User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 11:50:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man: This Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man: Originally Posted By ScottsGT: Originally Posted By Ronin72: I would like to get a couple, but I dont want the man in my life.  LOL! You’re here. He’s already in your life. This Didn't want him anymore in my life?  You all are going to make me spend money, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 11:52:01 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By phatmax: I will be so broke if suppresors are taken off the NFA. This. The day that Bruen actually takes over and I can legally own cool stuff in NY my credit card will be on fire. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 11:58:57 AM EDT
[#3]
this is why I don't understand people on this page being against gay rights or weed. States basically said Fuck You to the feds, we'll do what we want. Enough states get on board, boom gay marriage and weed is "legal" in how many states. Then finally the feds start doing the same decriminalization.
If a bunch of us and a bunch of states said the same thing, fuck you, we can shoot suppressed full auto without stamps if we want, and the states backed that up, we would win. But we won't cause as a group we get our panties in a bunch because "freedom is scary" but we only support freedoms we 100% agree with. I want to be able to buy cans, MGs, SBRs, etc out of a vending machine. But I also want the option to get heroin and meth. I won't, but that's what actual freedom looks like. You can't regulate your way into morality. Look how many americans were killed during prohibition BY THE FUCKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! freedom is scary yo
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:08:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JimEb: Any truth to the matter as long as suppressors are classified the way they currently are they enjoy protection under the 2nd amendment? If they are considered accessories without restrictions then local governments can easily just make them illegal like bumpstocks, 30 rnd mags, and other ‘scary’ gun things without any Supreme Court challenge. The truth of the matter is we don't know. There's precedent that banning ammunition or magazines is a 2A violation because they're required to "bear" arms, yet there are many state restrictions on such. I tend to think silencers would be more vulnerable than ammunition to such a ban, as they are not necessary for "bearing" of arms. Still I think eliminating them from the NFA or eliminating the NFA/GCA all together is still a worthy goal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:11:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sawgunner73: Nobody else is following Bruen. But the ATF is? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sawgunner73: Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: I personally think this is why NFA approvals are suddenly going so quickly. They know taking 4-6 no to approve suppressors is a clear violation of the 2A under Bruen. But with 1 day approvals, they have a much greater chance of keeping the NFA intact. Nobody else is following Bruen. But the ATF is? Of course not. They're only trying to moot one issue of contention that a right delayed is a right denied. Should they win watch wait times immediately increase again. No different than NY mooting a case by changing the law while it was in court, then being even more restrictive after the case is settled. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:13:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MrMackey]
[#6]
just submitted my form 4 for my first suppressor today and my lgs
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:13:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JimEb: Another explanation I heard was during the drafting of the NFA they were going to put handguns on it. Suppressors were then offered as a compromise instead of handguns. The entire NFA is a compromise to avoid a complete ban on handguns as that was the original intent. Whether silencers were a gimme or whether it was related to poaching I don't know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:17:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HELOBRAVO: Hollywood. That doesn't make much sense to me considering synchronized audio didn't really become prevalent in movies until 1929. 5 years of movies with audio and it was enough gangster/assassin movies to scare Congress into banning them? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:21:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ronin72: I would like to get a couple, but I dont want the man in my life. That ship has sailed. You've got 10K posts here. He's in your life whether you think he is or not. Might as well do it. In for a penny, in for a pound... |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:28:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kuraki: Of course not. They're only trying to moot one issue of contention that a right delayed is a right denied. Should they win watch wait times immediately increase again. No different than NY mooting a case by changing the law while it was in court, then being even more restrictive after the case is settled. