John Crump writes [via ammoland.com]
I don’t think I am alone when I say the National Firearms Act’s rules are unconstitutional and really does nothing to enhance public safety of society. If the restrictions were applied to any other amendment the public would be justifiably outraged. Moreover . . .
We have a litany of court cases that can be applied to the NFA and other gun laws that show these Draconian measures are not only ineffective, but illegal under the US Constitution.
Let’s start out with one of the most glaring legal problems as I see it with the NFA.
To register a firearm in accordance with the NFA’s rules the first thing you have to do is pay a $200 fee for a tax stamp ($5 for an AOW weapon). Taxes have been applied to our rights in the past. One was when people went to vote.
When minorities were first granted the right to vote they were also charged a “poll tax” in order to exercise their right.
These taxes were made to discourage and prevent the right to vote by blacks that were awarded that right through the fifteenth amendment. Poll taxes were also set up to stop poor white people from voting too. This is what the NFA was created to do as well. It was put up in 1934 so the rich could still get their firearms and everyone else would be stripped of their right by using economic measures.
This method worked for many years until Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections took place in Virginia in 1966. The United States Supreme Court ruled that you can not be charged a fee to exercise your right to vote.
In the ruling the SCOTUS ruled that the poll taxes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court stated that: “a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.”
This basically means that the right to vote cannot be tied to wealth.
Yet this is what the NFA does in relation to the Second Amendment. By forcing people to pay for a tax stamp the government is also discouraging people by adding undue economic burden to that person.
It might seem like $200 is not a lot of money, but you have to remember that the tax was added in 1934. If you adjust for inflation that would be equal $3,658 in today’s money. Because of the tax burden I think this violates the Equal Protection Clause as laid out in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.
This is only one Constitutional problem that I see with the NFA. Another issue is that before you can own any of these weapons you must get permission from the government. The Constitution does not grant us rights. The Constitution only acknowledges rights we are endowed with by our creator.
In the words of Jefferson the people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
This principle was not only what Jefferson thought, but was a common idea shared by all the founding fathers including James Madison, who wrote the Bill Of Rights.
Sir William Blackstone and his book, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book 1 The Rights of Persons, was one of the role models that James Madison took inspiration from when he was writing the Bill Of Rights and Blackstone was a big proponent of “god given rights”.
So if the people who came up with the amendments had the ideas that the rights that they laid out were endowed to us by the created and not granted to us by the government then why do we have to ask permission to that government to exercise our rights?
Imagine if you had to apply for government permission to exercise your right to free speech or if you had to pay a tax, get fingerprinted, have mugshots taken, and have a background check before exercising your first amendment right to be a Muslim. There would be an uproar.
The ACLU and every other liberal group would be coming to the aid of those whose rights were violated. Since our rights are not the ones they like, these so called civil rights groups will not come to any gun owners aid.
Right now the current wait time for all the NFA paperwork to get processed and the tax stamp to get issued is about 9 months. Since people consider the ability to get an abortion a right then why not make an application system and make a 9 month waiting period on that too.
I am pretty sure that some of these people who don’t see an issue with a 9 month wait for someone to exercise their Second Amendment right would see an issue with a 9 month waiting period for the somewhat dubious right to an abortion.
The 1986 law stopping new machine guns from being added to the NFA registry is a de facto ban. Let’s go back to the First Amendment. Imagine the outrage if it was announced that even though the press is still free, no new people would be allowed to join the press, and only people who were members of the press before 1986 would still have that freedom.
This would be a gross violation of the right of a free press. So how can it be a gross violation of one right and perfectly ok for another right?
The gun grabbers always point to a “grave threat” to the public if the NFA was to be repealed. They claim that there would be an explosion of violent crime if people would be able to get their hands on NFA items legally. When pressed on if they know that stats of violent crimes committed with legally owned NFA weapons you will get blank stares.
Lets first start off by looking at murders that have been committed using legally owned machine guns. There has only been two. Not two from last year, but two since 1934. One was in 1988 and the second was in 1991. Both of these murders were in Ohio. The first case of homicide was a dirty cop who killed off a police informant. You have a better chance of getting trampled to death by a crowd on Black Friday than getting murdered by a legally owned machine gun.
Scary Hearing Protection… Whoops I Mean Silencers
Another big bogeyman of the NFA is suppressors. Thanks to movies people think suppressors make a gun totally silent and is a favorite tool of criminals everywhere. Supporters of the NFA latch onto these misconceptions to try to scare the general public since there is no logical reason for suppressors to be on that list.
