Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA


I Will File A Form 4 With The BATFE For A Post 5/19/1986 F/A Weapon In...

  • District 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • District 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • District 3

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • District 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • District 5

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • District 6

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • District 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • District 8

    Votes: 2 15.4%
  • District 9

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • District 10

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • District 11

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13

Bohemian

New member
Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA

Pursuant to:
Link Removed

And:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...078-gun-bans-dont-think-can-happen-watch.html

And:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...ology-common-use-firearm-weapon-criteria.html

And:
Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s failure to keep their word, and the failure of GOA, SAF and JPFO, Guns & Ammo Magazine, et.al. to do anything whatsoever… Moreover, the continued compromising of the Second Amendment by Alan Gura Esq.

Further:
The suggestion of our fellow forum member “Unfettered Might” to get more action on this…

The purpose of this new thread is to at a national level coordinate the filing of multiple BATFE Form 4 or BATFE Form 1 applications for post May 19th, 1986 select fire f/a weapons, via our local Class III dealers; in order to be denied by the BATFE, so that we may at minimum challenge the 2nd, 5th, amendment constitutionality of Hughes Amendment #777 to the so-called FOPA of 1986, AKA: S.B. 49, H.R. 4332 99th Congress, USC 18 922(o), Public Law No 99-308.
Link Removed

Besides spreading this info to the ends of the earth via word of mouth and the internet...
Initially all that is required of you and as many other supporters of the Unabridged Second Amendment as you can muster; is to be a law-abiding U.S. Citizen, no skeletons in your closet, file the BATFE Form 4 (OR BATFE FORM 1) via your local Class III dealer and pay the $200.00 tax which is refundable upon denial.
Form 4:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf
Form 1:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf

The poll is to let us all know when we have ALL the 9 applicable federal courts covered.
Court Locator

Once we have reached that milestone, we can circle up via pm/otherwise and coordinate the concurrent/simultaneous BATFE Form 4 (OR BATFE FORM 1) filings.

Once we have all received our denials, we will begin phase II, challenging the denial(s) in court, also on a concurrent/simultaneous basis. (Circling up via pm/otherwise and coordinating this effort).

At that point perhaps Wayne LaPierre, the NRA will finally keep their word and step up to the plate; and GOA, SAF, JPFO, Guns & Ammo Magazine, et.al. will get off their collective arses and bring some more clout into the fight.

With so-many of us being various tea party members, or knowing tea party members, it would be great to get that kind of national support, as this abomination is yet another side effect of out of control, unchecked big government...

80 Million & Counting Firearm Owners of 270 Million & Counting Firearms in the U.S... WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN !

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams
 

Unfettered Might

Μολών λαβ&
First one in district 6, yay!!:biggrin:

With the wordings already established in The US Court of Appeals for the DC area and their decision to overturn the DC ban on constitutional grounds;
The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

The final decision by the SCOTUS affirming the Court of Appeals decision on the case;

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with, but does not detract from, the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

The reason I point out the areas in bold is that if we are to ever face a tyrannical government, if the military were to ever fail to keep our borders secure and we have to stop a foreign invader, should we not be equally armed?

This is what our forefathers intended, they were smart enough to know that technology would advance, hence only using the word "arms" in the text of the 2A. They meant ALL weapons. they intended for us to be equally armed in order to fight any enemy foreign and domestic.
 

Midnight

New member
I'm in. I'm in Tennessee, which falls under the 6th District.

Will someone explain to me in layman's terms exactly how one gets denied with this form? I have a spotless record, but don't understand what the process of this movement is. Are we going to Class III dealers and trying to obtain weapons that are clearly prohibited by NFA or something?
 

Bohemian

New member
I'm in. I'm in Tennessee, which falls under the 6th District.

Will someone explain to me in layman's terms exactly how one gets denied with this form? I have a spotless record, but don't understand what the process of this movement is. Are we going to Class III dealers and trying to obtain weapons that are clearly prohibited by NFA or something?

fill it out and submit it to the BATFE via your local class III dealer and you will be denied...

we will use that denial to appeal the constitutionality of the 1986 FOPA ...

very similar to what Heller did when he took D.C. to SCOTUS...

you have to be impacted by a law before you can challenge it...

this is a way to challenge the law without breaking it...

make sense?
 

Midnight

New member
fill it out and submit it to the BATFE via your local class III dealer and you will be denied...

we will use that denial to appeal the constitutionality of the 1986 FOPA ...

very similar to what Heller did when he took D.C. to SCOTUS...

you have to be impacted by a law before you can challenge it...

this is a way to challenge the law without breaking it...

make sense?