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kuraki: Originally Posted By sawgunner73: Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: I personally think this is why NFA approvals are suddenly going so quickly. They know taking 4-6 no to approve suppressors is a clear violation of the 2A under Bruen. But with 1 day approvals, they have a much greater chance of keeping the NFA intact. Nobody else is following Bruen. But the ATF is? Of course not. They're only trying to moot one issue of contention that a right delayed is a right denied. Should they win watch wait times immediately increase again. No different than NY mooting a case by changing the law while it was in court, then being even more restrictive after the case is settled. Yup. The control freaks (pols and their praetorians) aren’t arguing or negotiating in good faith. They are sanctioned criminals. Fraud, coercion, kidnapping, murder, protection rackets are tools available selectively under the color of law. A clean shave and a fitted suit and specious arguments in front of the judge and consensus panel doesn’t negate the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm. Even if they did, they are reactive with a huge delay on both input signals & decisions. No one would design a physical control servo with such characteristics and expect stability or control. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:31:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CouchCommando22: People think they are like the movies and people will instantly become deadly snipers. They are under the NFA because the government hates freedom. In a literal handful of countries in Europe, it is FIFY |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:32:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kuraki: That doesn't make much sense to me considering synchronized audio didn't really become prevalent in movies until 1929. 5 years of movies with audio and it was enough gangster/assassin movies to scare Congress into banning them? Newspapers campaigned against silencers a decade or more before the NFA. Karens of the day ate that shit up. Muckrakers, yellow journalists, sensationalism, dime novels were abundant and popular. Fortunes and influence were made on fantasy and lies. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:36:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: swtc]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glocked: I always told to was due to poaching during the Great Depression, can't have poor people hunting the King's deer. The reality is likely much darker. Progressives wanted to eliminate America's gun culture, they were open about it. A big part of that is eliminating future generations. The NFA did an amazing job at doing just that making safety gear and small guns(great for new shooters) nearly impossible for most to own. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glocked: Originally Posted By JimEb: Originally Posted By KalmanPhilter: I believe the dissembling wordsmiths at No Fun Allowed have argued it both ways when it suits them. Not protected by 2nd because an accessory, but a dangerous and unusual firearm because depression era commiegress reprehensatives implied so in a tax law. Another explanation I heard was during the drafting of the NFA they were going to put handguns on it. Suppressors were then offered as a compromise instead of handguns. I always told to was due to poaching during the Great Depression, can't have poor people hunting the King's deer. The reality is likely much darker. Progressives wanted to eliminate America's gun culture, they were open about it. A big part of that is eliminating future generations. The NFA did an amazing job at doing just that making safety gear and small guns(great for new shooters) nearly impossible for most to own. It's rare to see a history that veers from the gun shop lore and explains "why silencers are regulated". This is a good one: Noiseless Nightmares "Today the oft-repeated gun shop lore is that up until 1934 when the National Firearms Act passed, silencers were sold widely via mail-order in the Sears Catalog for $5 or $10 but their use in poaching during the Great Depression and by gangsters during Prohibition caused manufacturing of the harmless hushpuppies to vanish overnight. Like so many urban legends, there are half-truths and holes in that narrative. Not to mention the dates don't line up " |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:42:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Everrest: Yes. Kansas tried this several years ago. Atf charged and convicted 2 individuals. Appeal results were United States v. Cox, No. 17-3034 (10th Cir. 2018) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 12:59:20 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JimEb: Another explanation I heard was during the drafting of the NFA they were going to put handguns on it. Suppressors were then offered as a compromise instead of handguns. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JimEb: Originally Posted By KalmanPhilter: I believe the dissembling wordsmiths at No Fun Allowed have argued it both ways when it suits them. Not protected by 2nd because an accessory, but a dangerous and unusual firearm because depression era commiegress reprehensatives implied so in a tax law. Another explanation I heard was during the drafting of the NFA they were going to put handguns on it. Suppressors were then offered as a compromise instead of handguns. I believe that SBRs/SBSs were the sacrificial lamb instead of handguns since they figured out in committee that there was a good chance that the NFA would get punted by the USSC after the first challenge. Suppressors were added because they could be with little to no push back since they were in fact rare (ish) at the time. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:17:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fullautoguy: I believe that SBRs/SBSs were the sacrificial lamb instead of handguns since they figured out in committee that there was a good chance that the NFA would get punted by the USSC after the first challenge. Suppressors were added because they could be with little to no push back since they were in fact rare (ish) at the time. Republican Harold Knutson from Minnesota added rifles and shotguns with a barrel under 18-inches to the bill because he was afraid people would get around the handgun ban. They should have been taken out when handguns were removed. Congress amended the act in 1936 to change 22 rimfires to 16-inches and all rifles in the 60s to 16-inches after they sold a shit ton of M1 carbines as surplus through the NRA. The same amending also changed the AOW Tax from $1 to $5, probably because Marbles stopped making the Gamegetter. Interesting fact about Knutson: In 1924, police found Knutson in a parked car on the side of the road in Arlington, Virginia, with Labor Department employee Leroy M. Hull and arrested him on a “grave moral offense”. Knutson tried to bribe the officers with $100, but was indicted. The case was eventually dismissed and he was reelected for another 25 years by the Hildys, but had justice truly been equal for politicians SBR/SBS laws may have never been an issue in 1934. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:23:03 PM EDT