One thing that they won’t tell you is that there is 1.3 million suppressors in the United States, and only .003% were EVER used in a crime of any type. Suppressors are more likely to prevent injuries to people firing guns by decreasing the decibel levels of the guns then to be used to commit crimes.
Suppressors are a hearing safety device, but never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative.
Short barreled rifles and and short barreled shotguns are on the NFA because “they are easy to conceal”. You know what else is easy to conceal? Pistols, and those are not on some Draconian list.
The gun grabbers would like them to be, but the SCOTUS has already confirmed your rights as Americans to own handguns. This is just more smoke and mirrors that the supporters of the NFA like to roll out.
In the end we must fight to repeal this oppressive law and other laws like it. We know that the NFA is stupid and actually makes us less safe, but the general public does not understand this fact.
Now what we must do is convince others of the feebleness of the NFA. Don’t use rhetoric, but use the facts because in this case they are on our side. It is only through public education that we will be able to secure our rights.
John Crump is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He’s the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and current co-host of The Patriot News Podcast. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons . He’s currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement. Follow him on Twitter at @crumpyss or at www.crumpy.com.
It is all about the money!
Not really, it’s about controlling your subjects that used to be citizens.
It won’t happen, certainly not by Trump. We just launched a bunch of missiles into the Syrian desert al a Slick Willy. Either the dog wags the tail, or the tail wags the dog. No way 60 cruise missiles hit any airbase and it’s still functional. Intentional misses billed to the US tax payer. Trump looks good for a minute so far as some 3rd world savages who are butchering one another and makes it seem he’s not so friendly with the Ruskies. The Russian collusion stuff has gotten to him. Mark my words, first mass shooting Trump will be photo oping with Schumer and expanding background checks. I get it, any one but Hillary, but you still got Hillary.
Maybe we should take CANADATE Trumps advice “…Maybe the second amendment people might have something to say about that.”
He fully expected we’d rise up for HIM, why wouldn’t he think, if he ever even thought to ban anything, that we wouldn’t rise up AGAINST him ?
I’m fully thinking we are not getting anything substantial from this administration. Nothing.
Not really. Trump actually showed America has cojones to back up its word again, instead of declaring “red lines” while patting themselves on the back at the UN. Trump has already stated his position after actual mass shootings, several times. You know what he said each time after the shooting? More people should’ve been carrying guns so they could’ve shot back. You never trumpers are just still Butthurt you never got the chance to be cucked by Hitlery.
Hey Bill, I not only voted for the man, but I made a financial contribution (albeit nothing huge) to his campain. I do however think that he has become Paul Ryans lap dog and will be towing the party line. Republicans don’t care about our gun rights any more than liberals, they just pretend to care long enough to get elected. Thats why he was this great hope, because he wasn’t any partys political bitch…looks as though thats changed. If it hadn’t all we would have heard about Syria would have been “Gee, thats too bad. I guess they have a problem.” Not some BS waste of ordinance that did next to nothing except prove he’s not afraid to piss off russia, great.
He could have taken an hour in the last 70+days and put 7n6 back on the table and replaced the Obama era ATF head assclown at the very least.
I wish people would give the guy a chance. The missiles were a big plus in the eyes of allies and foe alike. After 8 years of giving America away in every treaty, at the UN, etc, we finally have people who essentially deserted us standing up and saying ‘welcome back America’. People who were backstabbing the country, including Americans, have started taking a second look. Even McCain said those missiles were the right thing to do.
Compare how fast Obama sent us on the road to becoming a 3rd world nation, to what Trump has accomplished in 100 days. We have a Constitutionalist/conservative on SCOTUS who, in past comments has supported the Constitution over justices making law. We have people in the administration who are not there due to who they know as much as what they know which will benefit the nation. Russia got smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for being caught in a lie. Putin said all the chems were out of Syria. Either Putin lied, or he has been duped by Asad.
As for Ryan, he will lose power for having rejected Trump. Others who ran against Trump are now saying he did right. That is the kind of teamwork I’ve been, along with so many others, I’ve been hoping for.
In California, getting back to guns, applications for CCWs has climbed and those numbers include a lot of liberals. We’re fighting back.
As Lincoln, among others, stated, a house divided against itself can not stand. Progressives have been working overtime to divide the masses; cops against civilians, liberals against conservatives, Tea Party against Take Over, straights against gays, religion against secular, illegals against citizens, guns against gun control, union against right to work, and the list goes on and on.
ferferfewrf, guess I missed where Crump expressed support for Trump, or mentioned anything about the Syria missile strike or wagging the dog. All I saw was about the FSA.
