Abolish The National Firearms Act — Before It’s Too Late!

Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation (courtesy offthegridnews.com)

Wikipedia informs us that “The National Firearms Act imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.” Specifically, machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, and suppressors. The NFA was a bad idea when it was enacted in 1934 and it’s a bad idea now, for two main reasons . . .

First, the NFA’s unconstitutional. What part of “shall not be infringed” did Congress, then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Supreme Court not understand? (Hint: the same part they don’t understand now.)

There’s no good reason why law-abiding Americans shouldn’t be able to own NFA items without paying Uncle Sam for the “privilege” and registering them with his minions. Registration that’s otherwise forbidden by the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Second, like all gun control laws, the NFA puts America on a slippery slope to gun confiscation. Once the government knows who owns what gun and where they live, their agents can set about removing them from their owners, should the government decide to do so.

Here’s the slope . . .

If short-barreled shotguns and rifles can be taxed registered under the NFA, hobbling commercial sales and enabling future confiscation, why not make all past, present and future modern sporting rifles (a.k.a., “assault rifles”) NFA items based on, um, whatever?

Crazy idea? The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence are proposing that very thing:

Giffords proposes that Congress require all existing assault weapons to be regulated under the National Firearms Act. This proposal would balance the rights of law-abiding gun owners with the need for increased restrictions on these lethal firearms. Congress must also address the future manufacture of assault weapons, either by prohibiting the manufacture of any further assault weapons (as it did in 1986 with machine guns), or requiring future assault weapons to be registered under the NFA.

I’m not sure what “rights of law-abiding gun owners” the Giffords folks are talking about “balancing” when they’re calling for a ban on America’s most popular rifle.

NFA wait times (courtesy nfatracker.com)

But even if efficiently implemented, their NFA expansion plan brings to mind Martin Luther King’s admonition that a right delayed is a right denied. What with NFA approval times currently hovering around 280 days.

Question: who needs a machine gun? Answer: it’s called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. By the same token, who needs the NFA? No one who understands the purpose of their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Who needs to get rid of it? We do.

What are the odds? Even with a Republican-controlled House, Senate and White House, I make it slim to none — and Slim just left town. Still, you gotta start somewhere. Raising the alarm is as good a place as any.

comments

  1. avatar John in Ohio says:

    You damned, dirty absolutist, you! 🙂 Just kidding, you’re right on target.

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Bunch of head in the clouds day dreaming. This is pure nonsense. Keep dreaming though. It’s a nice dream.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        There isn’t much more pathetic than a slave who doesn’t know he’s a slave.

        (Psst. We aren’t saying that it WILL be repealed, BTW. It will take a whole lot of real men and maybe even tremendous amounts of shed blood before that happens. 😉 )

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        We’re not saying a lotta evil POS (D) and colluding rinos won’t be publicly burned at the stake, should it come down to a civil war, they will, because we gotta “do something” and gotta “promote safety”.

        Why burned? Guns are a commodity. Guns are for closers. Guns are too humane, and those aholes have proven, and continue to prove that they’re not worthy of gun use.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          burned at the stake sounds good however i prefer hung, drawn and quartered and remains of each taken in 4 directions far out to sea with no memorials allowed for them

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      If they want a walk down the road to the NFA, let’s use the Alinsky playbook on forcing them to live up to their own rules.

      They claim semi-autos with detachable magazines are ‘assault rifles’ and ‘weapons of war’.

      OK, re-open the full-auto registry.

      Watch how fast they run from that idea…

      *snicker* 😉

  2. avatar Nanashi says:

    Oh FDR understood perfectly well what it meant: An obstacle on tyranny. He had to abolish it if he was to seize power like he did.

    Wonder how well his reenacting slavery in 1942 would have gone over if the people enforcing it knew they might be met with a sten or sawed off shotgun to the face.

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      It depends upon what ‘slavery’ you are talking, vaguely, about.
      If you are discussing conscription, you are forgetting that not only were there many immediate volunteers, there was also virtually no resistance to conscription, unlike in WWI. The reason, of course, is that the physical United States had been attacked and portions of it invaded; Americans were under no illusions about the necessity of defensive war after that.
      If you are speaking of placing Japanese in concentration camps, you must also remember that the Japanese were not very well thought of at the time. Businesses issued hunting licenses (only half-jokingly) for ‘Japs,’ and the Japanese were seen as far worse than mere Nazis. Many Americans, after Pearl Harbor, expressed a heartfelt wish to kill a Japanese themselves, and at the end of the war many Americans also wished that more atomic bombs had been dropped, wiping the Japanese out of existence.
      In that atmosphere, had the Japanese attempted any resistance, history would, instead of documenting some inconvenience to them, have recorded their massacre. As it was, their forced removal from some areas may very well have saved their lives. Remember that these people were seen as sub-human vermin, akin to lice and roaches. . . luckily, America in 1942 was not like Germany in the same year, and we stopped at ‘concentrating’ them, instead of exterminating them.

