Previous Post
Next Post


I looked in my gun safe the other day (searching for a firearm I could sell to cover some AvGas related expenses) I came to a sudden and terrible realization: I can’t sell any of my long guns. Not that there are any contractual issues preventing me, but the fact of the matter is that they all have the name of my trust and my home town engraved on the receiver. I can’t really think of a modern rifle in my safe that I haven’t SBR’ed. That makes me a bit of an outlier — the vast majority of gun owners don’t have any Title II firearms in their safe. As a result they have been the “redheaded stepchildren” of gun rights, but their numbers are growing every day and the NFA Freedom Alliance is working to expand gun rights for those who own these items.

At the 2015 Gun Rights Policy Conference Todd Rathner (chairman of the NFAFA) came right out and said it: “The NFA should be ripped out, root and branch, and thrown in the trash.” You won’t find many people (in this crowd at least) who would disagree with that sentiment, but getting the general public and politicians in general to sign off as well is an uphill battle.

Todd compared the struggle for NFA repeal and legislation to the struggle for concealed carry permits. The common cry in both situations from the gun control activists is that there will be “blood in the streets” if the existing restrictions are lifted. We’ve come to realize that this has never actually happened and the expansion of gun rights actually might do more to reduce “violence” than increase it, but getting the general public to understand that concept as well takes effort. As a result the NFAFA has taken a more piecemeal approach of incremental progress in the states, and they’re seeing results.

The first thing they are focusing on is a repeal of the hunting ban in some states. When I started hunting in Texas it was still illegal to hunt game animals with silencers (while at the same time hunting without silencers is illegal in some European counties). Thankfully that changed shortly after I moved to the state, but some states still have such a prohibition in place. Getting these states to change their ways is the first step in silencer normalization and there are only a few states left to finish the job.

Another thing they are working on is “shall sign” legislation. For individuals, if you want to buy or build a firearm that falls under the National Firearms Act you need to get your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) to sign off on the paperwork that you are a good person. In Texas, the decision on whether to sign those forms is left to the individual sheriffs. This allows them to do things like refuse to sign any and all paperwork (even for law abiding citizens) if they don’t like guns. NFAFA is working on legislation that would require CLEOs to sign off on paperwork unless there’s an actual reason (like an arrest and conviction).

The last thing they are working on is removing the “defense to prosecution” aspect of NFA ownership. In some states all NFA items are illegal and anyone who owns them can be arrested, but if you present your legal registration paperwork in court you can get off the hook. “You can beat the wrap, but you can’t beat the ride” in other words. Getting those laws off the books would go a long way towards normalization of NFA items and reducing the stress on owners.

It’s great to hear an organization actually advocating for the one thing we all want: the repeal of the National Firearms Act. There’s no doubt that it is one of the dumbest laws on the book, and eliminating the law would have huge benefits for gun owners and manufacturers. Regulating silencers like guns instead of like radioactive material is their goal, and that sounded pretty damn good to the audience here at the GRPC.

Oh, and if you want to support them, they’re giving away a silencer and an SBR as prizes in a contest. FYI.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I suspect that with some effort, things like silencers/suppressors and short barreled long guns could be removed from the NFA fairly readily.

    Full auto will take a lot more work, because in the minds of the general public they’re much more dangerous. That of course is why grabbers try to conflate semi-auto “black” guns with “machine guns.”

    It’s also why I wouldn’t be surprised if the full auto nonsense is the very LAST thing that gets repealed…and that’s assuming we manage to repeal all 2A infringements. (It was darn near the first thing that got enacted, too.)

    • “Full auto will take a lot more work, because in the minds of the general public they’re much more dangerous. That of course is why grabbers try to conflate semi-auto ‘black’ guns with ‘machine guns’.”

      That’s nothing new, Steve:

      “Assault weapons – just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms – are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons – anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun – can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
      -Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director and founder of the gun control group Violence Policy Center (VPC); “Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation”, March 1989

      • That’s nothing new, Steve:

        How did you get the impression I was saying it was? I was mentioning their use of this as evidence the public finds it especially scary (and that the grabbers exploit that for other goals) and therefore it will be politically hard to repeal, NOT trying to claim it was a new tactic on their part.

