“I guess the next question would be is it reasonable that you have to pay up to 20,000 dollars to own a fully auto rifle (pay for it and then pay for the license) because the government does not allow gun companies to manufacture fully auto rifles for the civilian market. Could that restriction be struck down?”
The ‘86 ban on further registration of full autos for civilian ownership is, IMHO, completely unconstitutional. The NFA doesn’t - CAN’T - ban full autos...even the Roosevelt Administration realized that. However, it levies a tax. What the ‘86 ban does is to prevent BATFE from collecting that tax, which is the source of the Constitutional problem. I do have an objection to a right being taxed, even 0.0001%, but I could live with a $200 tax on a full auto (or a drop-in “happy switch” for an existing semi-auto) if we could buy them any time we wanted to do so. THAT will be litigated at some point - the other side simply cannot make a good argument that a particular M16 produced on Colt’s assembly line on 5/18/86 is OK to own, but that a functionally and cosmetically identical one produced on 5/20/86 is prohibited. Such an argument is absurd on its face, particularly in light of the fact that someone making that argument in an intelligent manner (i.e. with legal strategery) would NOT argue against the NFA, but would argue FOR registering more guns under a system that provided for a thorough background check (and one that has been so successful that only 1 case of a person so approved using the gun in question in a crime has been recorded in 76 years - and that guy was an off-duty cop). IOW, use their own law (and “logic”) against them. Once that is litigated, watch for a million or more full autos and/or happy switches to be sold within a year, and 5 million or more within 10 years - then “they” can NEVER take away our RKBA.
That all being said, the case in the title article will result in a loss. Making the argument that a NG unit is part of the militia is a loser, in view of “Perpich v. Department of Defense” http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html That ruling stands for the proposition that the NG is NOT the constitutional militia since it is subject to federal (i.e. Presidential) orders.
Bad argument, and bad facts: this guy just had the guns - no attempt to register them, nor any allegation that such a denial was constitutionally improper.
I really, really wish that people would NOT do stuff like this - it hurts us all. Better to set the table the way a successful Constitutional lawyer who specializes in firearms law (like Gura), even if it takes more time because he’s getting our rights back the same way they were lost (one salami slice at a time).