NFA Case

[LeadSled1]

Interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Citing the recent ruling to show that the NFA is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court gun ruling cited in bid to dismiss machine-gun indictment in Clay County case

Defense lawyers are asking a federal judge in Jacksonville to rule the National Firearms Act, which regulates machine guns, is unconstitutional.

www.jacksonville.com

 

[Atlasarmory]

Sound like infringement to me :-)

 

[lazarus]

If going after the NFA I really hope a multipronged approach is taken. Both targeting the whole NFA, but also specific provisions within it and changed to it. For instance Hughs, why are silencers regulated under it when they aren’t dangerous or unusual, etc. IMHO, only going after the NFA or only going after “I want my machine guns” I think is a less successful strategy than trying to pick it apart IMHO.

 

[Allen65]

If going after the NFA I really hope a multipronged approach is taken. Both targeting the whole NFA, but also specific provisions within it and changed to it. For instance Hughs, why are silencers regulated under it when they aren’t dangerous or unusual, etc. IMHO, only going after the NFA or only going after “I want my machine guns” I think is a less successful strategy than trying to pick it apart IMHO.

Attacking the Hughes Amendment first is the best course of action. Hughes creates a defacto absolute ban on an entire class of weapons, except those which were grandfathered. So there is no question for a court to answer about "how much regulation is too much?" If full auto individual weapons are in any way protected under 2A, you want to hit the absolute ban first to open the door.
And, yeah, suppressors should be an entirely separate action. They have sporting use as well as self defense, so it might be easy to demonstrate they'd be in common use if not for the NFA. Plus, because they are worthless without an accompanying firearm, there really isn't any reason to control them from a prohibited person standpoint.

 

[jrumann59]

still trying figure how a MP5 configured as a pistol is not NFA but MP5 SBR is NFA?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

I would have gone and included the 1986 ban. The 1934 tax issue might not be enough. It is the 1986 ban on any NEW machine guns that might be more at issue.

 

[alucard0822]

If going after the NFA I really hope a multipronged approach is taken. Both targeting the whole NFA, but also specific provisions within it and changed to it. For instance Hughs, why are silencers regulated under it when they aren’t dangerous or unusual, etc. IMHO, only going after the NFA or only going after “I want my machine guns” I think is a less successful strategy than trying to pick it apart IMHO.

IMO The Hughes amendment is the lowest hanging fruit on the NFA tree. After that, going after the rest of the NFA regulated devices as "in common use" and "protected right" should be soon after.

 

[teratos]

still trying figure how a MP5 configured as a pistol is not NFA but MP5 SBR is NFA?

One is a pistol. Duh.

 

[Inigoes]

I would have gone and included the 1986 ban. The 1934 tax issue might not be enough. It is the 1986 ban on any NEW machine guns that might be more at issue.

Taking on the NFA for Machine Guns would take away the 1986 ban also. Consider it a two-fer.

This is what the ATF gets for going after the guys who printed a 3x5 card.

 

[DC-W]

Based Matt Larosiere.

Here he is: https://youtube.com/c/FuddBusters