        • I was just following up your point with the quoted reference so the lesser-informed or “newbies” and “lurkers” would know precisely what you were referring to.

          No offense intended, Steve. 🙂

        • A follow up, fair enough. It’s a good one.

          I realized a while ago I’d never seen a “grabber” explicitly explaining it was their plan (of course the evidence is overwhelming that their “confusion” is deliberate even without the quote you cited), so you definitely added something, there.

    • Machine guns were already heavily regulated. The ban on machine guns made after 1986 was not necessary. Authoritarians at work slipping that into the “firearms protection act.”

    • I’m not so sure about that. Now that tax stamps applications have skyrocketed, I do not think that the FedGov would willingly part ways with what is becoming quite the cash cow.

      • They may use that argument, but the reality is that the money they get from tax stamps is less than a drop in the bucket compared to literally anything else the .gov does.
        See: F-35, aircraft carriers, C-130s, the Affordable (lol) Care Act, etc…

        • Indeed. If I were a statist F*ck, I’d happily give up that income stream to disarm my intended victims; that’s a huge benefit (from the statist f*ck point of view) for very little “cost.” (They love to think of a tax cut as an expense.)

    • Thanks to TV and film, I’d think silencers would prove as difficult all in as full auto. After all the only reason for a silencer is for those that want to become professional hitmen like all those with the tax st.. wait that doesn’t hold up.

  2. Basically, it’s 3 uphill battles. One in the House, one in the Senate, and of course, one in the White House, which is currently under enemy control.

    • That’s why I believe it’s important to get this question into the dialogue of the presidential questionnaires:

      “What is your position on the National Firearms Act of 1934 being in direct conflict with the Founding Fathers’ intent of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?”

      {Theme from ‘Jeopardy’ plays here as candidate sweats through clothes}

      • I doubt there would be that much sweating. For 95% of the candidates, the answer would be some pat garbage they’ve reserved for any question about guns, because most of them probably don’t even know what the NFA is. The answers would all be some variation on “Blah, blah, blah, common sense, blah, blah, blah, our children, blah, blah, blah, strike a balance, blah, blah.”

  3. I’m very interested in this topic. I would very much like a suppressed, select fire SBR in 300 blackout.

    I don’t understand how the regulations on suppressors and SBRs can stand any level of public, political, or judicial scrutiny. They’re of a piece with bans on bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds.

    Full auto will be much tougher. Under the right circumstances and in the right hands, a mass shooting with a machine gun could be as bad as using a shotgun in the “right” circumstances. Then again, the media already call every gun a “fully automatic” or “assault rifle” or “machine gun”. It could be a muzzle loader, and some outlet would call it an assault rifle.

    Of course, machine guns don’t make society more dangerous. Otherwise Switzerland wouldn’t be one of the safest nations.

    • The outright ban on machine guns may not last much longer. The ATF, through a very stupid blunder, gave non-criminal defendants standing to sue and challenge the ban.

      • “Outright ban”

        There is no such thing. There IS a ban (the Hughes Amendment, 1986) on manufacturing new ones for use by individuals who don’t happen to have the right kind of FFL license (yeah I am fuzzy on the nomenclature), i.e., those who have to get a tax stamp.. Possession of the pre-existing ones is allowed (and has been all along) but has been heavily regulated since the 30s (the tax stamp).

        Regardless, it’s BS. I’m not sure what door you’re talking about here, but if it’s a repeal of the Hughes Amendment, that’s a good thing. If someone can challenge the original NFA tax stamp bullshit, even better.

        • One thing that has been an error on the part of the plaintiffs in these “gun law” lawsuits is not requesting “trial before jury,” thereby bringing in the potential of letting the 12 citizen jurors see the stupidity of a law that allows a citizen to purchase, own and possess an M16A2 manufactured on May 17th, 1986, but not an M16A2 manufactured on May 21st of the very same year (many other such examples exist, of course).

          Judges, by and large, do not see “the Law” in the same way as citizen jurors.

          Add to that the fact that the whole NFA is created around the principle of “tax the guns;” rather than “ban the guns;” as an outright ban would be UNconstitutional!