      1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

        The power to tax is the power to destroy, to control. The desire/lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil, the sum total of all non-voluntary government existence.

        That’s the slavery we all live under today.

        The shameful treatment of Japanese citizens, along with so many others, is not justified by the “feelz” of anyone. An explanation is not an excuse.

        1. avatar burley says:

          Agreed, thanks for saying it just that way.

        2. avatar Jhn in AK says:

          Also not relevant are the ‘feelz’ of today when applied to the realities of the past.
          In 1942, the US was in an actual war for its existence as it understood it at the time; It was, at the time, losing that war.
          The Japanese were NOT all ‘citizens,’ a high percentage were foreign nationals, and not a one was considered any different from those Japanese contemporarily bayoneting babies in China.
          Vilifying the US of the past, applying the revisionism of today, is useless and grossly unfair. Had any of us lost sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers to the Japanese, we would surely not have felt so kindly to their 1st cousins running the fruit stand down the block.
          If Americans knew a tenth of the things that Japanese were actually doing to others at the time, much of the modern revisionism would be silenced.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “As it was, their forced removal from some areas may very well have saved their lives. ”

        Interestingly, the Japanese were not put in camps in Hawaii. Indeed, the military relied on skilled laborers (machinists, equipment operaters, etc) in putting Pearl Harbor back in operation.

        My family talked about the Dec 7th attack as being the lowest form of treachery. The difference between the response Japanese, and to Germans and Italians was discussed more as the contrast between an honorable declaration of war, versus a sneak attack. So it was that entire nations were ascribed certain characteristics. Thus, since the Japanese people were sneak attackers (the lowest of people), and the Germans/Italians were up front about their intentions, the descendants and relatives of people of those nations were viewed accordingly. One enemy was a bunch of back stabbers, and not to be trusted in society. The other enemies were honorable opponents.

        People who endured the “Great Depression” (a title known only in America; other nations has a “depression”, and showed earlier recovery than the US), and then immediately faced a world war had an experience like no other. Emotions ran high, and formed many opinions, often conflicting with each other. In my own experiences with war, I realized there is a huge gulf between those who live in conditions of kill or be killed, and those who watch events on TV. War makes impressions on people, and it is difficult to find compassion and understanding for someone who is bent on killing you; it becomes very, very personal.

        1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          That might well be even if the people knew and understood the truth of those events. Unfortunately, all wars are fought for the benefit of the elite/rulers, and at the expense of everyone else. People are much more easily inflamed to kill strangers if they don’t know the truth – and are fed a tissue of lies instead.

          Our benevolent “rulers” reinforce that fact each and every day.

          No average Japanese farmer ever said, “Gee, it would be terrific to blow up Pearl Harbor and make the Americans want to kill us….”

        2. avatar John in AK says:

          Ignoring the ‘elites profit from wars’ BS (which it IS, in the context of our participation in WWII–‘elites’ may have profited, but the war was most certainly a war of national defense and national survival for the US in particular), once again I must point out that revisionism is not 20/20, unlike hindsight. The mores of 2018 CANNOT be applied to 1942, any more than they can to 1776, 1862, or 1876.
          In some instances, though, there IS no excusing the behavior of people in their own time, as it even shocked the conscience of contemporaries; The Japanese behavior between 1931 and 1945 shocked the entire world of the time, and the heinous conduct was carried out on an individual level, by the lowest echelons. Common soldiers, not their leaders, committed the atrocities, and with glee.
          Once again, if Americans actually knew what the Japanese DID during the WWII era, the blind revisionism would cease. Even Nazis were shocked at their depravity.
          Consider the Rape of Nanjing in 1937. Or, Google ‘Unit 731.’

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      FDR was a POS communist (D). Everywhere they’ve been you’ll find a spectacular spectrum of ruin matched only in other communist run countries and the POS UN.

      F em all. Make them beg you for tbe opportunity to repeal the NFA, set the exhaustive and stringent conditions under which you’ll permit them to do so. Then, upon their compliance, demand more.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        I like the cut of your jib, sir.

  3. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    You heard it here first folks. I will turn over my evil bump stock to authorities and advocate for their commercial manufacture to be banned the day they reverse the NFA 1936, 1968, 1986 and whatever other years they infringed my rights.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I never thought I would read of a compromise that I might be able to get behind; until now. lol

    2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      I would also give up all my high capacity .9mm banana clips for national reciprocity. It’s just common sense gun reform we all can agree with.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        I’m holding out for reparations and repayment for war debt.