[#17]
The Beginning of the End of the National Firearms Act
 The Beginning of the End of the National Firearms Act |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:24:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Soooooo....say I wanted to suppress a 10/22. What would my silencer options be?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:26:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eagarminuteman]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ronin72: Soooooo....say I wanted to suppress a 10/22. What would my silencer options be? There’s better places to ask than GD. Silencer Subforum |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:26:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glocked: Hopefully these challenges will lead to chiseling away at the fed’s authority and just how far it reaches into what should be intrastate in all different kinds of industries. It is weird because we still won't do a fed case on a gun or ammo unless it crossed state lines. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:44:47 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By USMCTanker: Inflation calculator sez $200.00 in 1934 was equivalent to about $4,662.00 in 2024 dollars. That was a lot of flow back then, but $200.00 doesn’t buy much today so it doesn’t deter many of us, but the tax shouldn’t exist to begin with. I don’t see how “You must pay an excessive tax to exercise an enumerated right” can in any way be considered constitutional. That was the loophole. Couldn't ban them outright, it was unconstitutional but they could tax them. The charge for violating the NFA is tax evasion... |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:47:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheOx: My limited research on why suppressors were included in the '34 NFA yielded that it was because of a Dept. of the Interior request. 1934 was the middle of the Great Depression. Americans were hungry, and suppressors were being used to take game out of season and/or on NPS and public land. The whole "assassin's tool" thing was largely a product of Hollywood. Can't poach the King's game...... I've always thought the poaching angle (aside from the BS gangster angle) might have been a reason. My dad was born and raised in Depression era Alabama. He told me he only saw one deer growing up. News of neighbor on a farm nearby killed a doe on his place and all the locals came to gawk at the spectacle. This was a farm boy who'd hunted small game and birds with his father growing up. He told me he really didn't take up deer hunting until he'd left home and hunted deer in the Big Thicket area of Texas. Also, i think the only positive effect of governmental currency inflation has been with NFA items. $200 a pop these days is no real financial burden to the average American. In the 1930s, a $200 tax stamp would have been an insurmountable burden for folks who considered themselves fortunate to put a $5 in the savings jar at the end of a long work week. 80% of the 1934 US population were subsistance farmers. Just for giggles, i just dropped $200 in an online inflation calculator. $200 in 1934 was like $4,600 in today's money. For more giggles, i did a reverse on a modern can that sells for $600...it would cost about $26 in 1934 money. Not sure what a silencer actually cost in 1934, but this looks like the tax stamp then was what, over a twentyfold the cost of the device? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:50:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JimEb: Any truth to the matter as long as suppressors are classified the way they currently are they enjoy protection under the 2nd amendment? If they are considered accessories without restrictions then local governments can easily just make them illegal like bumpstocks, 30 rnd mags, and other ‘scary’ gun things without any Supreme Court challenge. That isn't how this works. "Arms" includes weapons of offence, armor worn for a man's defense, and their associated accoutraments. Thus, the way a silencer is classified under statutory law has zero bearing on whether it receives constitutional protection. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 1:55:32 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MetalChef: I get a big laugh out of that fake “thawp” suppressed weapons make in movies/TV. I have explained to many people that they can file it next to guys running with a pistol in each hand that actually hit targets…100% fake. They are shocked to find out that even suppressed weapons can still be very loud and the ones that are quieter involve subsonic ammunition(expensive and hard to find these days) to be on the quiet side. Then again, most don’t know you can own a real Machine Gun. Once I explain you can with a NFA Tax Stamp and it’s expensive, they get a massively shocked look on their face. My favorite movie suppressors are the ones an assassin pulls from his vest pocket. It's like two inches long, he screws it on an M9 then it goes "pewp, pewp".  |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 2:01:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ronin72: I would like to get a couple, but I dont want the man in my life. The man is already in your life.