No, I get what you're saying. What I don't get is how I'll be denied if I fit the criteria for approval, which I do. I also don't understand why firearms I'll be "transferring" since I have no intention of buying any NFA weapons right now. If I don't have a weapon to file, then do I just leave that part of the application blank or what?
 

Bohemian

New member
No, I get what you're saying. What I don't get is how I'll be denied if I fit the criteria for approval, which I do. I also don't understand why firearms I'll be "transferring" since I have no intention of buying any NFA weapons right now. If I don't have a weapon to file, then do I just leave that part of the application blank or what?

Nobody will fit the criteria for approval that is not a Law Enforcement Officer, Military or a Politician...

You are requesting approval for something that you have 100% chance of being denied...

Take up the conversation with your local Class III dealer, and where we are trying to go with this, you have to be approved by the BATFE before he can take your money for the weapon...
 

Bohemian

New member
Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA

Pursuant to:
Link Removed

And:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...078-gun-bans-dont-think-can-happen-watch.html

And:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...ology-common-use-firearm-weapon-criteria.html

And:
Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s failure to keep their word, and the failure of GOA, SAF and JPFO, Guns & Ammo Magazine, et.al. to do anything whatsoever… Moreover, the continued compromising of the Second Amendment by Alan Gura Esq.

Further:
The suggestion of our fellow forum member “Unfettered Might” to get more action on this…

The purpose of this new thread is to at a national level coordinate the filing of multiple BATFE Form 4 or BATFE Form 1 applications for post May 19th, 1986 select fire f/a weapons, via our local Class III dealers; in order to be denied by the BATFE, so that we may at minimum challenge the 2nd, 5th, amendment constitutionality of Hughes Amendment #777 to the so-called FOPA of 1986, AKA: S.B. 49, H.R. 4332 99th Congress, USC 18 922(o), Public Law No 99-308.
Link Removed

Besides spreading this info to the ends of the earth via word of mouth and the internet...
Initially all that is required of you and as many other supporters of the Unabridged Second Amendment as you can muster; is to be a law-abiding U.S. Citizen, no skeletons in your closet, file the BATFE Form 4 (OR BATFE FORM 1) via your local Class III dealer and pay the $200.00 tax which is refundable upon denial.
Form 4:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf
Form 1:
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf

The poll is to let us all know when we have ALL the 9 applicable federal courts covered.
Court Locator

Once we have reached that milestone, we can circle up via pm/otherwise and coordinate the concurrent/simultaneous BATFE Form 4 (OR BATFE FORM 1) filings.

Once we have all received our denials, we will begin phase II, challenging the denial(s) in court, also on a concurrent/simultaneous basis. (Circling up via pm/otherwise and coordinating this effort).

At that point perhaps Wayne LaPierre, the NRA will finally keep their word and step up to the plate; and GOA, SAF, JPFO, Guns & Ammo Magazine, et.al. will get off their collective arses and bring some more clout into the fight.

With so-many of us being various tea party members, or knowing tea party members, it would be great to get that kind of national support, as this abomination is yet another side effect of out of control, unchecked big government...

80 Million & Counting Firearm Owners of 270 Million & Counting Firearms in the U.S... WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN !

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams

Just a heads up folks, please note, we want to make sure we have 2 (Personally I'd like to see a 100 or more, but a few in each district will do) or more people in each district covered before we all file (BATFE FORM 1 OR BATFE FORM 4) concurrently/simultaneously which we will coordinate from here...

Will advise.

Spread the word...

If anybody is a member of the ar15 forum aforesaid, please post a link from there to here, on the applicable thread therein; I am having trouble registering there at the moment...
 

motoguy

New member
If anybody is a member of the ar15 forum aforesaid, please post a link from there to here, on the applicable thread therein; I am having trouble registering there at the moment...

Link to this thread is located in the first post over at ar15.com. That's how I made it here. ;)

The link above should take you to the ar15.com discussion. ar15.com shouldn't require registration to view / read, but does require registration to post.

Also, what's the status of the legal team? Have is already been established? Is the legal game plan already established, and simply looking for "injured parties", etc?
 

motoguy

New member
I've been told the link above may have trouble working. Here's the link you can copy / paste into your browser, if you wish:

"www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1051358&page=1"
 

Unfettered Might

Μολών λαβ&
Just a heads up folks, please note, we want to make sure we have 2 (Personally I'd like to see a 100 or more, but a few in each district will do) or more people in each district covered before we all file (BATFE FORM 1 OR BATFE FORM 4) concurrently/simultaneously which we will coordinate from here...