          USAG Homer Cummings admitted as such back in 1934:

          From the National Firearms Act: Hearings on H.R. 9066, Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1934) [hereinafter 1934 House Firearms Hearings] comes:

          MR. LEWIS: “Lawyer though I am, I have never quite understood how the laws of the various States have been reconciled with the provision in our Constitution denying the privilege to the legislature to take away the right to carry arms. Concealed-weapon laws, of course, are familiar in the various States; there is a legal theory upon which we prohibit the carrying of weapons–the smaller weapons.”

          ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: “Do you have any doubt as to the power of the Government to deal with machine guns as they are transported in interstate commerce?”

          MR. LEWIS: “I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution.”

          ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: “Oh, we do not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the interstate commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say, “We will tax the machine gun,” and when you say that “the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated,” you are easily within the law.”

          MR. LEWIS: “In other words, it does not amount to prohibition, but allows of regulation.”

          ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: “That is the idea. We have studied that very carefully.”

          [“Lewis” = Congressman David John Lewis, D-MD-6
          [“Cummings” – U.S. Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings

        • @Ibanez

          I didn’t think juries were involved when suing to overturn a law. (Apparently you can only do that as an appeal of a conviction.) Juries (these days) unfortunately are instructed to apply the law as written and disregard what they think the Constitution says, and so… the guy gets convicted for violating an (unconstitutional) law, then has to appeal…and there won’t be a jury there.

        • Juries are there to decide FACTUAL matters. Questions of LAW get decided by judges. If there are no factual controversies, and only legal ones (i.e. is this law constitutional), those cases are always decided by a judge.

      • Unfortunately, as to the “standing” issue:

        Hollis v. Lynch, et al., Case Number 3:2014cv03872

        August 7, 2015 #45

        Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:
        For the reasons stated, the Defendants’ 12(b)(1) 13 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amendment (“Count I”) and Commerce Clause (“Count II”) claims for lack of standing is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED. Defendants’ 13 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s due process (“Count III”), equal protection (“Count IV”), and Plaintiff’s alternative request for declaratory relief that § 922(o) does not apply to Plaintiff or the Hollis Trust (Dkt. No. 1 3) is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) is DENIED as moot.
        (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 8/7/2015)

        Hopefully, this can possibly be dealt with on appeal to the Circuit Court.

        • Oh, nobody had any doubts that a lower court would dismiss. I want to see this play out at the circuit of SCotUS level.

  4. I wish their first order of business would be to get surpressors of the NFA list. It seems easy, not to many antis have an opinion on surpressors, and we could easily sway public support by pointing out that ranges would be a lot quieter. We can also point out how easy it is to get suppressors even in anti gun Europe (which the antis seem to idolize).
    I would be ok with surpressors being sold like guns, having a background check and having to go through a FFL (unfortunatly, we do have to compromise on some things, we can’t be like Obama and believe that compromise means getting our way every time) . The main reason I don’t have any is the paperwork and the wait time just kills the excitement for me.

  5. I’m not a fan of auto fire..

    Full auto is designed to keep threats hidden until you get into position or to egress. After about 5-6 full mags in full auto, you’ll look at your wallet and your target and realize semi-auto is for hitting targets, full auto is just making noise to keep heads down.

    I’m not saying it should be illegal, but if it wasn’t regulated and since you pretty much have to be an exibition shooter to hit anything in auto, the only real use of that feature would be in a last stand or drive by..

    Bump fire is good enough to have range fun with. 99% of us really have no need or real desire for full auto other than the forbidden fruit aspect.
    I’m good with auto being last on the list..

    I am much more supprised that supressors aren’t required for hunting/ranges, instead of the Hollywood pew pew bans that we have.

    • A properly mounted / secured full auto weapon is incredibly destructive. An M240G can put an 8-10 burst through a man-sized silhouettes at 500 yards.

      Full auto through a pistol or shoulder-fired carbine is usually a waste of ammo.

      • “Full auto through a pistol or shoulder-fired carbine is usually a waste of ammo.”

        I wouldn’t mind trying it on a ’15 platform pistol with the Sig brace…

        As long as it has a muzzle brake tweaked to keep the muzzle rise manageable…

      • +
        It may be more dangerous than a SEMI-auto AR /AK but not having a full-auto variant will not [HAS NOT BEEN] the prevention of such use. It is extremely rare and predicated by bad actors (not just bad guys).

