New NFA SCOTUS case

[hotrodder636]

This would be the best case scenario. As said above going down the rabbit hole of NFA will likely end poorly for us. The only thing NFA related I would like to see is a drastic reduction in wait times...as in same day, but that is a pipe dream.

I doubt SCOTUS will even hear it, but pop it on the radar and the next thing you know Congress discovers there are people with "legal machine guns" and they decide to look at the 1934 NFA and determine it needs updating.

Because of how gun laws work, the 1934 NFA is the LAST one on the list. If you open it up for discussion, rulings or amendments it will probably only get bad. Nobody is going to say "Hey that's not really fair, let's open up the registry." You will see Heroin vending machines in middle schools before anything beneficial happens regarding the NFA.

If you really want to improve anything, all our efforts should be devoted to striking the "sporter clause" of the 1968 Gun Control Act. The last time anything was changed was back in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act so it's been done once.

If you remove the "sporter clause" from the 1968 GCA, you eliminate the basis for:

1968 Foreign Machine Gun Ban.
1986 Domestic Machine Gun Ban.
1989 Semi Auto Import Ban.
Any domestic semi auto ban.
Any ban concerning ammunition.

All of it just dies. With that accomplished you would have a more solid foundation to go after the 1934 NFA if inclined, but with the registry open I'm sure people would gladly pay a $200 tax to build or import brand new machine guns.

[BoringGuy45]

I would like the SBS/SBR ruling changed to a minimum barrel length of 14" for rifles and shotguns both.

I'd say minimum of 10".

[OldState]

There is one angle that occurred to me regarding the $200 and inflation....

Those that authored the NFA obviously thought that an all out ban would be unconstitutional (crazy considering the modern interpretation of what is constitutional) Therefore they the felt an extremely high tax and burdensome process would discourage ownership. Modern anti gunners could possibly be equally concerned that any attempt to raise that tax would bring the scrutiny of the courts to revaluate the constitionality of the entire NFA.

What I would like to see some type of case heard by SCOTUS where the validity of arbitrary bans and gun laws would be evaluated. That there would need to be an extremely high burden on the lawmaker to prove that any regulation would actually have any measurable impact. This should be the case with any law addressing any of our natural rights.

Also that bans on cosmetic features and or anytype of tax or fee could in no way be construed to be an unnecessary burden on law abiding citizens.

I would also like to see a law passed that says any gun regulation that adds any type of additional restriction must include a sunset clause.

[OldState]

I'd say minimum of 10".

How about a minuimum of 0.00”. There is zero logic in this law so why even give it credibility.

[jsbhike]

Looks like special taxes on paper have been knocked down a couple of times as being violations of the 1st Amendment.

[grnamin]

I'd say minimum of 10".

There's no barrel length in the Constitution though.

Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk

[docsherm]

How about a minuimum of 0.00”. There is zero logic in this law so why even give it credibility.

I could live with that.

[morbidbattlecry]

I'm not really worried. They will probably refuse to even hear it.

[BoringGuy45]

How about a minuimum of 0.00”. There is zero logic in this law so why even give it credibility.

That's the ultimate goal of course. It's all about the frog in the pot though. Play the same game the anti-gunners have played so well for nearly a century.

The thing is, we lost most of what we had because of incremental encroachment on our rights. Leftists get what they want passed by pushing for "reasonable" and "common sense" laws (for gun laws as well as everything else). Once the new regulations became the norm, they pushed for further "reasonable" and "common sense" laws. Rinse, repeat. As much as our end goal may be to get rid of almost all gun regulations, the mainstream American is going to balk at that. I'd absolutely like to see SBRs off the registry, but how about we ask for a "reasonable" and "common sense" "compromise" for gun rights, like they do for gun bans? Sure, it's not going to work for the Feinsteins, Schumers, Swalwells, and others who want a "turn them in or we're coming to get them" ban, but for your average, uninformed American, it will seem reasonable. Then, when that becomes the norm, we push further.

[OldState]

That's the ultimate goal of course. It's all about the frog in the pot though. Play the same game the anti-gunners have played so well for nearly a century.

The thing is, we lost most of what we had because of incremental encroachment on our rights. Leftists get what they want passed by pushing for "reasonable" and "common sense" laws (for gun laws as well as everything else). Once the new regulations became the norm, they pushed for further "reasonable" and "common sense" laws. Rinse, repeat. As much as our end goal may be to get rid of almost all gun regulations, the mainstream American is going to balk at that. I'd absolutely like to see SBRs off the registry, but how about we ask for a "reasonable" and "common sense" "compromise" for gun rights, like they do for gun bans? Sure, it's not going to work for the Feinsteins, Schumers, Swalwells, and others who want a "turn them in or we're coming to get them" ban, but for your average, uninformed American, it will seem reasonable. Then, when that becomes the norm, we push further.

There are tons of absurd gun laws so discrediting the SBR “rule” and eliminating it would constitute just one small incremental move back in our direction...not a major one in my opinion. Pistol ARs are allowed and shortening the barrel lessens a centerfire cartridges lethality. It’s really hard to defend regulating this. Suppressor regulation is also very hard to to defend logically and would also be a minor step back in our direction.

If we are to learn anything from the anti gunners it’s that it’s better to aim really high and compromise from there. If Diane Feinstien was on our side she would going after the Hughes Amendment and taking machine guns off the NFA.

That why I do get excited about a SCOTUS case. We just need the right kind of case.