Chance of repealing NFA

[BrianB]

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 At the most, Hughes will be repealed and the registry will be reopened.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.

The impetus for the DoJ changing the rules for trusts and other "entity" purchasers, and doing away with the CLEO signoff requirement, was pursuant to a petition by the NFATCA (NFA Trade and Collectors Association). The NFATCA worked with ATF to try to get the CLEO signoff removed and in the process made some assertions about trusts that I think they shouldn't have made. It was looking like ATF was poised to simply remove the CLEO signoff requirement and then changed their mind and decided they would require the CLEO signoff for all applicants, people and entities alike. The DoJ/ATF received more comments to ATF 41P than have ever been received by the agency to a notice of proposed rulemaking. Ultimately they did do away with the CLEO signoff requirement, replacing it with a CLEO notification requirement instead - but for all applicants.

I do seem to recall a Hughes amendment suit quite a long time ago and the court decided that the Feds appropriately used their Article 1, Section 8 power to regulate interstate commerce when they banned further manufacture of machineguns for civilian sale. The court reasoned that such a ban would drive prices up, and therefore would regulate interstate commerce in those articles by making them less available to the average consumer. I'm not sure if the 2nd amendment issue was addressed at all - and this would have been way before Heller, so if it didn't make it to SCOTUS then (I don't think it did) then we might get another bite at that apple with the new "fundamental, individual civil right" status that the 2nd amendment now has.

Of course we need Trump to put a pro-gun justice in Scalia's place, and if Justice Ginsburg happens to depart the bench during Trump's term, so much the better.

Funny how the entire character of the republic can hinge on who is president when justices die. Generally a justice won't retire if the "other side" controls the white house, so the only time the makeup of the court really changes substantially is when a justice dies unexpectedly while the other party is in control (as happened with Scalia). Fortunately Scalia's murder, ahem, unexpected death, happened late enough in Obama's presidency that the seat was able to stay vacant long enough for a better President to occupy the white house. A close call to be sure.

[Buckingham]

If the Feds are using the interstate commerce clause to ban certain guns, would not a state regulated business be allowed to manufacture and sell MGs only to state residents? IE, no interstate commerce? I suspect the answer is going to hurt my head so am taking the aspirin now.

[BrianB]

If the Feds are using the interstate commerce clause to ban certain guns, would not a state regulated business be allowed to manufacture and sell MGs only to state residents? IE, no interstate commerce? I suspect the answer is going to hurt my head so am taking the aspirin now.

Well, you would think so. And Angel Raich would have thought so too. But SCOTUS says that when the feds wish to implement a comprehensive interstate commerce scheme they can regulate intrastate commerce too if necessary to preserve the integrity of the interstate plan. Or as Chief Judge Kozinski said "[t]herefore, the fact that Raich did not herself affect interstate commerce was of no moment; when Congress makes an interstate omelet, it is entitled to break a few intrastate eggs."

Now Ms. Raich's case was a little different in that it involved medical marijuana, not firearms, and the court found that marijuana is "fungible" - you can't tell interstate marijuana from intrastate marijuana - so it may not be a direct parallel.

In any event, in his dissent against the majority holding (which found that the federal pot laws can regulate even purely intrastate pot) Justice Thomas penned one of my favorite lines ever written by a justice - and one that is, sadly, all too true:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. -- Justice Thomas, dissenting, ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERS v. ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al.

Not much more can be said.

[Buckingham]

That is chilling.

[BrianB]

That is chilling.

Well, you knew it was going to make your head hurt. The more you learn about how bad things have gotten the more you wish you didn't know.

[MisterEd]

Of course we need Trump to put a pro-gun justice in Scalia's place, and if Justice Ginsburg happens to depart the bench during Trump's term, so much the better.

Funny how the entire character of the republic can hinge on who is president when justices die. Generally a justice won't retire if the "other side" controls the white house, so the only time the makeup of the court really changes substantially is when a justice dies unexpectedly while the other party is in control (as happened with Scalia). Fortunately Scalia's murder, ahem, unexpected death, happened late enough in Obama's presidency that the seat was able to stay vacant long enough for a better President to occupy the white house. A close call to be sure.

Well said, Brian.... A very close call, and a frightening one. I shudder to think what could have happened to our rights if the election had gone the other way.

[FLWildMan]

If the Feds are using the interstate commerce clause to ban certain guns, would not a state regulated business be allowed to manufacture and sell MGs only to state residents? IE, no interstate commerce? I suspect the answer is going to hurt my head so am taking the aspirin now.

Yes, but no one follows the Constitution.

Tennessee and Montana have both passed laws stating that any handgun manufactured in their state that stays within their borders is not subject to federal laws. The ATF quickly sent out a contradictory memo to all FFLs in those states as soon as that bill became law.


The snakes in the courts have decided in the case Wickard vs Filburn that the federal government is all powerful because of the commerce clause. They have ruled that anything that could potentially have an effect on interstate commerce can be regulated by the feds, which is pretty much everything. This was one of the worst progressive decisions ever to come out of the SCOTUS and is clearly contradictory to the Constitution.

Even Madison wrote that the commerce clause was to "make commerce regular" within the boundaries of the US. It was not meant to give regulatory authority to the federal government.


You can read more about this and how it was passed in other states here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montan...ms_Freedom_Act

[pod]

There's a test case, I forget where, with regards to a Firearms Freedom Act. The defendant was basically making suppressors for sale only to legal residents of his state. The ATF swooped in and of course said "no".

And that's the kicker with any controversial law. What you may be doing is legal by the letter of the law, but you don't want to be the test case...

[BeerHunter]

IMHO, the Federal government has been chipping away at States rights for at least since Lincoln was POTUS.

[Rvrctyrngr]

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?

Yessir.