Will advise.

Spread the word...

If anybody is a member of the ar15 forum aforesaid, please post a link from there to here, on the applicable thread therein; I am having trouble registering there at the moment...

Already taken care of. I spread the link around quite a bit last night, I've got a few more sites to post at in my list. Spread the word people, let's make this viral.
 

Bohemian

New member
A Recent Victim Of The So-Called FOPA of 1986

Olofson Relief Fund Olofson Relief Fund
David Olofson has been subjected to a gross miscarriage of justice. What happened to Olofson could happen to any American who owns a semi-automatic firearm.
He was convicted of knowingly transferring an unregistered machine gun -- a standard semi-auto rifle which fired two three-round bursts and then jammed. Gun owners call that a malfunction. The federal government calls it an easy way to get a felony conviction. Olofson was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison.

David Olofson is an information technology professional with a wife, three children and a mortgage. Until his conviction, he was also in the National Guard.
The Olofson Relief Fund has been set up to allow concerned Americans to help the Olfoson’s make their mortgage and (their one) car payments while Dave is unable to work.
If you decide to a monthly contribution to the Olofson Relief Fund, your credit card will be charged monthly for the amount you have indicated. This will continue until Olofson is out of prison -- or you notify us to discontinue the charges. You may also choose to make a one time donation.

Gun Owners of America is acting as the agent for the fund. All moneys collected will be transferred regularly to the mortgage and car loan holders. These contributions are not tax-deductible.
To read about this case in greater detail, please visit the Olofson Section on the Gun Owners Foundation Website at www.gunowners.com/olofson
Also, CNN video coverage is archived at Link Removed

Olofson Relief Fund

Link Removed

YouTube - GOA Lawyer Herb Titus talking about David Olofson Case with Lou Dobbs CNN February 18, 2009

YouTube - David Olofson Update: CNN Lou Dobbs - January 22, 2009

Had Enough Yet?

WTFU SHEEPLE !!!

Take Back The Republic !!!


The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT
 

Unfettered Might

Μολών λαβ&
Oh my god! That is a travesty and an absolutely complete injustice. This man MUST be released, how could they do that over a malfunctioning gun. This just defies all logic.
 

Bohemian

New member
Oh my god! That is a travesty and an absolutely complete injustice. This man MUST be released, how could they do that over a malfunctioning gun. This just defies all logic.

Because we have in my opinion: P.O.S. attorneys like Alan Gura going in front of SCOTUS saying its ok for the fed to ban guns not in "common use"

When I PERSONALLY asked him why he conceded without a argument in front of SCOTUS (Heller 2008) that it was ok for the fed to ban machine guns he answered I quote:

"OK, so you want machine guns and RPGs on airplanes – any weapon any place or time, right? Got it. Thanks. Good luck with that."

How about this jewel?

...JUSTICE BREYER: What's your response to the question?

MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that...

JUSTICE GINSBURG: For example?

MR. GURA: For example, I think machine guns: It's difficult to imagine a construction of Miller, or a construction of the lower court's opinion, that would sanction machine guns or the plastic,
undetectable handguns that the Solicitor General spoke of...

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But why wouldn't the machine gun qualify? General Clement told us that's standard issue in the military.

MR. GURA: But it's not an arm of the type that people might be expected to possess commonly in ordinary use. (WHY is it not in common use? http://www.usacarry.com/forums/fire...ology-common-use-firearm-weapon-criteria.html)

Post This Transcript Link Anywhere That Somebody Still Thinks Alan Gura Is Not Doing Us Great Harm Every Time He Opens His Mouth In Front Of A Court On The Second Amendment:
Link Removed

AND this is the guy that is standing up for "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" ?

HERE IS OUR MANTRA: IF THEY CAN BAN ONE TYPE OR CLASS OF WEAPON THEY CAN BAN THEM ALL...

Look to England, Australia et.al. and the history of the world if you do not clearly see the stepping stone to total confiscation...

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep & bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The Hughes Amendment #777 to the so-called FOPA of 1986 Fails Muster on both at minimum...

In 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental".

YouTube- Alan Keyes on the Second Amendment and gun rights
 

Bohemian

New member
USC 18 922(o) - United States vs. Fincher

Another recent victim of the so-called FOPA of 1986 (E.G.: USC 18 922(o))...