  4. avatar Defens says:

    I vote that sock-puppet Gifford’s hubby should be shot out of a non-NFA-compliant, large-calibered cannon. Into low earth orbit. There, he can rendezvous with the destabilizing Chinese space station and they can both flame out spectacularly over the ocean somewhere.

  5. avatar Rick says:

    Odds? zero. As you noted, the supreme court has ruled, and congress has passed laws, one way for most of a hundred years. You’d have to have at least 8 different justices, and 300 new house members,and 60 new senators, and a different president.

    There is zero chance a change is made at this point. Heck, the NRA would have a conniption if it was even tried, how could they raise money.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      So what you’re saying is that there’s still a chance.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Well, yeah, I suppose. But I can’t see a situation that would make that happen.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      F them and that SCOTUS (even if achieving 100% Conservative court) can eat shit, they’ve shit all over their authority by past performance. Settled law w/respect to rights protection, is only what they have rolled up and buried in tbeir collective asses. Otherwise you’d have to spring from the womb fully formed, and armed to the teeth, to beat back all the ways that they have wronged you great grandfathers.

      F em all. Make their shit not pay. “Only one maxim maintains” this Society. And that is:

      “I WILL NOT PAY TO RAISE UP AN ARMY AGAINST MYSELF” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012].

      AGAIN AND FOREVER, until JESUS comes back,

      FUCK

      THEM

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        So says the couch warrior. Then you go and start the revolution if you’re so eager, put some ass in your diatribe.

        Basement tough guys are the most boring snowflake activity that the internet has allowed. Move along.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I haven’t told anyone to do sh_t.

          Where’d I find you little lady, have any idea?

  6. avatar Hank says:

    😂 yeah right. Good luck with that. We’re lucky we didn’t walk away with a new assault weapons ban after this last showdown.. The NFA ain’t going anywhere. And there’s no way in hell the RINOs that dominate the legislature are gonna fall for “dismantling”. That ship sailed long ago. Keep dreaming though. It’s a nice dream for sure.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I do not disagree. However, I don’t believe that the statists are done riding this latest wave yet. We may still get some nastiness.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      “ We’re lucky we didn’t walk away with a new assault weapons ban after this last showdown.. “

      Whatcha mean “we” pale face ? You’re POS (D), this shit’s on you. WTFF do you get off claiming we’d walk away from a new assault ban? Speak for yourself and satan.

      1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

        Hey look, an imbecile figured out the keyboard.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          Oh, so you did! Congratulations!

  7. avatar strych9 says:

    OK, parts of this are going to tick people off but trust me, I hate the NFA as much as anyone else, probably more actually having been jerked for a few years around by the ATF and their “interpretations” bullshit but I’m going to point out a couple of things here.

    First, as per the article (which is a good one btw) “First, the NFA’s unconstitutional. What part of “shall not be infringed” did Congress, then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Supreme Court not understand?”

    This brings up two interesting and important points. Theoretically no part of the Constitution is “above” any other part. The NFA is an end-run around the 2A using the power of Congress to tax.

    The first point that brings up is the arguable difference between politicians of yore and those of today. Back in the day they understood they couldn’t simply ban things because of that pesky 2A so they had to find an end-run around the Amendment. Some might say that’s splitting hairs but I find it rather interesting and others should too. First, it implies a deeper understanding of the Constitution and a deeper respect for it than gun-control advocates have today. Second, it implies that the people who did this were damn clever. Let’s hope our current adversaries don’t ever rise to this level of intellectual capability.

    The second point goes back to my opening. Here we have a dilemma. Which part of the Constitution is “above” the other? Is it the power to tax, vested in Congress or is it the 2A? In order for the NFA to be “a thing” once has to accept the idea that the power to tax is somehow a “higher power” within the Constitution than the 2A is. But how can that be? I note nothing in the Constitution that denotes, or even suggests, that it’s broken up into tiers. The situation here causes us to necessarily arrive at the conclusion that 1) the power to tax is somehow more “important” than the 2A, 2) that applying the power to tax to a right is unconstitutional because it presupposes #1 which is untrue or 3) that both parts of the Constitution are equal and that this either nullifies the NFA or creates some sort of “Who divided by 0?” situation.

    No matter how one might feel about it the NFA necessarily brings up the question of which part of the Constitution “overrules” the other. This sets up, for lack of a better term, a Constitutional Crisis. One the courts have conveniently ignored for decades.

    As for adding “assault weapons”… not gonna happen. No matter how much the Left crows were they actually to get the chance to crack open the NFA they would steer clear of that opportunity because it opens up the possibility of things they don’t want becoming real.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      Even politicians of the 60’s understood that taxing a protected right (in the case then, voting) is to place a chill on that right.

