The definition of machinegun in the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act includes a part or parts that are designed [note #1] and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun. This language includes a device that, when activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.
ATF Rul. 2006-2
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been asked by several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire [note #2] of a semiautomatic firearm. These devices, when attached to a firearm, result in the firearm discharging more than one shot with a single function of the trigger. ATF has been asked whether these devices fall within the definition of machinegun under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). As explained herein, these devices, once activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiate an automatic firing cycle which continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. Accordingly, these devices are properly classified as a part “designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun” and therefore machineguns under the NFA and GCA.
The National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, defines the term “firearm” to include a machinegun. Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots [note #3], is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended [note #4], for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, defines machinegun identically to the NFA. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23).
"... a part or parts that are designed [note #1] and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun.
' ... exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire [note #2] of a semiautomatic firearm".Note #3:
' ...defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots [note #3], is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'That is, whether the subject weapon has been 'designed to shoot' or 'can be readily restored to shoot' in a (full-auto) mode, if it DOES shoot more than one shot per trigger pull, it is a "machinegun" even if you don't want it to so function.
The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended [note #4], for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun ....
SECTION 5.Said article is further amended by revising paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Code Section 16-11-127.1, relating to carrying weapons within school safety zones, at school functions, or on school property, as follows:"(1) 'School safety zone' means in, on, or within 1,000 feet of any real property owned by or leased to any public or private elementary school, secondary school, or school board and used for elementary or secondary education and in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the campus of any public or private technical school, vocational school, college, university, or institution of postsecondary education."
For Immediate Release: 1/9/2008
In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.
“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,” said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.”
SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.
In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.
“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,” Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.
“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers’ money,” he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.
“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals
Fairfax, VA – The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.
In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.
“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”
Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.
Wheeling your dead room-mate in a wheelchair in front of a check-cashing station and trying to cash his social security check at the same place where Dead Friend was personally known, on the grounds that "he's right out there, dude!" while a crowd (including a policeman) gathered about to comment on the obvious corpse.
"Townships should demand to be paid for use of areas in the coastal zone... [t]here's a lot of pressure on use of the seas, and there's a need to regulate it. A tax can inspire the townships to improve coastal resources, because they'd get paid for it."
("They want to impose a new tax on use of coastal waters, a proposal that would put an additional tax burden on such core Norwegian businesses as seafood production and offshore operations.")
An (unidentified) member of The Unofficial IPSC List said:
To assure the town that we were totally committed to public safety, our board of directors invited the NRA's range team to come and give us an assessment.
Huge mistake. After they were done, our 200 yard range became a 100 yard range and if they could have it their way, they would have us all shooting through cement pipes that went all the way to the targets.
That experience seems fairly typical, in the context of my experience that most shooting ranges are willing to make extraordinary efforts to be 'good neighbors'.
Karl Rehn said:
Unfortunately that's pretty typical of the NRA Range dept's "help" to IPSC clubs.
Years ago I was a member of an IPSC club that bought land and built a nice range that was going to be a club-owned permanent facility with enough berms to run a major match including 200 yd rifle stages.
The state had recently passed a law mandating that all ranges in counties with a population over 100K comply with the NRA Range Manual -- which was a terrible law because the NRA Range Manual does not define standards for ranges.
The neighbors sued us and the judge in our county (less than 100K residents) decided that if the law was good for big counties it should apply to us too.
The NRA sent a guy that had never shot IPSC and had never seen an IPSC match. His only shooting experience was bird hunting with a shotgun in an open field.
His recommendations, if implemented, would have made it impossible to run any kind of practical shooting event.
During that period neighbors were trespassing - bringing TV news crews onto our property, and someone vandalized a bulldozer on the property.
The club went bankrupt, lost the range and sold the land to one of the neighbors that was suing us.
The only good thing that came from the case was that the state Attorney General reviewed the NRA Range Manual law and basically struck it down. That was important later when the CHL law passed and lots of little one-berm private ranges got built and certified by the state as "safe" to run the CHL shooting test.
An IDPA range in the area was vandalized a few years ago. One night someone came in, started up the bulldozer and drove it over all the props.
We did get a statewide range protection bill passed, around the time CHL passed, that provides ranges some protection against complaints about noise from those that move into an area where a range has been operational.
When I built my private range our main downrange neighbor complained about noise -- all the way to the state police firearms training unit who certifies ranges for CHL classes.
The neighbor was told that our range complied with all state laws and that he basically just had to tolerate the noise. His complaint occurred on a Sunday morning on the 3rd day of a multi-day rifle class. Since then we have stuck to mostly pistol shooting with limited long gun shooting and limited Sunday morning shooting and we've had no more complaints from neighbors.
Karl