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 2:02:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: Yup. The control freaks (pols and their praetorians) aren’t arguing or negotiating in good faith. They are sanctioned criminals. Fraud, coercion, kidnapping, murder, protection rackets are tools available selectively under the color of law. A clean shave and a fitted suit and specious arguments in front of the judge and consensus panel doesn’t negate the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm. Even if they did, they are reactive with a huge delay on both input signals & decisions. No one would design a physical control servo with such characteristics and expect stability or control. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KalmanPhilter: Originally Posted By Kuraki: Originally Posted By sawgunner73: Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: I personally think this is why NFA approvals are suddenly going so quickly. They know taking 4-6 no to approve suppressors is a clear violation of the 2A under Bruen. But with 1 day approvals, they have a much greater chance of keeping the NFA intact. Nobody else is following Bruen. But the ATF is? Of course not. They're only trying to moot one issue of contention that a right delayed is a right denied. Should they win watch wait times immediately increase again. No different than NY mooting a case by changing the law while it was in court, then being even more restrictive after the case is settled. Yup. The control freaks (pols and their praetorians) aren’t arguing or negotiating in good faith. They are sanctioned criminals. Fraud, coercion, kidnapping, murder, protection rackets are tools available selectively under the color of law. A clean shave and a fitted suit and specious arguments in front of the judge and consensus panel doesn’t negate the nature of the transaction. The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm. Even if they did, they are reactive with a huge delay on both input signals & decisions. No one would design a physical control servo with such characteristics and expect stability or control. You need to post more in GD. Well said. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 2:04:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blind_Squirrel: But then people would be able to have walking gun battles in the middle of a crowded train station and no one around would even realize it!  Yep! I was always amazed that not a single commuter slipped on an empty cartridge case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 7:24:34 PM EDT
[#28]
 NFA Challenge Advances with Made in Texas Suppressors |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 7:28:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ronin72: I would like to get a couple, but I dont want the man in my life. There are 2.6 million + silencers in the USA in private hands. If that attitude didn’t exist there would be 20+ million. You’re not that important, if the man really wants you he’ll get you. Get the cans. Enjoy life and subtly stick it to the man. The NFA relies on “not in regular use” lingo. Let’s make silencers regular. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 7:30:51 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Flysc: My favorite movie suppressors are the ones an assassin pulls from his vest pocket. It's like two inches long, he screws it on an M9 then it goes "pewp, pewp". There a handful on the market similar to that but they have wipes and burn out internally after a mag or so. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 8:01:32 PM EDT
[#31]
If TX wins, expect other states to quickly follow and chip away at the NFA. I don't think TX manufacturers would be able to keep up with the demand if this goes our way. They'd have to run their manufacturing facilities 24-7-52 after hiring dozen of new employees.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 8:04:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: I personally think this is why NFA approvals are suddenly going so quickly. They know taking 4-6 no to approve suppressors is a clear violation of the 2A under Bruen. But with 1 day approvals, they have a much greater chance of keeping the NFA intact. I'm at months. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 8:10:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancat: Yes I have heard a few people speculate that long approval times were going to be one of the arguments made by TX in this case. The feds don't want to lose this case, so voila, "look we do not have long approval times after all!" Could argue that either they are gaming the numbers for this special occasion and will go back to the average time they have had for decades once they think they are in the clear. You could also argue that the old timelines were specifically because they were playing games. I don't think very short recent period of some people getting fast approvals helps them. You could show they are not a organization that follows laws but manipulates outcomes to deny rights. I think strategically you can show they are playing politics hard and are trying to deceive the courts. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 8:13:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: miseses]
[#34]
AS an idiot non-lawyer I don't understand how the post 86 machinegun ban isn't the easiest to legally attack. The NFA is a tax, the whole constitutional basis is it is a tax and not a ban. The challenge to the NFA found military weapons to be protected arms.
