So, tell me why has no one challenged the National Firearms Act in recent history? - Page 1

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - So, tell me why has no one challenged the National Firearms Act in recent history?

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:01:42 PM EDT

Why not?

Submit a form 1. Wait, request a refund. When this is not answered, bring a lawsuit against the US. The Tucker Act allows a person to bring a lawsuit against the US govt or an agency of it.

Bring a lawsuit alleging that the NFA violates the 2nd amendment. Reference the United States vs Miller where the Supreme Court opinion contains this paragraph:

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

The United States military ORDINARILY uses the M4 which is an SBR. I am sure they use short barrelled shotguns too. Things might be different right now if Miller showed up.

Fundraiser?

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:03:28 PM EDT

[#1]

Because the supreme court would make a landmark decision that the second amendment does not protect individual firearms ownership. They are waiting till the right judges are there.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:06:40 PM EDT

[#2]

Uh, I'[m an attorney and I think I can field this one.

Money. It takes lots of money to prosecute a lawsuit, especially one not designed to recover money, which usually offset the cost.

It takes wagonloads of money to prosecute a suit against your rich uncle, Sam.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:07:12 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Because the supreme court would make a landmark decision that the second amendment does not protect individual firearms ownership. They are waiting till the right judges are there.

Ya, that'd be a heck of a backfire, wouldn't it?

Part of me doesn't care, and just wants to get it over with.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:10:49 PM EDT

[#4]

its sad that there is that much controversy over the wording. it clearly says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It states that a militia is necessary and that the people can have arms

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:13:18 PM EDT

[#5]

It bans Teh mAchIne guns, remember, the guns with more thrusts per squeeze.

Seriously: I bet most gun owners have know idea about NFA.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:17:04 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
its sad that there is that much controversy over the wording. it clearly says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It states that a militia is necessary and that the people can have arms

You obviously have it wrong, it clearly states that we can have a National Gaurd, but not a militia, and the National Gaurd can be armed with guns, the people have no right to have any guns except single action rifles and shotguns over 20" and they have to locked with a trigger locked inside a safe with the ammunition in another safe inside another room, that is of coarse you do not have kids and you are over the age of 35.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:17:38 PM EDT

[#7]

Somebody tried it a few years back. A guy actually made a full auto weapon and turned himself in, explaining what he did and that he did it to challange the law. It went up through the circuits and eventually the supreme court denied cert.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:23:07 PM EDT

[#8]

This was why I was so upset about Luttig not getting the nod and spent several days wandering around taking to myself, saying "Harriet Myers?!?!? HARRIET FUCKING MYERS?!?!?!". This is important, damn it. I am not convinced (although I would love to be proven wrong) that Roberts was a good choice. Roberts has a hell of a record being a stare decisis zombie (Alito less so, but it is a notable aspect of his record), but that isn't good when you are defending amazingly bad decisions, like Miller, Wong Kim Ark, and so on.

I long for the day when the court is full of more conservative folks and Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown is seen as a senile left wing nutcase compared to the rest of the court, but that day isn't coming soon.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:23:54 PM EDT

[#9]

It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

But screw that...it's WAY cheaper for me to just buy a registered M-16 and jump through all the hooks.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:24:21 PM EDT

[#10]

Because the surfs of this country are AFRAID to have more rights taken away.

My .02

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:24:58 PM EDT

[#11]

Seriously. Can't the US Supreme Court selectively incorporate the 2nd Amendment, using the 14th Amendment?

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:26:05 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Somebody tried it a few years back. A guy actually made a full auto weapon and turned himself in, explaining what he did and that he did it to challange the law. It went up through the circuits and eventually the supreme court denied cert.

We just need a couple million people to build "undocumented" machine guns and then demand that they be allowed to register them in compliance with the law. It works for people who aren't even fricking citizens, so it's worth a shot.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:26:41 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Somebody tried it a few years back. A guy actually made a full auto weapon and turned himself in, explaining what he did and that he did it to challange the law. It went up through the circuits and eventually the supreme court denied cert.

Thats not quite the same thing as is being suggested here.
The supreme court has insttituted a rule (not in the constitution) which basically says that unless you are a politician or incredibly rich, you can't talk to them unless you commit a crime, get convicted, appeal and fail and only then will they ever consider talking to you, and since you are a peon, unless its a really interesting case, well, they may still not talk to you.