      The NFA was directly intended to curtail purchases in the guns it taxed, having a very noticeable chilling effect that persists even today when the $200 isn’t a massive burden to the right as it was in 1934.

      Imagine the outcry if everyone had to pay $200 each election cycle to vote. The left would be apoplectic about it. Hell, they already are over requiring free or very cheap government id’s.

      1. avatar B-Rad says:

        Can we tax people $200 for NOT voting?

        1. avatar Chadwick says:

          Or we should tax them $200 and have them wait for approval before cursing. Makes just as much sense as asking for permission to cut .5″ off a 16″ barrel.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          “ Can we tax people $200 for NOT voting? “

          The POS (D) do this every election cycle by encouraging and helping fucking illegals to vote.

          And you’re not from here.

        3. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          What in the world are you talking about? Democrats charge people for not voting, what? You’re a very stupid person.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          LJ
          you ain’t from here.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        I get that argument and I’ve heard it before.

        My poi t is that the NFA raises the odd question I have posed. Which part of the Constitution has more authority than the other?

        Further, the NFA tells us which it is: The power to tax. That itself is problematic because it declares one part of the Constitution to be “higher” than another which statute supposedly has no power to do since it’s not an Amendment. It’s like a PFC ordering around SSgt.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          Rights trump the Constitution. The Bill of Rights supercede taxation.

    2. avatar Moltar says:

      Very interesting. I would argue that taxing anything in the Bill of Rights is unconstitutional but there’s nothing in the document to prove it unless we look at poll taxes but then again they were outlawed federally in 1964 by the 24th amendment. No other fundamental right has been taxed and it wouldbe very interesting to see what would go on should Congress decide to levy a tax on certain types of speech or on certain publishers. Certainly taxing a fundamental right is morally wrong but, far as our justice system and political representation is concerned it is, unfortunately, legal.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “No other fundamental right has been taxed and it would be very interesting to see what would go on should Congress decide to levy a tax on certain types of speech or on certain publishers.”

        “Certain speech” – Already done, try organizing a massive rally in Washington DC without a permit. A permit you must pay for.

        “Certain Publishers” I saw an article recently about a state or ISP that wants to charge customers 20 bucks to access pornography…

        1. avatar Moltar says:

          Ok one paying for permits was already argued over and here’s what I found:

          https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php

          Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6]

          Such time, place, and manner restrictions can take the form of requirements to obtain a permit for an assembly.[7] The Supreme Court has held that it is constitutionally permissible for the government to require that a permit for an assembly be obtained in advance.[8] The government can also make special regulations that impose additional requirements for assemblies that take place near major public events.[9]

          two paying to watch porn is old as the hills every porn site has a pay to play members only area or is that fee on top of the rate the site would charge and it isn’t the feds charging it. It’s either a state or the ISP.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          F SCOTUS, their ONLY FUCKING JOB is to protect tbe Constitution.

          Instead THE POS MFrs WASTE EACH AND EVERY YEAR, PLAYING “FOUNDING FATHERS” AND NONE OF THEM RATE.

          NOR DO ANY OF THE MFrs WHO APPOINTED OR APPROVED THEM. [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012].

          WHAT TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTION?

          The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

          This all ends when you decide it does, and none of the 3 branches need be provided opportunity for re-hash or negotiation.

          Human history has proven, without hiccup, that it’ll likely be inhumane open season on them and theirs, and their friends.

          Again and still, FUCK EM, feed em fish heada.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Simple. Individual rights constitutionally protected > government privileges constitutionally enumerated. One part allows government the privilege of taxation while the other part protects an individual right from that government. Obviously, protection of the individual right from government is superior to a privilege afforded that government.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Obviously, protection of the individual right from government is superior to a privilege afforded that government.”

        It’s not obvious. Were it obvious the NFA wouldn’t exist.

        It’s also fundamentally untrue. No part of the Constitution is “superior” to another part of the document or the document would say so. The Founders were shockingly good at telling us what they meant if you are capable of reading and parsing English.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You assume black bathrobe wearing tyrants would rule in favor of the obvious over the politically convenient. That is a poor assumption.

          Quite frankly, FDR is possibly the worst president in US history. He threw American citizens into concentration camps, wiped his crippled ass with the constitution, and prolonged the Great Depression by almost a decade.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “It’s not obvious. Were it obvious the NFA wouldn’t exist.”