Therefore why can I not pay a tax for a post 86 machinegun? It is a tax, so why can't I pay it? It defies all logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 8:26:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MrMackey: just submitted my form 4 for my first suppressor today and my lgs I’m at two weeks on my latest… Yes, individual eForm. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 8:29:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kuraki: The truth of the matter is we don't know. There's precedent that banning ammunition or magazines is a 2A violation because they're required to "bear" arms, yet there are many state restrictions on such. I tend to think silencers would be more vulnerable than ammunition to such a ban, as they are not necessary for "bearing" of arms. Still I think eliminating them from the NFA or eliminating the NFA/GCA all together is still a worthy goal. Think of it as the law banning arms that help protect the shooter’s hearing. This is especially useful now that home defense has been ruled a core 2A right. It’s not reasonable to suggest that in a pinch someone must grab ear-pro in order to not go deaf. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 9:15:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By midcap: nice...supressors should be legal....I never understood why it's illegal...I mean FFS cut your muffler off and people lose their shit. but god forbid you put a muffler on your gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 9:20:05 PM EDT
[#38]
I should file a suit, that I have Tinnitus because I didn't have rightful access to firearm hearing protection.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2024 9:24:35 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mancat: Yes I have heard a few people speculate that long approval times were going to be one of the arguments made by TX in this case. The feds don't want to lose this case, so voila, "look we do not have long approval times after all!" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 7:57:13 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Flysc: My favorite movie suppressors are the ones an assassin pulls from his vest pocket. It's like two inches long, he screws it on an M9 then it goes "pewp, pewp". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 8:24:17 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ronin72: I would like to get a couple, but I dont want the man in my life. The man is already in your life. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 8:33:16 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By miseses: AS an idiot non-lawyer I don't understand how the post 86 machinegun ban isn't the easiest to legally attack. The NFA is a tax, the whole constitutional basis is it is a tax and not a ban. The challenge to the NFA found military weapons to be protected arms. Therefore why can I not pay a tax for a post 86 machinegun? It is a tax, so why can't I pay it? It defies all logic. This is my thought Poll taxes are illegal Churches are tax exempt No taxes on 1st amendment How can tax on 2a at any level from sales/manufacturing/NFA/etc be legal But I aren't not smurt |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 9:35:38 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ronin72: I would like to get a couple, but I dont want the man in my life. That’s funny, as others have noted; You are here, you are on a list You have probably, but maybe not, filled out a 4473 You have probably made some kind of credit card purchase for ANY flagged item. Shells, camo clothes, accessories for hunting or shooting ALL of that puts you on a list. I flew into DC a few weeks ago and I was absolutely STUNNED by the number of massive data centers I could see from the airplane. The amount of storage space those centers house has got to be absolutely mind boggling. It all gets saved, ready to be used if needed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 11:04:56 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By midcap: nice...supressors should be legal....I never understood why it's illegal...I mean FFS cut your muffler off and people lose their shit. but god forbid you put a muffler on your gun. They are illegal because the NFA was supposed to make all concealable firearms illegal including handguns, which is why SBSs and SBRs and the quietness of suppressors are all in NFA. For some reasons handguns were then dropped out of NFA and the rest remained. It is completely unconstitutional. The miller ruling was all about SBS was not protected because it was not used by the military. Only military arms are protected. Yet the primary infantry weapon is an SBR, a 14.5 inch barreled rifle. By definition all SBRs should be protected arms. SBS were in use in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and even today. SBS should be protected arms. Suppressors ( are not firearms to begin with ) are in use in military units, they should be protected arms. Select fire and full auto weapons are in use by common infantry soldiers and have been since WW2. Full auto weapons should be protected arms. All of these are in common usage and these restrictions and infringements were not applicable at the time of the founding and not until 1934. The NFA is completely unconstitutional and a federal violation of the 2nd Amendment, the Miller decision, |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 11:21:52 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GAcop: Suppressors should be in the gun accessories aisle, hanging on pegs in clear blister packs. Yessir! Along with DIAS, Glock switches, and Swift links... And M995. Maybe even near the glass case with blasting caps, TNT, and other boom boom things. I'd imagine you'd want those products under glass and handled by an employee until you walk out of the gun store.. err.. I mean gas station. 