You totally hijacked the thread. Your anti-Trump feelings – and based on your comment it is nothing but feelings, all emotion, no rational element at all, not uncommon among anti-Trumpers – are so strong your judgment is rendered helpless, ignored. You “go there” when there is cause nor excuse to. Not because of anything anyone else said or did, but because it’s in you and it has to come out. Crump sounds like Trump, maybe that set you off? The subject becomes you and your feelings, and people discount what you say because they can see you are out-of-step: your judgment is poor, dysfunctional.
I call this Trump Derangement Syndrome. I will say that your case isn’t as advanced as many. You make the UTTERLY ABSURD equivalence with Clinton remark, but no expletives, no steaming hate. Credit there.
Actually its completely believable that a hard target like an airbase is not destroyed by mer cruise missiles. What you really need is multiple B-52 strikes on a target like that. The missiles where just a token gesture.
The title of your article says it all. (Of course you’re preaching to the choir.) Yes, that onerous collection of ineffective laws/regulations should go away for good.
As I understand it Franklin ‘The Red’ Roosevelt originally wanted pistols in there, too…
US v. Miller was a poor decision, largely because Miller had ineffective counsel. If he’d had a decent lawyer, the NFA would have been on the trash heap of dead letters before I was born.
Brian,
You probably already know this and I will say it for people who are unaware: Miller was not present and there was NO counsel. That’s right: the U.S. government lawyer/s argued in favor of gun-control UNOPPOSED before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller.
Adding insult to injury, the lower court had ruled in favor of Miller. That means the U.S. government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since Miller was not appealing the case and was unavailable (remember this was at the tail end of the Great Depression and average people did not have the resources to hire counsel and argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court), the U.S. Supreme Court should have refused the case.
It was actually because Miller was conveniently murdered before he had his day in court.
Yes pistols were banned in the early version of NFA. If they weren’t, the ban on short barreled rifles would be pretty stupid. But the gov doesn’t care if laws are stupid, apparently.
One thing that people always seem to ignore about US v Miller is that the specific finding rules against “assault rifle” bans. They held that “The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.” They found that the shotgun in question was illegal, BECAUSE it was not useful for a militia. Yes, this conclusion also seems stupid based on all the door breachers currently in use overseas. But, according to US v Miller, the class of weapons specifically protected by the 2nd amendment are the ones suitable for militia purposes, ie. modern military rifles.
The final lines of the decision states “[w]e are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.”
This means the procedural history of the case is that the District Court struck down he NFA, at least as applied to SBSs. The appellate court overruled the District Court, thereby upholding the NFA. The Supreme Court overruled the appellate court and remanded for further proceedings. The further proceedings ordered were meant to develop a factual record to determine the whether or not a SBS has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
The court did not find an SBS to be illegal or outside the scope of the 2A. They also did not find it to be within the scope of the 2A. They simply laid out a criteria for the 2A of whether or not the arm bore “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” That criteria or standard is actually pretty low.
The purpose of the National Firearms Act is to form the cornerstone of the idea called “sporting purposes”. If we acknowledge the right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment has a martial aspect to it….well, the thought really is intolerable to the Left and much of the Right. Free machine gun ownership would of course do nothing to the crime rate, but the thought is probably more visceral to a gun hating libtard than even open carry.
“The Constitution does not grant us rights. The Constitution only acknowledges rights we are endowed with by our creator.”
Such a trite and meaningless soundbyte. Who decides which rights are given by your creator? Do you get to decide that based off your interpretation of a holy book (since I haven’t seen a bible with a translation that talks about NFA firearms)? Why the specific holy book? Do we all get to choose our own (interpretation and holy book)? How empty will the jails be when everyone has their own little pet ‘rights’ they decide were chosen by their creator?
Doubt it. So most importantly; what the @#$% use is a “right” you declare yourself to have if society, under force of law, throws you in jail every time you exercise it? Is your creator going to descend from the heavens and fly you out of Rikers? If so, why hasn’t anything been done about the dozens of laws supposedly against ‘natural rights’? Or is this some sort of ethereal thing with no practical effect?
“Natural rights” is a laughably useless concept in a society of law. You have the rights agreed to by the society you participate in. If you disagree, society will imprison or kill you. But hey, you won’t be the first or last person muttering “BUT I WAS RIGHT!” as they close the bars on you.
