s) who would look best on the stand. The original cast of Heller included an anti-narcotic nurse, a gay man, a government employee, a lawyer, and a police officer. And even then the NRA wasn't too supportive of Heller in the beginning because they thought there was a good chance that Heller might lose.



Lawyers will also make sure that the time is right to bring the case. This might be based on the number of Justices that are friendly to the cause (right now it's 50-50 with Justice Kennedy in the middle). Or if might be based on the majority national stance on the issue. But bringing a case at the wrong time can be disastrous.

Answer 6

I wish you luck. I don't know if you can win, but I'd you we're to do this, sooner is better than later. Do it before the current administration appoint another liberal Supreme Court justice.

Answer 7

The answer is zero. Here is an example that will show you how corrupt our justice system is.



How many treaties did the federal government sign with the Native American tribes?

In: Native American History, Cherokee Indians, Treaties

Answer:



Over the centuries, there were thousands of treaties and agreements negotiated with the various tribes by the United States government. It is more important to understand that not a single one was ever honored and never broken. Most of the time, although quite often made in earnest, there was never any intent upon honoring the treaties by the government.



I believe that the above will show you the futility of going to court against the Federal government.

Answer 8

Be hard to win for the simple reason The Government has unlimited amounts of money to fight you in court You as a person have a limited amount of money. Money talks BS walks

Answer 9

You would have a fairly good chance of winning. Remember when the case of DC vs Heller came to light, all the liberal gun control bigots claimed the Supreme Court would never rule for the rights of the Second Amendment, but they did. They just didn't go far enough, but they may the next time.



One of our fore father once said:



The peoples swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe Feb. 20, 1788.



That covers all fully automatic firearms and all other terrible instrument of the soldier. We just have to keep the liberal gun control bigots off the bench, so they can ignore this fact.











@ SSP Bowl Dude. Hey dude, show us all where it says in the Second Amendment that we can only own firearms for hunting or protection? You liberal gun control bigots are always bringing up the militia in the first part of the Second Amendment, so the Second Amendment covers the protection of this country as well as hunting and self protection, so how are we suppose to help protect this great nation with inferior weapons such as only semi automatics?

Answer 10

The one thing you have to realize about goverment is that they set the rules (laws). Legal and right is what they say it is, and this is subject to change anytime they will it.

Answer 11

NFA (National Firearms Act)





Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.

It is a common misconception[13] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:



All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[14] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents. There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include; Lomont v. O'Neill 2002 9th circuit, Westfall v. Miller 1996 5th circuit, and Steele v. National Firearms Branch 1985 11th circuit. In response Tennessee and Alaska have passed state laws which require the CLEO to execute the NFA documents. On October 28, 2010 in response to a writ of mandamus a Tennessee Williamson County Chancellor Robbie Beal found that the sheriff or CLEO is not required to execute NFA documents according to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1361.

“Hughes Amendment”?



Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.



Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, [he] ignored a plea to take a recorded vote, and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment was passed.[5]



Back to the Free Republic post:



Several days ago, an associate of mine secured a copy of the audio/video of the committee hearings run by Charlie Rangel where this law was passed out to Congress. Rumor insisted that there were shenanigans concerning the passage of the Hughes Amendment but we never had the factual data to back it up. Now, we do…To put it bluntly, the Hughes Amendment never passed and is a bogus law.

See The Video...

http://www.examiner.com/video/fopa-hughes-amendment-vote-april-10-1986

Answer 12

You'd have an easier time petitioning Congress to overturn various gun control laws. That's what recently happened in DC. Washington Times editor Emily Miller was victimized in DC, and sought to purchase a pistol for home defense.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/



It's a very long read, but well worth it.



She wrote for many weeks on the difficulties she faced when trying to legally own a handgun for a legal purpose in a place where the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal. She eventually went before DC City Council and testified, which led to a slight relaxing of gun control laws. Not a huge win for the 2nd Amendment, but a win nonetheless. Heck, she even got a Democrat from the DC City Council to go shooting with her, and he had a great time.



While lawsuits might work in some situations, gun control is probably not the best time to use one. I'd suggest that you work with your congressmen or congresswomen and seek to repeal gun control laws, if you're serious about this. If your district's lawmakers are idio... I mean LIBERALS, go speak to lawmakers from other districts and seek to have your lawmakers voted out.



EDIT: If you listen to what dca tells you to do, expect to find yourself in a nice federal hotel with bars on the windows and a guy named "Dumptruck" in the shower. Just because you think a law doesn't apply to you doesn't mean you go break the law. Civil disobedience is all well and good, but you do have to face the consequences of your actions. Don't be stupid.

Answer 13

Not very good at all. In fact you unless you were a complete idiot and willing to pay an attorney an ungodly amount of money, most would probably decline to take the case to begin with. I say this because not allowing machine guns is not violating our right to bear arms because we still have that right to bear semi automatic guns. So we still have the 2nd amendment right but they can put restrictions on that right, such as not allowing typical citizens to have or possess machine guns. But we are allowed and able to purchase any other type of weapon as long as it is semi automatic, so they are not really violating your 2nd amendment rights (you can actually apply for a machine gun license/permit but typically only police and military personnel are granted them).

Answer 14

* Don't you realize that you do not have to go through the effort, time, expense, any trial, or court, sue anyone, and that you do not need any ones approval, or permission before you can Exercise your Natural innate God Given Right of Self-defense, and Your 2nd Amendment Right to choose whatever gun you want to in order to Protect and Defend yourself against grievous Bodily Injury, or Death thanks to Our Founding Fathers.* " Only a Criminal, Tyrant, or a Tyrannical Federal, State, County, or Local Government is Afraid of the U. S. Constitutional Patriotic Law abiding American Citizen."...All you ever needed to do was to Freely Exercise Your 2nd Amendment Right period.* The 2nd Amendment was, and is your Lifetime Gun Permit.*... " Keep Freedom and Liberty Alive; Resist Tyranny by Exercising Your 2nd Amendment Right."... " Guns are what Freedom and Liberty is derived from and held onto with...not the Ballot Box."..." Just try Living Free in America Without Your Guns and Your Ammo; I Dare You...You might as well be Dead."... " Don't call us " Gun Nuts " with a Government like ours we'd be " Nuts " not to have Guns."... " Liberty or Death."... " Death for the cause of Freedom and Liberty does not make us True Patriots shudder."..." The U. S. Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to Restrain the People; It is an instrument for the People to Restrain their Government."..." Live Free or Die."...Don't you realize you have already won? You don't have to do anything except; " Live and Exercise the U. S. Constitution according to the way it was established, and written."..." Legal and Right is not what the Government or SCOTUS says it is; its what the U. S. Constitution says it is."...

Answer 15

Pretty slim. I called NRA a while back about getting some bans lifted/eased (not your ban), they said no way with Obama in. They said they do care about getting restrictions lifted, but it would be wholly impractical, a waste of their time and resources, until known gun friendlies are in the legislature.

Answer 16

the correct answer here is that it is not illegal to own post ban fully auto weapons. you just have to go through the proper channels to get one and if you wanted to contest the constitutionality of having to go through those channels you would not even get a lawyer to take the case let alone a judge.

Answer 17

The Supreme Court only hears the cases it chooses to hear. If they thought your case was interesting enough to spend their time on-then maybe 50/50. If it was hopeless, they wouldn't bother with it at all.

Answer 18

I would like 2 see somebody try but i dont think you would get 2 far

Answer 19

Slim to none. The court would apply the doctrine of reasonable person. Basically, a machine is nit necessary for hunting or protection. A reasonable person does not therefore need a machine gun.