These kinds of laws bring warm feelings to my heart...My personal thoughts are as folllows. The McDonald vs. Chicago case has laid some groundwork for the good guys to go after those bad laws. If you look at the 2nd Ammendment Foundation site you will see new lawsuits going forward based off of the latest Supreme court ruling.
Heres what I would do:
1. Start the wave going by challenging the initial responses to the ruling. -- Lawsuits already files agaist Chicago for their new registration scheme
2. Challenge all gun laws that are blatently arbitrary. This is already being done in a case in New York State basically challenging the need for a substatial reason beyond general fear. Next on my sights would be New York City.
3. Chalenge the sporting purposes test part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. If the Supreme cases are settled law, and the rights protected by the 2nd ammendment exist seperate from militia service, AND military weapons are specificallly protected by the 2nd ammendment (Read the Miller Supreme court case), then this SHOULD be an easy provision to "shoot down".
4. After all of those are hacked apart, go after the 1934 NFA. Based on all the other things cited above it should be an easy win as a matter of law. The Miller case was decided because the Justices were not shown that a short barreled shotgun was a weapon in common usage by the military.(which it was)

I am not a lawer..

Holy, Mr Bruce is a thinker!!

Nice

Right on Mr Bruce. I've often wondered why the 1934 NFA hasn't been challenged. The Bureau was skating on pretty thin ice when that case went to court, and they were probably relying on the judges being ignorant of that particular fact.

Well in my view it was a wierd confluence of circumstance that allowed that ruling to go forward. But if you read the ruling it isnt ALL bad per se. Other courts have used it to uphold some very draconian gun laws when a plain reading of the ruling reveals something differebt entriely. The Miller case was an apeal regarding a conviction under the NFA for possesing an un-registered short barreled shotgun. And, whether the NFA was consitutional.
There was no case presented by the Non-Gov't side due to "scheduling irregularities"
In my reading of the case, if the court had been presented with evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use with the military they would have ruled the NFA or most portions of it to be unconstitutional.
Here is the Miller case boiled down Mr-Bruce style:
1.All weapons in common use by our military are protected by the 2nd amendment.This includes machine-guns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, silencers, and some AOW's
2. The 2nd Ammendment did not give us any rights. Those were given by our Creator.The Bill of rights just says whats already there.
Now for some fun. If the Miller case is still "good law" after the Heller and McDonald cases then some really good things start to come togtether.
Miller :Weapons in common use m=by the military are protected under the 2nd Ammendment +
Heller/McDonald : The 2nd Mmendment protects the right to firearms completely unconnected with military service =
The NFA is mostly unconstitutional, and we can have those weapons whether or not we have or have not bee in the military...Note, I am NOT a lawer but I read ALOT.

I wonder if a full auto was produced in one of these states if it could be purchased with no restrictions by the FEDS.

US Gov't, military, and law enforcement can aquire weapons regardless if they have a propper use for them. Your local police dept. with 1 full time cop can order a belt-fed M2 50BMG no questions asked.