(but yeah, the NFA is full of BS)
Truthfully, there is only one right. That might makes right. No one person or state has any right to anything unless they have the force of arms to defend them, or impose them. That’s why the 2A is so special because it’s the “might” factor of our rights. Ultimately we really have them because thus far no ones had the cojones to come out and force them from us… Yet.
Awesome analysis.
……enough of the “God given” crap. It carries no weight down here in the real world.
*claps*
You fail to recognize that those “God given rights” were to sources of your freedoms and rights… all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215 which was the beginning of rights for the common man recognized by a government (King John). The government subsequently dissolved those rights and the people repeatedly fought for them. It was not until the Constitution where they government was established to recognize and guaranty the rights of We the People. As all governments do, ours eroded those rights over time because people forgot where they came from and what was required to bring them into being. One of those things was a belief in God. As that belief has been determined not to be politically correct, and groups have bastardized the truth about the Founders and what they were about, our society has slipped ever deeper into a cesspool. People are welcome to believe or not believe. That is one of the pillars of our society. At least is used to be before progressivism took root.
So, when Jefferson penned, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” was that just “trite and meaningless?” Was it “laughably useless?” Jefferson and the men who risked their lives signing that document didn’t think so.
Of course you only have the exercise of the rights you’re willing to fight for, or that others fought for on your behalf — that’s the sentiment that is “trite and meaningless.” The idea that we have natural rights as humans is anything but meaningless. It was profoundly meaningful to the men who founded this country. It wasn’t just talk. It was a beacon of light after millennia of despotism. It meant enough to those men that they put together the Constitution governing the nation where we live, where, for the most part, might does not make right (as one responder to your post insisted). They established a system where the fundamental rights of individuals were enshrined at a higher level than the powers of government.
For millennia, people lived under the rule of nations where might made right, or where some were regarded as deserving of more rights than others. To see the inheritors of the nation founded in opposition to that fall back into saying things like “might makes right” and that the idea of God-given individual rights are “crap,” is to watch us sinking back into darkness. If you cannot understand why it was of life and death importance to the founders to insist that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” then you cannot understand why all citizens should have rights equal to your own, why we should not have a king sitting over us and privileged lords acting on his behalf.
And, sadly, I’m afraid that’s just the position we find ourselves in. And people who believe the idea of Natural or God-given rights is “trite and meaningless” are at the source of the problem.
The simplest way to reform gun laws would be to just apply the established principles of 1st Amendment jurisprudence to the 2nd Amendment.
Second is to apply the doctrine of “strict scrutiny” to every judicial review of gun related issues.
The biggest issue with getting rid of the
NFA, most gun owners don’t even know what an NFA item is. Most have no clue!
The biggest issue with getting rid of the
NFA, most gun owners don’t even know what an NFA item. Most have no clue!
Here is a far better analogy between the 1968 Hughes Amendment (closed machine gun registry) and First Amendment Freedom of the Press. Imagine the outrage if it was announced that even though the press is still free, journalists and news agencies could not use typewriters, tape recorders, word processors, computers, monitors, network equipment, printing presses, television cameras, nor satellites manufactured after 1986.
The NFA was enacted in 1934 as a means of “Public Safety”. It was simple coincidence that FDR had recently been elected POTUS and an attempt had been made to assassinate him.
Any alteration of the enumerated rights of the people must involve the whole of the people, and can not be left to elected representatives who may vote away those rights. Essentially, any change to an enumerated right requires one of two means; the amendment process or a Constitutional Convention. Alcohol was never an enumerated right, yet two separate amendments were passed in order to ban and then restore the right to drink. The right to self defense accorded by the 2nd Amendment should receive at least an equal amount of protection as alcohol.
Whenever the government deems to overstep it’s warranty of protecting the enumerated rights of the people, the most often preface it with a “Public Safety” justification where the actual degree to which it is needed is miniscule. For example, the NFA did not stop organized crime from possessing machine guns (Thompsons and BARs) and sawed off shotguns. It was the death of a 6 year old child, Donald O’Brien, who was collateral damage which led the people to rise up in anger bringing a halt to indiscriminate shootings by organized crime elements who were most often killing off each other and not messing with the common people.
There are millions of veterans and active duty/Reserve/National Guard personnel, as well as personnel in law enforcement who for years are trained and routinely are armed with M-16/M4s and other deadly weapons with which they defend the Constitution and the nation (our way of life). The anti-gun movement would have us say, today we trust you with such weapons, but we won’t trust you when you are no longer defending the nation or enforcing the law whether that be tomorrow or 20 years from now.
