"At least unless coil guns, or some other technically-not-a-firearm invention, create facts on the ground faster than Congress can ban them."
I have not done any sort of detailed analysis of the physics involved, but I don't see any reason why a large-bore full auto airgun isn't possible. Paintball guns with this capability exist and have for some time. Replace the ball hopper with a magazine filled with literal 9mm bullets, and if you can get 1000 FPS at 800 RPM, you effectively have an air-powered MP5-SD.
Crossman is selling full auto airguns that will shoot 5 grain 17 cal bb's at 430fps and run on a pair of 12 gram co2 powerlets. I'm not an expert on high power airguns, but the high pressure air powered hunting air rifles will hit 1200 fps with up to 45cal 230 grain bullets for a couple dozen shots, so it's not completely unreasonable to have full auto air subguns that will be capable of short bursts of action.
Perhaps combine a small air tank with the feed mechanism in the mag body. Enough air to dump the mag semi or full, and when you change mags, you've changed air tanks.
I see reopening the registry to be less unlikely than you put forward. There's enough momentum behind the increasingly serious approach to the tax clause that I could see SCOTUS saying that the ATF has to at least let people buy stamps again.
Also, I just wouldn't be too certain of anything with guns, and that applies as much to potential backsliding as it does to unexpectedly swift progress. Thirty years ago we barely got the federal AWB to have a sunset clause, and I don't think anyone in 1994 would have believed you if you had told them that we'd have nationwide shall-issue CCWs and be on the threshold of assault weapons bans being ruled unconstitutional.
What do you make of the justices in Cargill seeming to say that they're basically fine with the machine gun ban but just think the ATF overstepped on administrative law?
The issue I could see the most headway on isn't the 2A protecting machine guns (even though it probably should), but that the Congress can't use its tax power in a way not intended to (and indeed, prevented from) raising revenue, a la US v. Butler and the Scalia/Kennedy/Alito/Thomas dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius.
I'd also separate "it would be constitutional for the Congress to amend the NFA's definition of a machine gun to include bump stocks" from "the NFA's ban on machine guns is constitutional", because the former is merely not giving any special protection to attachments/modifications to semi-automatic weapons (which obviously doesn't exist unless lightning links are privileged) versus the latter being an entirely different matter that hasn't been developed in front of SCOTUS.
Thirdly, writing a note in passing and writing an opinion persuasive enough to reach a majority are two very different things. I don't think it's possible to write an opinion that doesn't overturn Bruen completely or at least in practice, doesn't reopen the exact kind of tomfoolery the court is likely to need to correct in the next session with a Snope v. Brown opinion around things like the definition of arms, and doesn't protect at least fully automatic equivalents of otherwise protected weapons.
It's up to you to decide how you feel about that last point, I'll admit that I'm torn on the issue. I suppose it comes down largely to how genuinely formalist the court's commitment to the Bruen THT test is versus how much it was just a useful vehicle to get policy outcomes the justices wanted.
The rest of the NFA would be safe in that case. The problem from the Tax Clause angle isn't the stamps, it's the Hughes Amendment. Congress can definitely decide to tax something because they think it's bad, the issue crops up when they say something's illegal because you haven't paid a tax they refuse to collect.
Other than the parenthetical, doesn't "Congress can't use its tax power in a way not intended to (and indeed, prevented from) raising revenue, a la US v. Butler and the Scalia/Kennedy/Alito/Thomas dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius." apply to SBRs/silencers/AOWs?
I mean, that's exactly the argument against this line of reasoning. A world where Pigouvian taxation is unconstitutional is probably not a reasonable one.
Does anyone think that the federal government taxing cigarettes or alcohol at a rate intended to reduce their consumption is unconstitutional?
All that really needs to happen is for Hughes to get overturned, whether by a Congress, or by a legal argument that the Amendment prevents the government from actually taxing per the GCA or whatever.
Once the registry is opened for new production, full autos will become like suppressors, increasingly in "common use" as a new, for instance, Sten Gun would have a cost of production less than the Tax Stamp itself.
