If Michigan AG were U.S. AG, would Hughes Amendment still ban new machine guns?

Much like past interpretation of Michigan's suppressor law, that has been taken to mean that only government entities may possess machine guns that were not already in legal private possession prior to 1986. However, under the federal law that already applied to machine gun transfers, with all the federal hoops (including a $200 dollar tax per firearm, fingerprints, and the requirement to obtain the approval of local law enforcement), it would seem difficult to argue that the transfer or possession is not "under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

Given Attorney General Schuette's determination that anyone meeting federal requirements for possession of a firearm suppressor is "licensed" for that possession, it would be especially difficult to believe that he would see that meeting the NFA's stringent requirements for machine gun possession was insufficient to qualify as being "under the authority of the United States or any department . . . ." [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Oh, and if you could spare a digg?