Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: 5320.20 - what am I missing?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    1,039
    Feedback Score
    29 (100%)
    Clever...

    How do the courts define “interstate commerce?”

    You may be missing his point. But, if you have some clarifying info on definitions perhaps it would be helpful for us.

    As it stands, he has not suggesting anyone “f the man.” He is asking if the man is f-ing us.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,320
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CleverNickname View Post
    Also, it seems pretty weird to follow the law and do the whole form 1/form 4 process, but then all of a sudden go into "F the man" mode and say you're not going to fill out a 5320.20. If you're going to do that, why not just make a suppressor or chop down your barrel or drill a sear hole and not worry about the form 1?
    Yeah and it's easy for the badge-boi in this thread to tout breaking the law when the first thing he would do is pull the badge the man gave him and get a 'pass', or worst case a talking to from his boss. A really brave one there, LMFAO...
    - Rhino

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    6,282
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CleverNickname View Post
    But you are affecting interstate commerce, at least according to how the federal courts currently define "interstate commerce." The 5320.20 is not required for LE, and not required for SOT's. So who do you think the 5320.20 is for, and if you're not included in that group, who is?
    How do the courts (more importantly the law) define interstate commerce as it applies here?
    Last edited by MegademiC; 12-09-19 at 21:55.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    6,282
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CleverNickname View Post

    If you don't fill out a 5320.20 and travel to another state, it's no skin off my back. But the ATF will probably see differently. Also, it seems pretty weird to follow the law and do the whole form 1/form 4 process, but then all of a sudden go into "F the man" mode and say you're not going to fill out a 5320.20. If you're going to do that, why not just make a suppressor or chop down your barrel or drill a sear hole and not worry about the form 1? I mean, when you think about it, how is that really "affecting interstate commerce"?
    This entire paragraph hinges on filling out a 5320.20 being legally required, which Im trying to understand why people believe it is. As for the rest of the paragraph, Thats not what I said.


    Quote Originally Posted by mig1nc View Post
    Time to write the ATF for a clarifying opinion.

    I'm kidding!!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Haha- I’m not going to be ‘that guy’.
    Last edited by MegademiC; 12-09-19 at 22:03.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,239
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RHINOWSO View Post
    Yeah and it's easy for the badge-boi in this thread to tout breaking the law
    I thought that the OP’s point is that it’s not breaking the law which is why he doesn’t understand the regulation existing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MegademiC View Post
    How do the courts (more importantly the law) define interstate commerce as it applies here?
    The Constitution is pretty narrow with the powers that it provides. Not to be dissuaded by said document, Congress has over the years decided that pretty much anything it wants to do falls under Article 1, Section 8 (3) which provides Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. It’s a total abuse of the original intent. Until the Supreme Court and lower courts get stacked full of judges that go by the original intent of what’s written, we can pretty much forget about putting limits on Congressional power. This goes way beyond guns to the vast majority of the laws and regulations that exist.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,320
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bret View Post
    I thought that the OP’s point is that it’s not breaking the law which is why he doesn’t understand the regulation existing.
    Maybe he should write a letter to BATFE for clarification <sarcasm>

    Or he could just be confident in his assessment and do whatever he pleases - it's not like the non-legal assessment from interwebz people is going to give him protection if he is proven wrong at some point, nor is muscle-boi going to show up with his badge to protect him...

    - Rhino

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OUTPOST 31
    Posts
    9,098
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)

    5320.20 - what am I missing?

    Quote Originally Posted by RHINOWSO View Post
    Yeah and it's easy for the badge-boi in this thread to tout breaking the law when the first thing he would do is pull the badge the man gave him and get a 'pass', or worst case a talking to from his boss. A really brave one there, LMFAO...
    You’re cute.

    Not on the level of baby yoda cute though. More like the Blurrg kinda cute.

    It’s not my fault Euro won’t love you.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Answer The Bell...” J.W.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    253
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JediGuy View Post
    is asking if the man is f-ing us.
    Yes of course the man is F-ing us, well documented.

    Quote Originally Posted by MegademiC View Post
    This entire paragraph hinges on filling out a 5320.20 being legally required, which Im trying to understand why people believe it is.
    I believe it is, because the lawyer who put together my trust, living wills, and will told me to fill out 5320.20 when traveling out of state with my SBR (Suppressor not needed, but check laws of where I go) and keep them with my trust. His opinion when I presented the same it's not legal argument was "unless I had a 3+ months I could take off work to fight an unlawful arrest, fill out the stupid form dumbass, it's once a year." He finished with "if you're such a good lawyer, why didn't you do all this yourself?", mumbling if he had a $1 for each ignorant client with a stupid constitutional based legal opinions.

    I paid him for a good bit of legal work and accept his guidance, that's why.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    352
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JediGuy View Post
    Clever...

    How do the courts define “interstate commerce?”
    "Interstate commerce" is pretty much anything Congress says it is. I'm unaware of any laws which Congress has passed with "interstate commerce" as the justification being overturned, other than the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act.

    The ATF's argument would be that any firearm affects interstate commerce by its mere existence. If you don't like that interpretation of the commerce clause, you'll need to go back and have Wickard v. Filburn overturned, along with a couple other earlier cases. This also would put a multitude of other laws in jeopardy, and so that's not happening anytime soon.

    Note that I'm not saying I agree with the current interpretation; I'm just telling you what it is.

    But to get back to my point: the constitutionality of NFA rests, in total, on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. If you don't believe that they have the power to regulate where someone can take their NFA firearms due to the Commerce Clause, then I don't understand why you believe that Congress has the power to regulate the making or possession of NFA firearms.
    Last edited by CleverNickname; 12-10-19 at 23:02.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    N.E. OH
    Posts
    6,282
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CleverNickname View Post
    "Interstate commerce" is pretty much anything Congress says it is. I'm unaware of any laws which Congress has passed with "interstate commerce" as the justification being overturned, other than the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act.

    The ATF's argument would be that any firearm affects interstate commerce by its mere existence. If you don't like that interpretation of the commerce clause, you'll need to go back and have Wickard v. Filburn overturned, along with a couple other earlier cases. This also would put a multitude of other laws in jeopardy, and so that's not happening anytime soon.

    Note that I'm not saying I agree with the current interpretation; I'm just telling you what it is.

    But to get back to my point: the constitutionality of NFA rests, in total, on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. If you don't believe that they have the power to regulate where someone can take their NFA firearms due to the Commerce Clause, then I don't understand why you believe that Congress has the power to regulate the making or possession of NFA firearms.
    My question was not about the constitutionality of NFA. Its specifically about what makes the 5320.20 applicable to non-commercial interstate travel.

    Im reading that private transport affects commerce, so falls under purview of nfa( although i fail to see how it affects commerce at all). Am I tracking correctly?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •