VA H.B. 69

[Triton28]

Not sure if this should go in this section, or NFA subforum. Sorry in advance if it should be moved.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sub+H150010204

Looks like a carbon copy of the law Montana passed last year. That would basically mean everything is the way it's always been, only suppressors would be exempt from NFA if made and kept in VA, if I understand this right.

The full bill:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+HB69

Any idea of how Montana's law is standing up to interpretation in the courts?

[dbrowne1]

I don't know that there has been any case that's tested it yet, but I can almost guarantee that whatever federal court hears it will take a dim view of these laws for any number of reasons.

I agree with the sentiment behind them, but they're purely political and will get blown apart by the first federal judge who sees one of them.

[A-Bear680]

I never paid much attention to the Firearms Freedom Act movement until SAF became involved . Here's a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation:
www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=311

SAF home page:
www.saf.org

[A-Bear680]

I'm mildly but pleasantly surprised. Sometimes , in some situations , any mention of the Firearms Freedom Act movement generates a lot of heat but almost no light.
Maybe it's the thread title.

[John_Wayne777]

If somebody wants to be the test case to try and unravel almost a century's worth of jurisprudence on the commerce clause, more power to them. It won't be me.

I find the court's capitulation to a federal government with limitless power based on even the thinnest possible connections to "interstate commerce" as odious as anyone, but I'm not terribly optimistic that the Supremes are going to reign that in because doing so would fundamentally alter the way our society works.

[A-Bear680]

If somebody wants to be the test case to try and unravel almost a century's worth of jurisprudence on the commerce clause, more power to them. It won't be me.

I find the court's capitulation to a federal government with limitless power based on even the thinnest possible connections to "interstate commerce" as odious as anyone, but I'm not terribly optimistic that the Supremes are going to reign that in because doing so would fundamentally alter the way our society works.

Won't be me either. The president of the Montana association has volunteered to be the lab rat for this particular experiment. The touchy part will be obtaining standing without being cited for or commiting a crime. Heller was able to do that.
Here's another ongoing SAF case , this one in DC:
www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=308

"...federal Appeals Court.....finds the plaintiff has standing to pursue legal action against the city...... "
"Robert Ord is pursuing legal action against the District for having issued an arrest warrant for him without probable cause because he had been hired to provide armed security at a district of Columbia school facility and he had status as a " qualified law enforcement officer " and " Special Conservator of the Peace , " which exempted him from the District's ban on carrying firearms without a license. "

That's a long and rather strange sentence , but DC is a strange place. The SAF cases should be fun to watch.

[A-Bear680]

Not sure if this should go in this section, or NFA subforum. Sorry in advance if it should be moved.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sub+H150010204

Looks like a carbon copy of the law Montana passed last year. That would basically mean everything is the way it's always been, only suppressors would be exempt from NFA if made and kept in VA, if I understand this right.

The full bill:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+ful+HB69

Any idea of how Montana's law is standing up to interpretation in the courts?

Does the thread address your question ?