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 11:24:17 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By steviesterno16: this is why I don't understand people on this page being against gay rights or weed. States basically said Fuck You to the feds, we'll do what we want. Enough states get on board, boom gay marriage and weed is "legal" in how many states. Then finally the feds start doing the same decriminalization. If a bunch of us and a bunch of states said the same thing, fuck you, we can shoot suppressed full auto without stamps if we want, and the states backed that up, we would win. But we won't cause as a group we get our panties in a bunch because "freedom is scary" but we only support freedoms we 100% agree with. I want to be able to buy cans, MGs, SBRs, etc out of a vending machine. But I also want the option to get heroin and meth. I won't, but that's what actual freedom looks like. You can't regulate your way into morality. Look how many americans were killed during prohibition BY THE FUCKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! freedom is scary yo I completely agree with you brother. More freedom is better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 11:36:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Clarinath: ... I flew into DC a few weeks ago and I was absolutely STUNNED by the number of massive data centers I could see from the airplane. The amount of storage space those centers house has got to be absolutely mind boggling. It all gets saved, ready to be used if needed. The problem with big warehouses is the amount of product lost in the unfortunate event of a fire or other catastrophe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 11:56:45 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Media_Noche: Think of it as the law banning arms that help protect the shooter’s hearing. This is especially useful now that home defense has been ruled a core 2A right. It’s not reasonable to suggest that in a pinch someone must grab ear-pro in order to not go deaf. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Media_Noche: Originally Posted By Kuraki: The truth of the matter is we don't know. There's precedent that banning ammunition or magazines is a 2A violation because they're required to "bear" arms, yet there are many state restrictions on such. I tend to think silencers would be more vulnerable than ammunition to such a ban, as they are not necessary for "bearing" of arms. Still I think eliminating them from the NFA or eliminating the NFA/GCA all together is still a worthy goal. Think of it as the law banning arms that help protect the shooter’s hearing. This is especially useful now that home defense has been ruled a core 2A right. It’s not reasonable to suggest that in a pinch someone must grab ear-pro in order to not go deaf. If Police/Mil wasn't exempted from OSHA they'd be required equipment
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 11:59:23 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By craig24680: This is my thought Poll taxes are illegal Churches are tax exempt No taxes on 1st amendment How can tax on 2a at any level from sales/manufacturing/NFA/etc be legal But I aren't not smurt There's no logical reasoning but the attempted reasoning iirc is that NFA weapons are "dangerous and unusual" and/or "unsuitable for militia use." I'm not sure how an "arm" could be suitable for militia use without being dangerous, but I didn't go to Harvard law school. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2024 12:02:06 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: I personally think this is why NFA approvals are suddenly going so quickly. They know taking 4-6 no to approve suppressors is a clear violation of the 2A under Bruen. But with 1 day approvals, they have a much greater chance of keeping the NFA intact. I think you're on to something there. Gov can turn around and say "what burden?" when they're giving stamps faster than Amazon. Still bullshit, but they'll try to show it as a "reasonable" infringement. |
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