Suing the government is a different, more direct, and much less risky alternative.

Just costs a boatload of money.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:39:31 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Seriously. Can't the US Supreme Court selectively incorporate the 2nd Amendment, using the 14th Amendment?

This was ruled on.

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

From the ruling:
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:39:38 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Somebody tried it a few years back. A guy actually made a full auto weapon and turned himself in, explaining what he did and that he did it to challange the law. It went up through the circuits and eventually the supreme court denied cert.

Thats not quite the same thing as is being suggested here.
The supreme court has insttituted a rule (not in the constitution) which basically says that unless you are a politician or incredibly rich, you can't talk to them unless you commit a crime, get convicted, appeal and fail and only then will they ever consider talking to you, and since you are a peon, unless its a really interesting case, well, they may still not talk to you.

Suing the government is a different, more direct, and much less risky alternative.

Just costs a boatload of money.

that was my understanding also.

though it might be "gunshow talk" i've also heard that the SCOTUS will also not hear cases that involve firearms as anything more that a peripheral circumstance.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:40:01 PM EDT

[#16]

If I win the lottery I MIGHT consider pursing something to this effect. Maybe. But it had better be a hell of a jackpot, because a suit like this would cost many tens of millions of dollars. And you still might lose. It would be a noble effort, though. Since for all the money you spent on the case you could have 10 miniguns and an apache.

Brian

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:42:38 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
This was why I was so upset about Luttig not getting the nod and spent several days wandering around taking to myself, saying "Harriet Myers?!?!? HARRIET FUCKING MYERS?!?!?!". This is important, damn it. I am not convinced (although I would love to be proven wrong) that Roberts was a good choice. Roberts has a hell of a record being a stare decisis zombie (Alito less so, but it is a notable aspect of his record), but that isn't good when you are defending amazingly bad decisions, like Miller, Wong Kim Ark, and so on.

I long for the day when the court is full of more conservative folks and Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown is seen as a senile left wing nutcase compared to the rest of the court, but that day isn't coming soon.

Its not about defending Miller though. Its about bringing new evidence to the Supreme Court and allowing them to rule as the Supreme Court of the past did, and uphold the NFA if there is no military use for an SBR, which we all know is not true.

Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

But screw that...it's WAY cheaper for me to just buy a registered M-16 and jump through all the hooks.

You get caught though and you go to jail. The SC and government overstep the commerce clause. The recent case where 9th circuit ruled you could make your own machinegun if it was not involved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court referred to a decision about marijuana and basically overturned that.

I have no idea how much money it costs to have a case heard in federal court. It doesn't even have to go to the SC, a regular federal court will work. EVEN THE 9th ruled machinegun was legal to build, there is a chance.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:44:43 PM EDT

[#18]

The deck is stacked against you, and you will always lose.
The Feds almost always win - even if they don't, they will have spent you in to the ground.
Hey - pretty neat that you get to help fund your own prosecution, ain't it?

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:48:55 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This was why I was so upset about Luttig not getting the nod and spent several days wandering around taking to myself, saying "Harriet Myers?!?!? HARRIET FUCKING MYERS?!?!?!". This is important, damn it. I am not convinced (although I would love to be proven wrong) that Roberts was a good choice. Roberts has a hell of a record being a stare decisis zombie (Alito less so, but it is a notable aspect of his record), but that isn't good when you are defending amazingly bad decisions, like Miller, Wong Kim Ark, and so on.

I long for the day when the court is full of more conservative folks and Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown is seen as a senile left wing nutcase compared to the rest of the court, but that day isn't coming soon.

Its not about defending Miller though. Its about bringing new evidence to the Supreme Court and allowing them to rule as the Supreme Court of the past did, and uphold the NFA if there is no military use for an SBR, which we all know is not true.

Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

But screw that...it's WAY cheaper for me to just buy a registered M-16 and jump through all the hooks.

You get caught though and you go to jail. The SC and government overstep the commerce clause. The recent case where 9th circuit ruled you could make your own machinegun if it was not involved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court referred to a decision about marijuana and basically overturned that.

I have no idea how much money it costs to have a case heard in federal court. It doesn't even have to go to the SC, a regular federal court will work. EVEN THE 9th ruled machinegun was legal to build, there is a chance.