United States vs. Fincher:

FAYETTEVILLE -- A sentencing date has been set for a Washington County militia leader convicted in federal court of having three illegal machine guns.

Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, was convicted Jan. 12 of possessing illegal, unregistered weapons, including machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

Sentencing is set for 10 a.m. June 22 in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville before Judge Jimm Larry Hendren.

Fincher faces up to 20 years in federal prison.

In March, Fincher essentially fired his attorney, Oscar Stilley, and was appointed an attorney by the court, Shannon Lea Blatt.

Fincher had two .308-caliber machine guns, homemade versions of the Browning model 1919. The other firearms were 9 mm STEN design submachine guns and a shotgun.

Fincher never denied he had the guns.

The defense tried to make a case of the Constitution versus gun laws; the government kept the case more simple, arguing Fincher had the machine guns and they weren't registered as required by federal law.

After the trial, Hendren refused to throw the conviction out after Fincher challenged the court's jurisdiction and the Grand Jury indictment against him.

Hendren said his court has jurisdiction to hear any case arising from federal law within the Western District of Arkansas. Hendren said the indictment was legally sufficient because it contained all of the essential elements of the offense charged, in this case that Fincher knowingly possessed a machine gun.

Hendren said the government was not required to put on evidence of any connection with interstate commerce in the case.

Fincher didn't testify before the jury. The judge ruled after hearing testimony, with the jury out of the room, that Fincher's proposed testimony was inadmissible because it was aimed at challenging the legality of federal gun laws, not whether Fincher had illegal, unregistered firearms in his possession. (unfricking believable...)

United States vs. Fincher: Sentencing Set In Machine Gun Case

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement 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
 

Midnight

New member
About the David Olofson case above, I just have one question. Was it determined whether Olofson tried to modify his AR-15 into an automatic weapon? If he did, then it's clear to me that he broke the law (as much as I don't agree with it). If not, then this is a gross example of the failure of our justice system.
 

Unfettered Might

Μολών λαβ&
About the David Olofson case above, I just have one question. Was it determined whether Olofson tried to modify his AR-15 into an automatic weapon? If he did, then it's clear to me that he broke the law (as much as I don't agree with it). If not, then this is a gross example of the failure of our justice system.

Well I would think it was implied, when they said the gun malfunctioned. It's the latter situation.
 

Bohemian

New member
About the David Olofson case above, I just have one question. Was it determined whether Olofson tried to modify his AR-15 into an automatic weapon? If he did, then it's clear to me that he broke the law (as much as I don't agree with it). If not, then this is a gross example of the failure of our justice system.


David Olofson did not modify his weapon, that had a recalled manufacturers defect...

David Olofson was sent to prison for violating a unconstitutional law when he loaned his weapon to a friend and it malfunctioned at a shooting range ... details and all court documents, videos, audio and textual transcripts and testimonies are available from the links I previously posted herein...

suffice to say the longer we allow USC 18 922(o) to go unchallenged to worse it is going to get, its only been challenged once in the 11th district and it was successful but the ruling was made intentionally limited in scope so it only affected those in Georgia...

Hence the time for bending over and taking whatever the Fed decides to give is over...

HERE IS OUR MANTRA: IF THEY CAN BAN ONE TYPE OR CLASS OF WEAPON THEY CAN BAN THEM ALL...

WTFU SHEEPLE !

TAKE BACK THE REPUBLIC !

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...

Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT
 

FN1910

New member
About the David Olofson case above, I just have one question. Was it determined whether Olofson tried to modify his AR-15 into an automatic weapon? If he did, then it's clear to me that he broke the law (as much as I don't agree with it). If not, then this is a gross example of the failure of our justice system.

I followed this story back when it first became publicly wide spread. In just about all of the videos and interviews posted around much of the whole story was left out. In reading much of the information that was not posted by his supporters the answer to your question is yes he intntionally modified the gun. In fact the gun he loaned to the fellow at the range was his personal gun that he loaned for his use until he had made in one to buy. This fellow has become the poster boy for certain people to rally around but from the actual details of both the trial transcript and investigation he was completely guilty. I have seen many posts and articles that have only published one side of the story, usually from people that have never even met anyone involved in the case and totally ignoring the actual facts of the case. I know there will be many that wil probably will respond with rebuttals to this so I am not going to try to replay old arguements but from what I could find from looking at the entire facts of the case he was guilty as charged.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,609
Messages
626,467
Members
74,690
Latest member
ikamster
Top