          It’s obvious that a privilege is inferior to a right. That’s common sense. Just because government violates the Constitution, doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a violation. Look at how Judicial Review was created out of thin air by a court with conflict of interest. http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

        3. avatar Moltar says:

          Here’s the problem we run into though. There hasn’t been, to my knowledge, a challenge against the NFA from that angle. Now to get there is going to be nearly impossible because not many lawyers will take that case and if you do manage to find one it’ll be a cold day in hell before it ever sees the Supreme Court. Now if it ever makes it there we had better hope and pray for a conservative stacked bench or it will turn out very very badly for our side. Even then, there is a chance they’ll rule in favor of Congress taxing whatever the hell they want individual rights be damned and we’ll be set on a very slippery slope where anything in the bill of rights can be taxed. Should we try to use poll taxes in our argument we may have a chance but it is thin at best. Like I said taxing a fundamental right is morally reprehensible but legal. No one is going to dare challenge the NFA for fear it could lead to taxes on the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights.

    4. avatar Art out West says:

      I would argue that the 2nd Amendment over rules Congress’s authority to tax (as pertains to arms).

      Authority to tax is laid out in the original Constitution.

      Amendments are AMENDMENTS (Changes to, or revisions of the original).

      One amendment bans alcohol. It is over ruled by a later amendment reversing that ban.

      Everything designating authority to Congress (making laws), the Executive branch (executing laws), and the Courts (interpreting laws), falls under the revised rule of the 2nd Amendment.

      “Shall not be Infringed”

      None of the three branches (or even all of them together) have the authority to infringe.

      The only honest way to have gun control is to amend the Constitution.

      Maybe I’m a little simple. I also believe the Bible means what it says. 😊

      1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

        You’re 100% correct, you’re simple.

  8. avatar Sam I Am says:

    RF, what part of “compelling government interest” do YOU not get? In order to get where you want to go, that whole invented notion that any provision of the constitution can be circumvented by government fiat (i.e. legislation). “Compelling government interest” makes government superior in all respects to the people (and the states).

    Then, there is the pesky provision in the constitution that appoints congress the power/authority to equip the militia. That gives congress the authority to dictate the firearms the militia may have. So far, it is just a little “too much” for government to interpret that authority as the legal justification for gun confiscation; so fay.

    While “compelling government interest” exists as a basis for complete federal control over just about everything, there will be no dissolution of the NFA, no absolute RTKBA. Governments do not cede power without force. And force left town with Slim.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You are spot-on Sam-I-Am. A friend of mine explained the concept to me over 20 years ago when he said, “The Law is whatever the judge of the courtroom says it is.”

      And this is the final indication that our government is now almost entirely corrupted since even the courts no longer function under the rule of law.

      In a way this should be no surprise since the courts are an arm of government: why would government ever want to interfere with itself?

      1. avatar Toni says:

        “The Law is whatever the judge of the courtroom says it is.”

        Until the people reach breaking point rise up and hang, draw and quarter all these POS judges, lawyers, bankers and politicians and their friends scattering their remains far out to sea to the 4 winds. that is how they get the message that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that. they also dont have the right to unlimited taxation. one of the reasons for the war of independence was excessive taxation and without representation….. which sat at 3% at the time. what are we at now?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We The People of The United States are highly elastic when it comes to enduring the pervasive intrusion of the central government into our lives.

  9. avatar Nick says:

    The NFA did give us one inkling of hope, US v Miller. It was an old SCOTUS case where the opinion of the court was that the 2A only protected militarily useful arms (in stark contrasts to modern rulings).

    They also understood it was an issue of constitutionality. That’s why it was a tax and not a ban. It’s also why handguns were ultimately removed, while leaving the guns that could be “loopholes” to the tax on handguns in.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      The Supreme Court really needs to flush this “precedent” garbage down the toilet and just state that Miller was a show trial that was arranged, by a judge that wrote the law, to be held without defense or defendant and any conclusion from it is invalid and even if this were not the case, the Constitution is above the decisions of the Supreme Court.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        Even though it was a kangaroo court style upholding of Miller’s conviction, it suggests that the NFA on its face today is unconstitutional as applied to certain machine guns, DD’s and SBR’s all in common use by the military.

        The governments argument (and the final opinion) in Miller was that the defendant had no right to own (and thereby a chilling tax could be placed upon) his short barreled shotgun because there was no analogue to it in current military use.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          Yes, but political reality exists, and every branch of government, of every political banner, has backed “gun control”.

          The courts are not filled with constitutional textualists, nor congress, and the white house has a man baby who doesn’t even like text, the constitution is like three bridges and a tunnel too far.

          At this point, stand on the bridge and say “You Shall Not Pass” that’s the best strategy we have.

  10. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    It is more likely that the Republicans will vote for gun control than the NFA goes away or national reciprocity becomes the law of the land (or national Constitutional carry). Wait they are already embracing gun control! Who would have ever imagined?