As seen in California, politicians have killed free commerce in firearms and are set to do the same with ammunition. They have further regulated businesses dealing in firearms and related products to the degree that the last gunshop in San Francisco was forced to close it’s doors. The 9th Circuit court ruled that no city, county may regulate to force gunshops out of business thereby denying the people their right under the 2nd Amendment. Throughout California, that ruling has been ignored.
Politicians in California have consistently forced consumers to pay ever higher prices for guns and ammo. This has financially denied a goodly share of the populace the ability to avail themselves o the 2nd Amendment as prices soar. They have forced the sale and purchase of firearms to pass through a holder of an FFL, which charges them for the paperwork and background check. The state has banned the display of advertising and similar items displaying firearms from the windows of gunshops. The state seeks to mandate that gunshops must upgrade their facilities to prevent burglaries, including the installation of pillars to prevent anyone from driving a truck through the front windows/doors in order to access firearms. Such mandates will either drive prices still higher, or force gunshops to close. Beginning Jan 1 2018, all ammo sales are to be conducted through an FFL holder, with limits on who may buy ammo and how much. An attempt to allow gun owners to avoid the 10 day waiting period if they already owned guns or possessed a CCW. That was shot down. All of these actions are designed to undermine the rights of the people and to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. Such obvious acts in and of themselves should be sufficient to have such laws and regulations overturned as denial of rights by an elitist class which by reason of financial status or personal connections may avail themselves of the 2nd Amendment while the laws discriminate against the people.
Personally, I do not object to people requiring a license to possess certain classes of weapons and explosives. I do object to having to pay a tax for a license for any weapons which are consider to be in common use among the people, or to restrict the possession of commonly used firearms except by reason of mental health or criminal background, so long as the subject has been denied as a result of “due process”.
As this era of terrorism has shown, terrorists can get their hands on anything from a heavy truck to drive into throngs of people, to firearms and explosives, as well as chemical and biological weapons, and possibly even nuclear weapons. As far back as 1934 and the passage of NFA, the proof that gun controls, like alcohol controls, have been utter failures among criminals.
Yes, it is time for the NFA to be eliminated, along with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
The Ninth Circuit decision declaring that there was a second amendment right that precluded zoning ordinances amounting to a ban of (new) gun shops was taken up en banc by the Ninth Circuit, which had the effect of nullifying that decision. Oral argument was recently heard, and a decision will issue…eventually.
And another coincidence that FDR also reintroduced slavery to the United States after 76 years, 2 months and 1 day.
Yes, the NFA has to go.
But no, it’s not going anywhere.
The NFA is like bridge tolls in New York City. They don’t go away. They just get worse.
To give people a clue as to what bridge tolls are into NYC, I recently heard they are $12.50 each way.
$25 a day. Work 5 days a week in the city, that’s $125 a week.
$500 a month. That’s about $6,000 a year, just to drive into NYC to work.
That’s in addition to what the damn car costs, its fuel, insurance and what it costs to park it where you live…
The OP is obviously not a lawyer, and his argument is without merit, as appealing as it sounds. The NFA does not bar the exercise of second amendment rights to keep and bear arms, it simply taxes certain classes of firearms. Therefore it is unlike a poll tax that completely bars exercise of a right to vote. The First Amendment is not an absolute right; many restrictions, particularly as to time, place and manner, have been repeatedly approved as long as the restrictions allow a “meaningful” opportunity to exercise the right. Moreover, certain tupes of speech, such as hate speech, incitement to riot, conspiracy to commit a crime and the like, have been banned without invading the basic right. A tax on firearms is not at all like a total ban on typewriters, computers, etc, all of which items, by the by, are subject to taxes, just as guns are subject to certain taxes apart from the NFA (excise taxes by the Federal government, state sales taxes, and so forth). In fact, the US Attorney General testified before Congress that the NFA, being a tax, did not violate the Second Amendment although a ban on such firearms probably would have done so.
Didn’t S.C.O.T.U.S. rule in Marlboro v. Madison that the power to tax is the power to destroy?
Where is “hate speech” prohibited (in USA)?
Conspiracy requires at least one “overt act” be committed by at least one co-conspirator, I believe.
When the NFA was inacted the tax was more than most people made in a MONTH. That is a defacto ban, period. You MF’n lawyers all need to be fed to starved wolverines. Lawyers are the true root of all evil.
And practically every politician is a lawyer….
