jkh@jade.UUCP (12/11/86)
It appears that Douglas Oefinger's suit to challenge the constitutionality of the machine gun ban has been dismissed on a technicality: the regulations had not been published in the Federal Register at the time the suit was filed. This means Oefinger has to appeal the ruling. I recall a similar court case against the Gun Control Act of 1968. Then, as now, the NRA supplied "moral" support. The rest is history. Please notice that the only people concerned about the machine gun ban are Hollywood weapon supply houses and concerned individuals. You might wonder where the "gun lobby" is. The answer is that retail sales of machine guns to civilians is not the most lucrative market. There is no reason for government contractors ( take Colt, for example ) to complain, much less take legal action, since the law really does not affect income. Don't bite the government hand that feeds you. Likewise, class III dealers are generally satisfied with the new law. They have effectively become machine gun "brokers" in the sense that they can now charge incredible prices for selling the limited supply of registered machine guns. In effect, they have been bought off much the same way that gun dealers in general were bought off when the GCA '68 banned mail order sales. Why fight a law that is helping your business? So what, if, in the long run, the Second Amendment is further destroyed? Business is business. Expect this court challenge to be as effective as the challenge against the handgun ban enacted in Morton Grove, IL. These legal battles are very expense and there is nothing to compel the courts to uphold the Constitution except moral persuasion. It is obvious what the Founding Fathers would have done if such a law were enacted in the 1790's. Imagine what they would have said about banning "armor-piercing" bullets! Times have changed..... Jon Kaplowitz cbosgd!erc3ba!jfka