  11. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    If the politician that created an SBR online and posted the video hasn’t been arrested we all should start writing our representatives and complaining about getting rid of the NFA especially since they themselves don’t have to follow those rules. I’m serious, start writing.

    1. avatar davida says:

      that gal who cut the gun barrel .. there’s a petition on that to investigate that look thru this
      URL: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation

      Facebook Email Twitter

      Oppose Gun Control and Weapons Ban Legislation | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

  12. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    There is no one in the congress with the guts to propose this. Beside, D C has almost never shown interest in eliminating a stupid or ineffective program or law.

  13. avatar Stereodude says:

    I see tone deaf delusional posts are still popular in these parts. RF has a better chance of being crowned King of America than getting the NFA repealed in today’s political environment. But, focus on the unrealistic instead of the attainable…

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Considering that at this point there are no posts suggesting that the NFA will be repealed, only posts saying that it should be, I would say that no one is focusing on the unrealistic.

      You just lack either the reading comprehension level to understand the posts above yours or you lack the attention span to bother reading said posts.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      Maybe we can do what works so well for antis: ask for a unattainable and then accept half of it as a “compromise”.
      Shoot for end of the NFA and get at least the registry reopened. Or suppressors removed.
      Yell for constitutional carry and accept the reciprocity.
      That’s how we lost big chunk of our constitutional rights cake. It may work to get some of it back. The constant defensive play has to stop. Push back!

      1. avatar davida says:

        yea reverse the game play, we want repeal NFA , will accept accept reciprocity ccl nationally, repeal hughes amendment part and silencers .

        re the the anti gun marches stuff organizers
        I suggest a petition to have the named subversives behind this investigated and dealt with.
        THEY are the enemy from with in.
        Joe mcCarthy would have known how to deal with this .

        .Legislators who are ignoring there oaths of office are as nearly as complicit besides.

        Existing Draconian anti gun laws are complicit by setting up gun free zones disarming faculty / and staff there rights to licensed carry where ever threats can exist .

        This calls for a constitutional review of every gun law that has bin put into effect federal and / or state wide , since at least 1960. maybe even 1934, and repealing every one of those laws that have the “bad act” covered under other law or has subverted self defence in any way.

        Sedition to the constitution IS a SERIOUS concern here.

        Partitions are less likely to hood wink the public or govt officials.

        View the topic , do your study, on it and participate

        To often we see public displays of ‘marches’ as a pile of news coverage worthy theratrics and drama.
        This latest display , and one coming sat . on the 24 th march 2018, is just the hood winked swarms being lead sheep to there own doom by wolves.

        Every parent, if they understood what was REALLY going on, would be outraged .

        The fact this event even got pulled off is evidence of informed critical thinking is not being taught in schools any more. and people are reacting instead of using reasoned informed response.

        Its time we all said so.
        Follow up and sign the petitions that suit your informed views now.

  14. avatar Kyle says:

    Your right, of course, across the board. Legally, morally, Fiscally, and any other way you can be right….

    ….and no, it will never, ever, ever happen.

    Rights lost or curtailed, don’t come back often.

    1. avatar davida says:

      dc’s ‘gun ban was left standing 23years .. i think there counting on brain washing kids / generations between steps that pretty obvious between bigger moves ye all know the dates 1934 1938 …. 1968 1986 1994 2013 in md. latest grab 2018 bla bla missed some too.

  15. avatar ironicatbest says:

    What’s with the KAMOflage Mister Pole leece man, why you guys always dress up like ninjas? uh oh,,, I just heard Jefferson Airplane singing “Lawman”

  16. avatar OregunianC96 says:

    I find it funny that the NFA tax is the only tax the government actively discourages people from paying. Most taxes are taken out by your employer, or added to the purchase price at checkout. But a backgroung check and yearlong wait…

    Want to raise .gov revenue? Just start selling $5 and $200 tax stamps by the roll at any post office.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Um, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, use tax. You’re missing lots of taxes.

    2. avatar B-Rad says:

      Yeah, then you’ll be able to buy 2 sortie’s by an F35. Well, maybe one.

  17. when the 2nd amendment was written there was no army or navy in this country. the militia was the people, and when the army and navy was formed,( again it was the people) they had guns, those guns were the guns that the people had, there were no special versions for the military, the military had the same guns the people owned. so we should have M16s and not AR15s. we are the people.

  18. avatar Hank says:

    Not so much a slave, but I am very cynical. We’re talking about congress here.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Not so much a slave, but I am very cynical. We’re talking about congress here.”