        • Sad to say too, due to the fact that there has not been any [not much?] in the way of crime committed using suppressors or full-auto weapons, the ATF can remain deluded and proffer the claim that their efforts are the cause.

    • Anything worth shooting is worth shooting at least 3 times if it’s a direct threat you.
      Full auto lets you do that a lot more quickly. One sight picture, one quick burst.

    • Siris,
      I started on a lengthy reply and realized it was turning into an ad hominem verbal diarrhea on my part. So I deleted it.
      So I’ll just ask a simple question.
      Why do you care what kind of gun someone owns?

      • I got the impression that he was saying “I think it’s stupid because…” but wasn’t excluding “your mileage may vary” and he explicitly said he doesn’t think they should be banned.

        Therefore, I don’t think he in fact cares what other people own.

        • Well, don’t worry, I care.

          I want you and yours to have good quality firearms.

          I want you to be able to defend yourselves from all enemies, both foreign and domestic [from your stupid neighbors (of which even I could be considered one) and your stupid neighbors needing jobs (a/k/a: your government)] and all other takers and comers. If America fails (even if you’r e the cause) I want you to have a vote in what comes next.

  6. “…expansion of gun rights…”

    Don’t you see? You are part of the problem. What part of ” shall not be infringed” do you not understand.

    Defend yourself from ANYONE that tries to infringe your GOD GIVEN rights.

  7. Repealing all or part of the NFA will require cooperation of the House, Senate and POTUS. Even more notably, it will require the cooperation of an electorate that has been dumbed down to the point where most of them can only print in block letters like a second grader. Average Americans are too ignorant to know that they’ve been gulled, and above-average Americans are too indoctrinated.

  8. I have been dragging my feet on an SBR in 300 with a silencer that I could share with a 20″ bolt gun. I guess one of these days I will break down and go for it, but it hacks me off to give another $400 to those worthless fools in the federal government. It wouldn’t be so bad if I knew they would just waste it, but it is made worse to know they will use the money to actively harm this country. For me that is the bottom line, the people in charge are largely tyrants (petty or otherwise) that or they are worthless slackers just there for a paycheck and ducking every bit of responsibility they have to restrain or out the tyrants.

  9. What I’d love to see is someone ‘pigeonhole’ congresscritters the ilk of New Jersey DimocRAT William J. Hughes, the “father” on the ‘Machine Gun Ban’ amendment to the ‘Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986’ (PL 99-308, 100 Stat. 449); in a public forum, of course [using ‘airsoft’ versions, naturally 🙂 ]; questioning as to just WHY an IMI Uzi ‘Model A’ 9mm Carbine:
    (16in. barrel length, 24.3in. OAL w/stock folded)

    is completely legal for citizens to purchase and own w/o “jumping through ATF hoops” and paying a $200 “Transfer Tax,” while these onerous restrictions apply to a rifle such as this XM177E2 semi-auto “clone”:
    (11.5in. barrel length, 29.8in. OAL with stock collapsed)

    is classified as an “NFA weapon” simply because the barrel is shorter that the 16″ minimum so arbitrarily chosen back in 1934?

  10. There is no getting rid of the NFA34 or the GCA68. As long as their is left wing media to crucify whoever votes for repeal it will not happen. Class 2 stuff has a chance to be deregulated, but nothing else. On principle the dems will block any attempt to reopen the class 3 registry. They will block any attempt to end or simplify the FFL system. They will block any transfers of government guns to the CMP. They will block any attempt to do anything about the ATF.

    SBR’s and silencers are so popular now that they just might be able to get the tax stamp on them repealed, but that’s it, and it’s happening because those laws are so bleeping stupid that even the gun grabber organizations have no official position on silencers/mufflers. Their only reason for opposition is that we want it, so they want to block it, and that’s a weak tactical position.

    That said we should make class 2 deregulation a litmus test for Republican party candidacy, NRA/GOA membership. We should make it our number one push in all social media, talk radio, youtube gun channels,, blogs like this one. The American Suppressor Association should get top billing and enough help to put itself out of business.

