Chance of repealing NFA
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Chance of repealing NFA

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Buckingham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,095

    Chance of repealing NFA

    http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/nati...n-dinosaur-is/
    Interesting article about states rights.
    Sent from my Jitterbug using YezImZhitinYou


    When facts and beliefs collide, beliefs always win

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    BeerHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    PBC
    Posts
    24,800
    Parts of the NFA are ripe for repeal. The whole Act? Not holding my breath.
    -BH

    Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, GOA, NRA Endowment Life
    FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-S-PPITH
    Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-Present
    Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org

    “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

    "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are commuting violence on their behalf."
    -- George Orwell


    "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
    -- Herbert Spencer

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member TitleIIToyLover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East Central Florida
    Posts
    4,744
    A few quick random thoughts…

    One reason that NFA34 does not make sense to most, is because of the usual midnight amendments that make a lot of our laws hard to understand.

    The original draft of NFA34 banned handguns. In order to prevent shooters from simply cutting their rifles and shotguns to a convenient length, in order to replace the banned handgun, the NFA banned firearms made from rifles or shotguns and short barreled rifles and shotgun.

    The NRA was successful in getting the handgun ban removed from the bill, but nobody removed the associated “firearms made from rifles and shotguns or short barred rifles and shotguns.”

    Since the intent of banning handguns was to ban guns that were easy to conceal, removing handguns from the bill, but leaving SBR and SBS was just plain silly.

    This is why people find it so silly that they can NOT have a rifle with a 12 inch barrel, but they can own all the handguns they can afford.

    Silencers were added to the NFA almost as an afterthought by someone expressing concern about deer hunters using them for poaching. Nothing to do with the attempt to keep dangerous guns out of gangster's hands.

    Finally, the NFA was justified as a tax bill not a gun ban. Most recognized that a ban would obviously violate the 2nd Amendment. The government was going to get ride of guns just like they got rid of marijuana. Put a tax (stamp) on it but don't accept the tax by not printing any stamps. Since the Hughes amendment of 86, the government has refused to accept the tax payments for newly manufactured machine guns. I believe any reasonable court could see through this lie and find that the current NFA/Hughes amendment is unconstitutional as applied.
    There are only 3 colors, 10 digits, and 7 notes; it's how we arrange them that is important.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    FloridaConcealedCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Buckingham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,095
    I'm hoping that at least parts of the NFA get declared unconstitutional in the next few years. Also some clarification of states vs fed rights.
    Sent from my Jitterbug using YezImZhitinYou


    When facts and beliefs collide, beliefs always win

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member 45Freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Traveling.
    Posts
    10,569
    We can pray!
    LIBERTY 0R DEATH, PATRIOT, VETERAN, HARLEY RIDER, FLORIDA CARRY INC. MEMBER!
    https://www.facebook.com/BasicsRangeandGun?ref=stream
    http://store.basicsrangeandgun.com/
    http://otsrange.com/
    http://pantherconcealment.com
    SPECIAL WARFARE TEAMS ROCK, WHO'S NEXT?

    . LOCK UP YOUR VEHICLES OR LOSE YOUR GUNS!

  7. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,937
    The best thing we can do is focus on the state legislatures and pass Constitutional Carry as quickly as possible. That is the lowest hanging fruit with the highest payoff.

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    7,439
    Very well written article. Thank you for posting it.
    NRA Certified Instructor (Pistol, Rifle, HFS, PPITH, PPOTH) and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, SAF Life Member, NRA Endowment Life Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    Need a defensive force "legal plan"? Consider Self Defense Fund (SDF). Feel free to PM me with questions.

  9. #8
    Super Moderator Rvrctyrngr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Gator Nation
    Posts
    19,788
    Quote Originally Posted by TitleIIToyLover View Post
    A few quick random thoughts…

    One reason that NFA34 does not make sense to most, is because of the usual midnight amendments that make a lot of our laws hard to understand.

    The original draft of NFA34 banned handguns. In order to prevent shooters from simply cutting their rifles and shotguns to a convenient length, in order to replace the banned handgun, the NFA banned firearms made from rifles or shotguns and short barreled rifles and shotgun.

    The NRA was successful in getting the handgun ban removed from the bill, but nobody removed the associated “firearms made from rifles and shotguns or short barred rifles and shotguns.”

    Since the intent of banning handguns was to ban guns that were easy to conceal, removing handguns from the bill, but leaving SBR and SBS was just plain silly.

    This is why people find it so silly that they can NOT have a rifle with a 12 inch barrel, but they can own all the handguns they can afford.

    Silencers were added to the NFA almost as an afterthought by someone expressing concern about deer hunters using them for poaching. Nothing to do with the attempt to keep dangerous guns out of gangster's hands.

    Finally, the NFA was justified as a tax bill not a gun ban. Most recognized that a ban would obviously violate the 2nd Amendment. The government was going to get ride of guns just like they got rid of marijuana. Put a tax (stamp) on it but don't accept the tax by not printing any stamps. Since the Hughes amendment of 86, the government has refused to accept the tax payments for newly manufactured machine guns. I believe any reasonable court could see through this lie and find that the current NFA/Hughes amendment is unconstitutional as applied.
    I believe the one suit brought on the Hughes amemdment out of Texas failed...and was the impetus behind the NFA Branch changing the rules regarding trusts for NFA items.
    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
    -Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes
    Brown v. United States, 1921

    ...against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.
    Join Florida Carry

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,457
    It has to be done away with incrementally. First cans, then short-barreled weapons, then MGs.

    Machine guns will probably stay on the NFA. No politician, bureaucrat, or judge wants to be the "guy who legalized machine guns...". At the most, Hughes will be repealed and the registry will be reopened.

    Most people think MGs are illegal to begin with. That's the tricky part with the NFA. A lot of the items it covers, people think are illegal.
    http://regularguyguns.com/ - my no-frills gun blog.

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member TitleIIToyLover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    East Central Florida
    Posts
    4,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Rvrctyrngr View Post
    I believe the one suit brought on the Hughes amemdment out of Texas failed...and was the impetus behind the NFA Branch changing the rules regarding trusts for NFA items.
    I missed that one.

    Unless you are talking about the guy that sued because the amendment said "no person... and the guy filed a form 1 because a trust is not a person and Martinsburg approved the form accidentally and then came a took it back. Since there is not due process or procedure in place to "take back" an approved form, the guy sued. Is that the one you speak of?
    Last edited by TitleIIToyLover; 12-26-2016 at 10:33 PM.
    There are only 3 colors, 10 digits, and 7 notes; it's how we arrange them that is important.

Sposors

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

chances of nfa reform

Click on a term to search for related topics.