      Just couldn’t resist……
      “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
      – – S. Clemmons

  19. avatar Gman says:

    307 U.S. 174
    United States v. Miller (No. 696) Argued: March 30, 1939 Decided: May 15, 1939

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

    Though the court incorrectly believed that a short barrel shotgun was not ordinary military equipment at the time, no one could possibly argue that machine guns are not ordinary military equipment. And the same for suppressors. The only reason the NFA stands today is because we have not challenged it. This very decision negates those restrictions and any challenge has SCOTUS precedent on it’s side.

  20. avatar TC says:

    Absolutely NFA needs to be Abolished. It comes down to this simple factoid: “Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.
    The only power the federal government has over the Country at Large respecting arms is set forth at Article I, §8, clause 16 with respect to providing for the “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training. “

    However the NRA didn’t get the memo and helped get the NFA of 1934 enacted. If one goes back to the Congressional Record in 1934 you’ll find NRA President Karl Frederick was an active participant in moving gun control legislation forward at the State and Federal level.

    Here’s a quote from the NRA in 1968: “The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.” —American Rifleman, March 1968, P.

    Having been a supporter of the NRA for years, color me surprised when I discovered they as an organization have a long history of supporting Gun Control measures at both the Federal (Unconstitutional) and at the State level. They threw their support behind unconstitutional Federal “Gun Free Zones,” banning “Bump Stocks” etc.

    How about this little ditty from Wayne LaPierre: “We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. … We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. … That’s why we support Project Exile — the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws…we think it’s reasonable because it works. … We only support what works and our list is proud.” No question there that the NRA supports unconstitutional Federal Gun Control.

  21. avatar MIO says:

    It’s already too late. The fix is in and we all fell for it thinking everything was going to be good for a few years

  22. avatar little horn says:

    aint gonna happen. don’t waste your time.

  23. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Your going to repeal the NFA?
    Don’t make me laugh
    The Republicans here in Florida just voted in a bump stock ban
    We have both legislative houses and the Governor and they practically fell over themselves in voting for it
    And we got NOTHING in exchange
    No grandfather clause, no open carry, no campus carry.
    President Trump has directed the Department of Justice to write national rules to ban bump stocks
    No one needs to even vote on those rules!
    I am angry that I have to get rid of my lawfully acquired property
    That I have enjoyed using for many years
    So what do we do now?

  24. avatar GS650G says:

    It would not surprise me to see gun registration come to pass. If they let you keep it but register then there is no infringement.
    The confiscation comes later. That’s the showdown.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Not for me, thank you. I will NOT register any of my firearms, I will NOT require background checks before handing my son a rifle, and anyone comes to my house and demands entry to record serial numbers of my guns will be SHOT. You can wait for the confiscation if you like, I think that’s stupid. Once the location of all firearms is known, the goons can target one owner in the middle of the night with massive firepower, and no one will pay any attention. If they have to go door-to-door, tearing houses of the Bloomberg’s and the Gates’ apart along with everyone else, the shit will hit the fan instantly.

      1. avatar Tony says:

        “I will NOT register any of my firearms”

        You will if you live in the state of Hawaii. You can’t even walk out of the store with the gun without having to do the paperwork to register it with the state. On top of that, you have three days after you walk out of the store with it to take it down to police headquarters and register it with the police department. If you choose to not take this step, you very well may find a police officer standing at your door one day. At that point you will have ALL your firearms confiscated then you will be charged with a felony. When you are convicted, and you will be in the state of Hawaii, you will never be able to purchase firearms again.

        Hawaii also is the only state in the country to participate in the Rap Back Program where all firearms purchases are registered and the information goes into a national database; ostensibly it’s supposed to be so that if you purchase a gun here in Hawaii and and that gun is used to commit a crime in another state then they can trace that gun back to you. You know that this program is BS because no other state in the union participates in the program. Registration with the Wrap Back Program is mandatory before you can even walk out of the gun store with the weapon and to add insult to injury, they charge you $45 per weapon that is registered with Rap back They call it paradise, but Hawaii may be even closer to being a communist state than California.

      2. avatar M1911 says:

        People that keep saying we can’t change anything is just letting that government instilled stupidity control them! We can change things, but it will require the same formula our founding father used to gain independence, from England because that is what it is going to take to restore the balance back to our country! The government has turned our laws against us, and the law cannot be followed! When the law oppress the people, and their rights there is no law! Preserving, and restoring our constitution is justified justice! The people still have the power, the numbers, and the right to say no we won’t abide by this corruption anymore! The government has broken their oaths to uphold the constitution, and this is treason that makes them enemies of that constitution! This makes them enemies to the people, and the country as well! A government that fears the people is a government that will do, for the people, and only the people can restore this balance! How many presidents, and politicians have we had that were nothing, more than greedy criminals leeching off our system? How many more have we had that were just flat out stupid to the point of having no business in their position of power! Our government is supposed to look out, for the people instead of robbing the people, and writing oppressive criminalistic laws that are nothing more than their greedy attempts to self preserve, just to keep leeching from the people! Our stupidity has allowed them to enslave us with red tape, and our stupidity is the only thing that makes this red tape the chains that hold us! We are being ruled by our stupidity, and we need to wake the fuck up because our stupidity is what’s giving their bullshit make believe illusion its power!