    • That’s why we need to take a page from the leftist playbook and fight this out in the courts. With a GOP president, the Supremes are going to be heavily conservative for years to come which gives us a very good chance to pull another Heller ruling.

    • “As long as their is left wing media to crucify whoever votes for repeal [of NFA] it will not happen.”

      I tend to agree. If only there was some way to discourage the left wing media from carrying out such a task …

    • I doubt the tax will go away. What I see as the first step for suppressor & SBR deregulation is to get them off of the NFA, but with the tax remaining. The tax will be built into the purchase price and dealers will have to kick it up to the ATF every quarter. If you sell 20 cans in a quarter, you owe the ATF $4000. The government won’t leave money on the table, especially if people are conditioned to paying it already.

      • I’m not sure about that scenario, but if tha were the case a very simple way to circumvent would be to ‘roll your own’. Making an effective and quality suppressor on your own is not that difficult or expensive. Voila! Tax avoided, a small measure of freedom restored and F the NFA.

    • I tend to agree.

      Going after either the Hughes Amendment or the placement of full auto under the NFA regime in the first place is at this time like attempting a direct infantry assault on Tokyo on December 8, 1941. We had no choice but to island hop to win that war, and we’re going to to have to chip at the huge mass of infringement at the edges (making sure, meanwhile, to ensure they don’t expand it), piece by piece.

      The occasional shot across the bow like Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo isn’t a bad idea (we don’t want to let them feel left out), but don’t expect to win the war solely with things like that.

  11. Always enjoy the timely topic, it appears we’re on opposite ends of the spectrum – you’re looking to sell a Class 3 item while I’m saving up for my first (Liberty Mystic X). Tax stamp, trust, can equals a ways to go. Good luck with aviation pursuits, I had to look up what avgas meant and we POGs love obscure acronyms…

  12. “(searching for a firearm I could sell to cover some AvGas related expenses)…”

    Nick, does your PA-28 qualify for an autogas converion STC?

    Going from 5 bucks a gallon to 2 bucks will make it considerably cheaper (considering it probably burns 9 gal an hour if it has the180 hp engine) to operate…

  13. No matter what the courts say, the NFA is unconstitutional. “The RIGHT of the people to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT b infringed”. Also 10th as well “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” So based on both 2 and 10 the NFA should not be able to stand.

    • All true, but the way our system works, you’re gonna have to convince any five out of a certain nine people of that. Yes, it’s true, “what the courts say” matters more than what you and I (and anyone else who’s literate and doesn’t want to evade what they are seeing on paper) get out of reading indicative sentences.

      • We need to label every instance as an overthrow of the Constitution.

        Everyone perpetrating such (if they’ve taken $ from sources other than the U.S.) is guilty of sedition.

        • Label away.

          Without a trial and conviction, under another judge who’s probably just as guilty, it’s meaningless.

  14. We have to understand whether our situation is best understood as:
    – making other folks understand the words “shall not be infringed; or,
    – gaining control of Congress.
    If it’s all about the 4 words then we can huff and puff until we turn blue; and, the incumbents will continue to be re-elected.
    Conversely, if we take seats in Congress we might some day gain control of the pertinent House and Senate Committees. That would be a game changer.

    The committees could drag ATF officials and industry experts before hearings and ask really embarrassing questions about the history of passage of the NFA. Just what was the intention of levying a tax of $200 on transfers? Just what was the opinion of government lawyers about banning these weapons? Just what was the evidence actually brought before the Committee that these particular weapons remained an actual threat to public safety after the repeal of Prohibition?
    Then, interrogation about what makes a shotgun with a barrel length of 17-7/8″ dramatically more dangerous than the same make & model with a barrel length of 18-1/8”. And so forth.
    Then, a synopsis of the cases of prosecution of individuals found in possession of each of these NFA weapon types. Were they notorious bank robbers or careless amateur gunsmiths? How much has it cost to prosecute these cases.
    The primary objective ought to be to discredit the NFA, and thereby, contribute to the process of discrediting gun-control altogether. Perhaps we could achieve some NFA roll-backs – particularly on punitive penalties for inadvertent violations.
    It’s might be better to lay-off on the full-auto and DD classes initially. To inquire into these areas would allow the Antis to wave an imaginary bloody flag thereby distracting public attention from the general theme of discrediting gun control.
    Then, move on to “reform” wherever we can make similar arguments of absurdity. Once the discrediting process has been largely completed, then go back for more important and more substantive reforms; e.g., repealing the Hughes Amendment, and so forth.