“What happens next in that case is that the government will appeal to the Tenth Circuit, which will almost certainly reverse the district court’s ruling.”
That’s a possibility. But also possible (and more likely) is a plea bargain that eliminates the government’s risk of an unfavorable ruling on appeal. It’s not impossible to imagine two judges on the Tenth Circuit who just might agree with Judge Broomes.
It’s also important to remember that rulings like US v. Morgan are the only practical way for red state judges to opine on the constitutionality of blue state assault weapon bans, as no red state government will ever enact one legislatively. More of these cases could help prod the Supreme Court to finally start hearing hardware ban cases. And who knows? It could also mark the beginning of the end of the Hughes Amendment.
Regarding this week's link: I have some hot takes on the cheap Chinese thermals vs US or European made options, it boils down to saving bucks and having questionable quality (I disagree that the Chinese offerings are more advanced) while also directly supporting an adversary nation if you're American. I just saved my money until I had enough to buy the fancy stuff it gave me more training time, and ultimately thermals and digital NVs that you'd get are additive to your regular capacities, they can't replace them. Also as a final thought, there won't be non-military contract manufacturers for American made NV or Thermals if there aren't civilian buyers for those products and the Chinese equivalents are propped up by subsidized and likely unsustainable manufacturing practices.
All for free choice, if people want to voluntarily only buy American.
Re government subsidies and undercutting, if China wants to spend large unprofitable sums arming American civilians with affordable gun accessories, that seems like a win-win for American security.
You're right that the Chinese offerings aren't more advanced overall. But in the low-to-mid market, their performance per dollar is hard to compete with. They used to be the country for cheap manufacturing, but now they're just the flat-out most skilled country at mass production. The world experts are centered there. Others are starting to nip at their heels, but they're going to keep that spot for a while longer.
"At least unless coil guns, or some other technically-not-a-firearm invention, create facts on the ground faster than Congress can ban them."
I have not done any sort of detailed analysis of the physics involved, but I don't see any reason why a large-bore full auto airgun isn't possible. Paintball guns with this capability exist and have for some time. Replace the ball hopper with a magazine filled with literal 9mm bullets, and if you can get 1000 FPS at 800 RPM, you effectively have an air-powered MP5-SD.
That would work legally, but the limiting factor is compressed air storage. You’d need either a huge tank or a continuously running compressor.
Crossman is selling full auto airguns that will shoot 5 grain 17 cal bb's at 430fps and run on a pair of 12 gram co2 powerlets. I'm not an expert on high power airguns, but the high pressure air powered hunting air rifles will hit 1200 fps with up to 45cal 230 grain bullets for a couple dozen shots, so it's not completely unreasonable to have full auto air subguns that will be capable of short bursts of action.
Perhaps combine a small air tank with the feed mechanism in the mag body. Enough air to dump the mag semi or full, and when you change mags, you've changed air tanks.
I see reopening the registry to be less unlikely than you put forward. There's enough momentum behind the increasingly serious approach to the tax clause that I could see SCOTUS saying that the ATF has to at least let people buy stamps again.
Also, I just wouldn't be too certain of anything with guns, and that applies as much to potential backsliding as it does to unexpectedly swift progress. Thirty years ago we barely got the federal AWB to have a sunset clause, and I don't think anyone in 1994 would have believed you if you had told them that we'd have nationwide shall-issue CCWs and be on the threshold of assault weapons bans being ruled unconstitutional.
What do you make of the justices in Cargill seeming to say that they're basically fine with the machine gun ban but just think the ATF overstepped on administrative law?
The issue I could see the most headway on isn't the 2A protecting machine guns (even though it probably should), but that the Congress can't use its tax power in a way not intended to (and indeed, prevented from) raising revenue, a la US v. Butler and the Scalia/Kennedy/Alito/Thomas dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius.