  25. avatar tiger says:

    Oh, boy….. NO.

  26. avatar davida says:

    As a kid i remember a tv show,
    ‘The life of riley’
    His quip and quote was ;
    “What a revolting situation this turned out to be. ”

    Do not give in easily folks.

    Interesting theoretical thoughts expressed .

    Govt operates on MONEY but why has it bin since about 1913 is it , that its all ways is on more then it gets ( ie collects ) ?

    My thought is; Some greedy bastard figured out how to steal from all our descendants and not just from what was out there to swipe then.

    hint ; federal reserve system

    It’s obvious there descendants are the ‘pricks ‘ runnin the show now .

    THERE the ones getting worried who is armed and if they can stay hidden .

    Just as good a ‘conspiracy theory” as any .

    How to prove it ?
    JUST FOLLOW the money.

    That is what i think ‘ The rest of the story is ‘

    Act / prepare, accordingly . Mean while , try to be nice to all others.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That was awesome comment.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What a revolting situation this turned out to be. ”

      Not to put too fine a point on it, Riley’s tagline was, “What a revoltin’ development this is.”

      Those were the last words my dad said moments before he died.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        My condolences. My father has passed but, sometimes, it is still fresh in my mind. Your sharing brought it back.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thank you.

  27. avatar davida says:

    opps the quote was “what a revolting development this turned out to be “

  28. avatar m1911 says:

    Our criminalized, crooked federal mafia of a government has already wiped their fat shit soaked asses with our 2nd amendment right, and we let them do it because it is the people’s duty to rectify an infringing power abusing government! Since the first government infringement, all these bastards have done is add to the list of restrictions, and this is our fault, for allowing such stupidity to rule over us! The government has slowly conditioned us to accept their oppression by inbreeding it into our laws, and these inbred laws has infected the people with stupidity! This infected stupidity has allowed our government to slowly steal the power from the people, and our freedom because this power goes hand in hand with our freedom! Our government has used stupidity, and make believe to fool us with an illusion that is nothing more than a lie! Our stupidity is the only thing that gives this oppressive government instilled illusion its power to control us, and we all need to wake the fuck up, so we can restore this balance of power! No politician will ever make America great again because they are the ones responsible, for ruining America, and we are responsible, for letting them do it! Politician is just another word, for criminal, and we are letting these goddamned criminals suck Liberty’s tits dry at our expense! Our stupidity is costing us our freedom, and making them rich, while they run our country into the ground! Our constitution is only as strong, as the people’s resolve to uphold, and defend it in the face of tyranny! Our constitution is not supposed to protect us! We are supposed to protect it! Our constitution is an alarm that warns us when the government is overstepping its boundaries, and authority! Our constitution is a warning to the government, and an alarm to the people that tells us when to start fighting back! We have failed to listen to our constitution, and we have failed to defend it! Our government has fooled itself into thinking they can change, or modify our constitution at their discretion! Our government has fooled its self into thinking they have more power than they really do! Our government has swallowed way to many make believe pills, and our stupidity let them get away with it! Our government is responsible, for ruining our country, but we are responsible, for letting our government become the cancer that ruined our country! We have watched this train wreck of stupidity destroy everything that is good in our country, and it is time, accountability to held before it takes us all down with it! We need to wake, and restore order to our country before we let our stupidity dream us into oblivion! Our country is turning into a socialist shit hole, and we are letting it fucking happen!

  29. avatar Tony Cox says:

    “Abolish The National Firearms Act…….”

    It will never happen. As much as we all agree that the NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional, unless a citizen can show where he had been injured by and specifically that his constitutional rights have been demonstrably injured by this unconstitutional law, it will never see the Supreme Court and without the court striking it down, it will never go away.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      You talk as if no citizen out there can make a case that he has been injured by, and his constitutional Second Amendment right injured by, all the firearms legislation passed since NFA 1934. Any US citizen who has ever contemplated owning a Thompson submachine gun, but cannot afford the $20k price tag caused by supply and demand; anyone in the firearms or related industry who has closed their doors due to restrictive industry regulation; anyone who has contemplated how neat it would be to have his own shiny new Glock 18, but cannot because there are none on the Registry available for purchase. In effect, any and every US citizen can make that case.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email