    • In any sort of hearing or debate about the NFA that is in the public sphere, deregulating machine guns & DDs must be left out of the conversation at first. If we come out swinging asking for machine guns to be treated like their semi-auto cousins, we’ll lose. The loony left will paint us as bloodthirsty wannabe soldiers.

      Best to work on relatively innocuous things like suppressors and SBRs first.

    • “Would love to see suppressors off the nfa list”

      That would be an easier fist step.

      Especially since suppressors are seen as a common courtesy in Europe.

      And emulating Europe is a wet dream for most Progressives…

  15. Woot for this, deregulate it all: Cans, full-auto, the various black-magic combinations of pipe length, pipe diameter, total length, rifling or lack of rifling, grips, stocks, etc.

  16. Great article, Nick! I live in Hawaii where all NFA toys are VERBOTEN!!! I never knew about the NFAFA and will join immediately! Thanks for helping spread the word.

  17. There was already a bill in Texas this year that would have required CLEO sign-off in Tx. It passed the senate, but was not allowed on the house floor for a vote by the calendars committee. If you live in Tx please look up the membership of that committee during the last session and try to vote them out. None of the supposedly conservative republicans on the committee ever once moved to have it brought to the house floor during any calendars committee meeting.

    I emailed Mr. Leghorn about this injustice, and asked that he write about it on TTAG to try and get some movement on it. Before the session ended. His response was TTAG doesn’t do calls to action posts.

    It seems to me that even the folks that claim to support the repeal of the NFA don’t want to lift a finger to help improve our situation.

  18. I couldn’t care less about owning a SBR, if you want one that is fine with me, I just really want a silencer/suppressor. Oh, wait, all NFA items are illegal in Delaware.

  19. The NFA is a retarded bag of nonsense. It continues to stand as the pinnacle of nonsensical gun law and why gun guys hate gun laws. The NFA doesn’t address crime, it addresses the fear and cowardly shivers from the left who sought to eliminate freedoms on the basis of opinion alone and at the expense of law abiding gun owners and collectors.

    The criminals who shot people in the face were still sawing off their shotguns and not paying their tax stamps. The NFA levied a tax on those that would pay it (law abiding), and criminalized and heavily regulated safety equipment like Silencers, which are legal and sold right off the shelf in places like the UK.

  20. Here is what I don’t get: Yes, the federal govt. has the authority to regulate INTERstate commerce / issues, including taxation. However, if an NFA device is not ever moved Interstate, then they should, legally, have no such authority. I know Montana and a few other states tried, and yet it still failed. Furthermore, if you have already paid your tax, and have your stamp as proof, under what grounds would taxation regulation play a role in a Form 5320.20? The tax has been paid. As long as you are following state laws (again, not ATF’s problem), then why the hoopla? To me, it seems that form/requirement could be ruled unconstitutional as well (but, frankly, there are bigger and better issues to fight at the moment).

    • The suppressors made in Montana of course cannot help but affect the US market for such, therefore they affect interstate commerce, therefore they are subject to federal regulation.

      I wish I was joking, but that’s very similar logic to that used to extend the federal government’s power in other parts of the economy. The IC clause is very elastic and can be stretched to cover anything and everything under the “butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and causes a hurricane a month later” logic, which is why it was misbegotten. Supposedly it was put in to prevent states from erecting tariff/regulatory barriers against other states, but it has far exceeded that purpose, and frankly, if that WERE its purpose, they could have just written something similar to what I just did earlier in this sentence.

  21. Just keep biting off smaller pieces- thats how CCW movement worked, state by state, county by county- read “The Rise of the Antimedia” for a history of that successful effort.

    Get silencers approved in every state, then move to the next item. Before long the NFA will be irrelevant, and it can be wiped out by congress, as a rider in an omnibus or something.

    First things first- POTUS 2016, and 3 conservative Justices.
    Get some real conservatives in leadership spots in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here