I'd also separate "it would be constitutional for the Congress to amend the NFA's definition of a machine gun to include bump stocks" from "the NFA's ban on machine guns is constitutional", because the former is merely not giving any special protection to attachments/modifications to semi-automatic weapons (which obviously doesn't exist unless lightning links are privileged) versus the latter being an entirely different matter that hasn't been developed in front of SCOTUS.
Thirdly, writing a note in passing and writing an opinion persuasive enough to reach a majority are two very different things. I don't think it's possible to write an opinion that doesn't overturn Bruen completely or at least in practice, doesn't reopen the exact kind of tomfoolery the court is likely to need to correct in the next session with a Snope v. Brown opinion around things like the definition of arms, and doesn't protect at least fully automatic equivalents of otherwise protected weapons.
It's up to you to decide how you feel about that last point, I'll admit that I'm torn on the issue. I suppose it comes down largely to how genuinely formalist the court's commitment to the Bruen THT test is versus how much it was just a useful vehicle to get policy outcomes the justices wanted.
Makes sense. On your last point, Thomas and Gorsuch are probably the only ones who are _that_ formalist.
It would be pretty interesting if the NFA was struck down on that basis. Don't see Congress re-applying it to SBRs and suppressors.
The rest of the NFA would be safe in that case. The problem from the Tax Clause angle isn't the stamps, it's the Hughes Amendment. Congress can definitely decide to tax something because they think it's bad, the issue crops up when they say something's illegal because you haven't paid a tax they refuse to collect.
Other than the parenthetical, doesn't "Congress can't use its tax power in a way not intended to (and indeed, prevented from) raising revenue, a la US v. Butler and the Scalia/Kennedy/Alito/Thomas dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius." apply to SBRs/silencers/AOWs?
I mean, that's exactly the argument against this line of reasoning. A world where Pigouvian taxation is unconstitutional is probably not a reasonable one.
Does anyone think that the federal government taxing cigarettes or alcohol at a rate intended to reduce their consumption is unconstitutional?
All that really needs to happen is for Hughes to get overturned, whether by a Congress, or by a legal argument that the Amendment prevents the government from actually taxing per the GCA or whatever.
Once the registry is opened for new production, full autos will become like suppressors, increasingly in "common use" as a new, for instance, Sten Gun would have a cost of production less than the Tax Stamp itself.
“What happens next in that case is that the government will appeal to the Tenth Circuit, which will almost certainly reverse the district court’s ruling.”
That’s a possibility. But also possible (and more likely) is a plea bargain that eliminates the government’s risk of an unfavorable ruling on appeal. It’s not impossible to imagine two judges on the Tenth Circuit who just might agree with Judge Broomes.
It’s also important to remember that rulings like US v. Morgan are the only practical way for red state judges to opine on the constitutionality of blue state assault weapon bans, as no red state government will ever enact one legislatively. More of these cases could help prod the Supreme Court to finally start hearing hardware ban cases. And who knows? It could also mark the beginning of the end of the Hughes Amendment.
Regarding this week's link: I have some hot takes on the cheap Chinese thermals vs US or European made options, it boils down to saving bucks and having questionable quality (I disagree that the Chinese offerings are more advanced) while also directly supporting an adversary nation if you're American. I just saved my money until I had enough to buy the fancy stuff it gave me more training time, and ultimately thermals and digital NVs that you'd get are additive to your regular capacities, they can't replace them. Also as a final thought, there won't be non-military contract manufacturers for American made NV or Thermals if there aren't civilian buyers for those products and the Chinese equivalents are propped up by subsidized and likely unsustainable manufacturing practices.
All for free choice, if people want to voluntarily only buy American.
Re government subsidies and undercutting, if China wants to spend large unprofitable sums arming American civilians with affordable gun accessories, that seems like a win-win for American security.
You're right that the Chinese offerings aren't more advanced overall. But in the low-to-mid market, their performance per dollar is hard to compete with. They used to be the country for cheap manufacturing, but now they're just the flat-out most skilled country at mass production. The world experts are centered there. Others are starting to nip at their heels, but they're going to keep that spot for a while longer.