The hell I am. Like I said...it's cheaper for me to get a registered machinegun that take it to court. I'm transferring a legal, registered MG.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:50:33 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This was why I was so upset about Luttig not getting the nod and spent several days wandering around taking to myself, saying "Harriet Myers?!?!? HARRIET FUCKING MYERS?!?!?!". This is important, damn it. I am not convinced (although I would love to be proven wrong) that Roberts was a good choice. Roberts has a hell of a record being a stare decisis zombie (Alito less so, but it is a notable aspect of his record), but that isn't good when you are defending amazingly bad decisions, like Miller, Wong Kim Ark, and so on.

I long for the day when the court is full of more conservative folks and Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown is seen as a senile left wing nutcase compared to the rest of the court, but that day isn't coming soon.

Its not about defending Miller though. Its about bringing new evidence to the Supreme Court and allowing them to rule as the Supreme Court of the past did, and uphold the NFA if there is no military use for an SBR, which we all know is not true.

Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

But screw that...it's WAY cheaper for me to just buy a registered M-16 and jump through all the hooks.

You get caught though and you go to jail. The SC and government overstep the commerce clause. The recent case where 9th circuit ruled you could make your own machinegun if it was not involved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court referred to a decision about marijuana and basically overturned that.

I have no idea how much money it costs to have a case heard in federal court. It doesn't even have to go to the SC, a regular federal court will work. EVEN THE 9th ruled machinegun was legal to build, there is a chance.

The hell I am. Like I said...it's cheaper for me to get a registered machinegun that take it to court. I'm transferring a legal, registered MG.

I think that he was talking about manufacturing.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:50:43 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This was why I was so upset about Luttig not getting the nod and spent several days wandering around taking to myself, saying "Harriet Myers?!?!? HARRIET FUCKING MYERS?!?!?!". This is important, damn it. I am not convinced (although I would love to be proven wrong) that Roberts was a good choice. Roberts has a hell of a record being a stare decisis zombie (Alito less so, but it is a notable aspect of his record), but that isn't good when you are defending amazingly bad decisions, like Miller, Wong Kim Ark, and so on.

I long for the day when the court is full of more conservative folks and Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown is seen as a senile left wing nutcase compared to the rest of the court, but that day isn't coming soon.

Its not about defending Miller though. Its about bringing new evidence to the Supreme Court and allowing them to rule as the Supreme Court of the past did, and uphold the NFA if there is no military use for an SBR, which we all know is not true.

Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

But screw that...it's WAY cheaper for me to just buy a registered M-16 and jump through all the hooks.

You get caught though and you go to jail. The SC and government overstep the commerce clause. The recent case where 9th circuit ruled you could make your own machinegun if it was not involved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court referred to a decision about marijuana and basically overturned that.

I have no idea how much money it costs to have a case heard in federal court. It doesn't even have to go to the SC, a regular federal court will work. EVEN THE 9th ruled machinegun was legal to build, there is a chance.

The hell I am. Like I said...it's cheaper for me to get a registered machinegun that take it to court. I'm transferring a legal, registered MG.

I know, I was just referring to your comment on keeping it to yourself.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:52:36 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This was why I was so upset about Luttig not getting the nod and spent several days wandering around taking to myself, saying "Harriet Myers?!?!? HARRIET FUCKING MYERS?!?!?!". This is important, damn it. I am not convinced (although I would love to be proven wrong) that Roberts was a good choice. Roberts has a hell of a record being a stare decisis zombie (Alito less so, but it is a notable aspect of his record), but that isn't good when you are defending amazingly bad decisions, like Miller, Wong Kim Ark, and so on.

I long for the day when the court is full of more conservative folks and Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown is seen as a senile left wing nutcase compared to the rest of the court, but that day isn't coming soon.

Its not about defending Miller though. Its about bringing new evidence to the Supreme Court and allowing them to rule as the Supreme Court of the past did, and uphold the NFA if there is no military use for an SBR, which we all know is not true.

Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

But screw that...it's WAY cheaper for me to just buy a registered M-16 and jump through all the hooks.

You get caught though and you go to jail. The SC and government overstep the commerce clause. The recent case where 9th circuit ruled you could make your own machinegun if it was not involved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court referred to a decision about marijuana and basically overturned that.