A poll tax is not an absolute ban. You pay the tax, you get to vote.
“A tax on firearms is not at all like a total ban on typewriters, computers, etc, all of which items, by the by, are subject to taxes, just as guns are subject to certain taxes apart from the NFA (excise taxes by the Federal government, state sales taxes, and so forth).” That is a straw-man argument. There is the argument about the Hughes Amendment, which is a ban on new items, and the argument about specifically taxing items used by the press. You are conflating these two arguments. I’m sure a ban on producing for civilian use what is presumed to be the most effective instrument of expression would be struck down unanimously by virtually every appellate court in America, state and federal. Additionally, I am sure that special taxes on the press have been struck down as unconstitutional. Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983) (holding a special tax on large quantities of paper and ink unconstitutional under the 1A in an 8-1 decision). So maybe the courts might not be unanimous on a tool of the press production ban.
“In fact, the US Attorney General testified before Congress that the NFA, being a tax, did not violate the Second Amendment although a ban on such firearms probably would have done so.” I’m assuming you are talking about the Attorney General who testified to Congress in the original committee hearings on the NFA. Regardless of which Attorney General and when he testified, my question is so what?
The question I ask everyone is what are YOU doing to repeal the NFA?
I’ve bugged my congressman’s and state’s senators offices repeatedly for 3 years and attended multiple local events so I could ask in person. This repeated effort has gotten the attention of the district director who is (at last check) attempting to arrange a meeting for me with the congressman this month, for which I have prepared 11 pages (and growing) of notes.
Further I have contacted multiple Republicans in primaries across the country asking if they would introduce this legislation and made donations to the ones who did (unfortunately they’ve all lost. Hopefully Ward does better against Flake than McCain)
Hearing protection act is the obvious first step toward repeal of the NFA, once we get that we work on the SBR’s.
Is it an infringement of a Constitutionally protected right?
According to Webster’s: Infringe is a transitive verb with two meanings:
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringe a patent
2 (obsolete) : defeat, frustrate
Either of these definitions are violated by the NFA. Is the right to keep and bear arms infringed by the NFA? Absolutely. The NFA limits what arms may be had under what conditions, limitations, restrictions, taxes and tracking requirements. It imposes delay, cost and harassment before the right can be exercised. There is no question but that it is an infringement.
Is, in fact, the very point of the Second Amendment, to assure that the People have complete control of their own country and can muster an effective militia if they feel like it frustrated or even defeated by the NFA? Absolutely. The people are limited to weapons which are deliberately hobbled and limited compared to their military counterparts. Most military select-fire weapons are, in fact, completely out of reach for the ordinary person, so the Second Amendment is frustrated and defeated by the NFA.
NFA delenda est.
The click bait picture at the top. Is that a picture of Trump’s work Or those just that those wish for the destruction of my nation’s Constitution.
Farango, even burning the flag would have been better. In the past you knew that.
Repeal the NFA? Yes please. Where do I sign?
Do you have a stamp? Any type of concealed permit? Carry permit?
If so, you are more of the problem than the solution.
The NFA is total nonsensical BS. 14inch rifle barrel?!?! 10 years prison for you. 16 inch rifle barrel?!? You’re ok – no problem. 16 inch shotgun barrel?!?! 10 years prison for you. 18 inch shotgun barrel – you’re ok – no problem. Total nonsensical crap, making criminals out of people with no intent to harm.
Besides folks like us already in the choir even have a clue what the NFA is even is?? Let alone how does one inform the unwashed public after almost 100 years it has to go?? Or why it should be abolished.
Seems to me to be a Herculean task to even inform the public of it let alone why would they even care??
I don’t have any answers to these questions.
Must and will, are two different things unfortunately.
Repealing the NFA is a great move, but a federal law setting limitations on firearms by the states is needed more. If I have a street legal vehicle and a driver’s license, I can drive anywhere in these 50 states. If I buy any handgun and strap it on my waist for open carry, I can’t leave most states. It is even worse if I have a CCW, the laws in many states may not reconize your right for concealed carry.
Any hypothetical, successful challenge to the NFA in the courts would have to solely rest on some persuasive argument convincing the judges that the items taxed by that law are actually protected arms under the 2nd Amendment.
No federal court anywhere in the U.S. will buy any such argument any time soon.
Remember that S. Stamboulieh failed with two such machine gun cases in both the 3rd and 5th circuits recently.
It’s all pissin’ in the wind unless people are willing to stand up and keep those rights.
Oh hell yes! Nicely framed and articulated – and about time.