I have no idea how much money it costs to have a case heard in federal court. It doesn't even have to go to the SC, a regular federal court will work. EVEN THE 9th ruled machinegun was legal to build, there is a chance.

The hell I am. Like I said...it's cheaper for me to get a registered machinegun that take it to court. I'm transferring a legal, registered MG.

I know, I was just referring to your comment on keeping it to yourself.

Oh, right...sorry. My comment based on the interstate commerce aspect.

Yeah, I agree. It will be expensive (way more expensive than an M-16) and you will get fined and go up for a long time. It's not even a remote consideration for me. I'm just paying the 10K for a RR.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:53:19 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

totally, totally wrong. anything you manufacture yourself is considered to significantly affect interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to federal regulation, even if it never leaves your property. the Supreme Court has upheld this in two different rulings, in 1942 and 2005.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:53:36 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This was why I was so upset about Luttig not getting the nod and spent several days wandering around taking to myself, saying "Harriet Myers?!?!? HARRIET FUCKING MYERS?!?!?!". This is important, damn it. I am not convinced (although I would love to be proven wrong) that Roberts was a good choice. Roberts has a hell of a record being a stare decisis zombie (Alito less so, but it is a notable aspect of his record), but that isn't good when you are defending amazingly bad decisions, like Miller, Wong Kim Ark, and so on.

I long for the day when the court is full of more conservative folks and Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown is seen as a senile left wing nutcase compared to the rest of the court, but that day isn't coming soon.

Its not about defending Miller though. Its about bringing new evidence to the Supreme Court and allowing them to rule as the Supreme Court of the past did, and uphold the NFA if there is no military use for an SBR, which we all know is not true.

Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

But screw that...it's WAY cheaper for me to just buy a registered M-16 and jump through all the hooks.

You get caught though and you go to jail. The SC and government overstep the commerce clause. The recent case where 9th circuit ruled you could make your own machinegun if it was not involved in interstate commerce. The Supreme Court referred to a decision about marijuana and basically overturned that.

I have no idea how much money it costs to have a case heard in federal court. It doesn't even have to go to the SC, a regular federal court will work. EVEN THE 9th ruled machinegun was legal to build, there is a chance.

Could you elaborate on that? Between not wanting to hear gun cases and letting stare decisis ride on stuff like Miller, I would think that it is all about defending Miller. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:53:46 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Because the supreme court would make a landmark decision that the second amendment does not protect individual firearms ownership. They are waiting till the right judges are there.

They'll have a long wait. Even if you think the judges are "conservative" - whatever that means any more - they can turn around and shock you. Look at a few recent decisions. Do I have to fill up space with some of the asinine things they have done in the past year?

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:58:18 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Could you elaborate on that? Between not wanting to hear gun cases and letting stare decisis ride on stuff like Miller, I would think that it is all about defending Miller. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

I meant defending the Miller decision. I am for defending the person Miller. Not the outcome of the case Miller. How
A civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint. Parties instituting a civil action in a district court are required to pay a filing fee pursuant to Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1914. The current fee is $250. Complaints may be accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning that the plaintiff is incapable of paying the filing fee. Proceedings in forma pauperis are governed by Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1915.

Posted: 6/28/2006 2:58:26 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Because the supreme court would make a landmark decision that the second amendment does not protect individual firearms ownership. They are waiting till the right judges are there.

They'll have a long wait. Even if you think the judges are "conservative" - whatever that means any more - they can turn around and shock you. Look at a few recent decisions. Do I have to fill up space with some of the asinine things they have done in the past year?

+1. this is NOT a "conservative" supreme court from a constitutional point of view. we have not had a conservative supreme court since the early 1930's.

Posted: 6/28/2006 3:02:17 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

totally, totally wrong. anything you manufacture yourself is considered to significantly affect interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to federal regulation, even if it never leaves your property. the Supreme Court has upheld this in two different rulings, in 1942 and 2005.

What's wrong? You're saying it's not regulated under the interstate commerce clause? I'm pretty sure it is. Is there anything "interstate" happening is you buy it and keep it to yourself? No. Will they bust you for it anyway? Yes. I don't think it's right but that's what will happen.

That's why I said it is cheaper for me to get the M-16 I am in the middle of transferring on a Form 4. Because it won't involve huge legal fees and almost certain conviction.
You might not have gotten what I meant about my $10,500 M-16 being "cheaper". That's what I meant.

ETA: And about that being "totally, totally wrong"...you sound like you know a lot about NFA stuff. Do you have any NFA stuff in possession or pending?

Posted: 6/28/2006 3:05:49 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

totally, totally wrong. anything you manufacture yourself is considered to significantly affect interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to federal regulation, even if it never leaves your property. the Supreme Court has upheld this in two different rulings, in 1942 and 2005.

What's wrong? You're saying it's not regulated under the interstate commerce clause? I'm pretty sure it is. Is there anything "interstate" happening is you buy it and keep it to yourself? No. Will they bust you for it anyway? Yes. I don't think it's right but that's what will happen.

That's why I said it is cheaper for me to get the M-16 I am in the middle of transferring on a Form 4. Because it won't involve huge legal fees and almost certain conviction.
You might not have gotten what I meant about my $10,500 M-16 being "cheaper". That's what I meant.

ETA: And about that being "totally, totally wrong"...you sound like you know a lot about NFA stuff. Do you have any NFA stuff in possession or pending?

sorry, i misread your post, what you posted was not wrong

i read your post as saying that it would be legal to build your own MG as long as it remains instate, b/c the feds can't regulate it under the commerce clause. my apologies.

as for your ETA, you can see that i live in NY, so why even bother asking?

Posted: 6/28/2006 3:10:37 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Somebody tried it a few years back. A guy actually made a full auto weapon and turned himself in, explaining what he did and that he did it to challange the law. It went up through the circuits and eventually the supreme court denied cert.

We just need a couple million people to build "undocumented" machine guns and then demand that they be allowed to register them in compliance with the law. It works for people who aren't even fricking citizens, so it's worth a shot.

+1, No shit...

Posted: 6/28/2006 3:10:54 PM EDT

[#31]

So 200 bucks for a form 1, 250 for court time. Any lawyers going to step up?

Posted: 6/28/2006 3:47:53 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's regulated under the interstate commerce clause AFAIK and there is no interstate commerce if you just make your own and keep to yourself.

totally, totally wrong. anything you manufacture yourself is considered to significantly affect interstate commerce, and is therefore subject to federal regulation, even if it never leaves your property. the Supreme Court has upheld this in two different rulings, in 1942 and 2005.

What's wrong? You're saying it's not regulated under the interstate commerce clause? I'm pretty sure it is. Is there anything "interstate" happening is you buy it and keep it to yourself? No. Will they bust you for it anyway? Yes. I don't think it's right but that's what will happen.

That's why I said it is cheaper for me to get the M-16 I am in the middle of transferring on a Form 4. Because it won't involve huge legal fees and almost certain conviction.
You might not have gotten what I meant about my $10,500 M-16 being "cheaper". That's what I meant.

ETA: And about that being "totally, totally wrong"...you sound like you know a lot about NFA stuff. Do you have any NFA stuff in possession or pending?

sorry, i misread your post, what you posted was not wrong i read your post as saying that it would be legal to build your own MG as long as it remains instate, b/c the feds can't regulate it under the commerce clause. my apologies.

as for your ETA, you can see that i live in NY, so why even bother asking?

Oh, right...good point. What about upperstate?

No, I was just saying it shouldn't be (or at least I don't think so) but despite that I'm sure as heck not going to be the guy to try and fight it by doing something that is considered illegal.

Posted: 6/28/2006 4:22:52 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Oh, right...good point. What about upperstate?

sadly, the NYC socialists are able to enforce their will on the rest of us, and we have a statewide AWB and statewide prohibition of NFA items and statewide restrictive handgun laws.... we are however allowed to have smoothbore AOWs.

No, I was just saying it shouldn't be (or at least I don't think so) but despite that I'm sure as heck not going to be the guy to try and fight it by doing something that is considered illegal.

under a strict interpretation of the constitution, it definitely wouldn't be illegal. However, the supreme court ruled in the 1940's (and has recently ruled again) that the feds are allowed to play fast and loose with the commerce clause. If suddenly the supreme court decided to adopt a strict interpretation of the commerce clause, it could probably strike down over half of the federal laws on the books.....

Posted: 6/28/2006 6:25:02 PM EDT

[#34]

what ever happened to laissez faire?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - So, tell me why has no one challenged the National Firearms Act in recent history?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us