|
Originally Posted By JAD: The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... If Viramontes is decided correctly (likely), then it's not much of a leap from "States can't restrict 'assault weapons' and >10rd mags" to "States can't restrict barrel length or overall length or how loud guns are." |
|
So it turns out the doomers were overreacting when the full HPA/SHORT act didn’t make it through the parliamentarian? I’m shocked! 
|
The posts made on this forum are purely my private opinion and don’t represent any employer or entity I am professionally associated with.
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: For those wondering about AOWs, it's mentioned in the ruling: Does anyone know why Jensen didn't address AOWs? |
|
Originally Posted By MereMortal: Work like this is why everybody on Arf needs to support GOA. They have brilliant minds working on these lawsuits and behind the scenes working on changing laws. Granted, they have one less now but I believe he his where he needs to be. Thank you GOA, Nolo, and everybody that has worked on this and donated. To be fair, this is a consolidated case that had the ASA, FPC, SAF, and NRA involved as well. It’s been a huge joint effort to attack this. |
Support the Firearms Policy Coalition and help save the Second Amendment: https://www.firearmspolicy.org
The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or their customers.
The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or their customers.
|
Originally Posted By JAD: The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... Originally Posted By JAD: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: When we got the $0 tax pushed through Congress, there was a TON of bitching about it here. Not good enough, the Ds can change it back and make it worse, etc. What wasn't appreciated was that it was more or less like capturing a little island called Tinian. The average guy has never heard of it and can't find it on a map, but it turns out Tinian might have been very important. Now the airfield is operational, and a new kind of bomber just flew its first sortie to the enemy homeland. The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... 
|
"Sometimes, the grass is greener because it's on a septic system."
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314:
In Michigan a suppressor or SBR is legal ONLY if you have 'a license issued by the ATF'. So if registration isn't available we're screwed. How many other states are in a similar situation? |
|
Originally Posted By JAD: The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... Originally Posted By JAD: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: When we got the $0 tax pushed through Congress, there was a TON of bitching about it here. Not good enough, the Ds can change it back and make it worse, etc. What wasn't appreciated was that it was more or less like capturing a little island called Tinian. The average guy has never heard of it and can't find it on a map, but it turns out Tinian might have been very important. Now the airfield is operational, and a new kind of bomber just flew its first sortie to the enemy homeland. The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... I literally don't care. Fix your state or move. |
Member
Joined:
Aug 2025
Posts:
1141
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By retfireguy87: This is awesome news! I didn't notice who the OP was until the joke! Ha! Me neither. Good work OP. 
|
The posts made on this forum are purely my private opinion and don’t represent any employer or entity I am professionally associated with.
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: In Michigan a suppressor or SBR is legal ONLY if you have 'a license issued by the ATF'. So if registration isn't available we're screwed. How many other states are in a similar situation? Jokes on Michigan… ATF didn’t issue ‘licenses’ for them to begin with. |
| It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It's definitely a massive win for us. |
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics." -- Thomas Sowell
كافر
كافر
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: Easier said than done but thanks for your input.  Originally Posted By Mike_314: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: I literally don't care. Fix your state or move. The pilgrims crossed the Atlantic on a tiny ass wood boat, I have faith in your ability to pack a U-Haul. |
|
Originally Posted By Deadmeat3344: iirc the number was between 12 and 30 last time this issue came up. Originally Posted By Deadmeat3344: Originally Posted By Mike_314: In Michigan a suppressor or SBR is legal ONLY if you have 'a license issued by the ATF'. So if registration isn't available we're screwed. How many other states are in a similar situation? iirc the number was between 12 and 30 last time this issue came up. 30 seems high. It depends on how the state statute reads. For example, Florida has a statute regarding sbrs and sbs that provides the following exception: Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted. Since they are no longer regulated by federal law under the NFA, all are presumably excepted from the statute. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.221.html |
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: A Republican AG determined that an ATF approval met the requiremnts for a license and silencers became available to MI residents. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: Reading through the Jensen complaint, Jensen and the other plaintiffs cite experiences and desires owning/to own SBRs, suppressors, but not AOWs. Since it was denied on standing, i assume none of the plaintiffs then owned or ever tried to purchase and AOW, so they lacked standing against that provision. Originally Posted By D_Man: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: For those wondering about AOWs, it's mentioned in the ruling: Does anyone know why Jensen didn't address AOWs? Yes, but why didn't the Jensen plaintiffs address AOWs in their complaint? It seems like a dumb oversight on their part, but maybe they had a reason I don't see right now. |
|
Originally Posted By cyclone: And we should continue to push Originally Posted By cyclone: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By Citadel: what does this mean? It means progress. The good guys just reached a new phase line on the battle map. And we should continue to push 
|
https://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Propositions-J-S-Economos/dp/0615997635
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: Easier said than done but thanks for your input. Originally Posted By Mike_314: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: I literally don't care. Fix your state or move. I dont care either. No need to thank me. |
Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - Adm James Stockdale
|
Originally Posted By Citadel: what does this mean? It means all the cry babies who whined and gnashed their teeth over Trump and the Republicans getting rid of the NFA tax were wrong yet again. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
|
The Judgment is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70709999/137/silencer-shop-foundation-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and/ The entire docket is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70709999/silencer-shop-foundation-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and/ |
|
Originally Posted By Lexustech48: I just renewed my GOA membership. It's a very reasonable amount for what they do for us. And unlike the merchandise company known as the NRA, they don't waste my membership fee on sending me as mail exceeding my original fee. Been an NRA Life Member for 25 years or so. Last year I joined GOA for the first time. Now I need to join SAF. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
|
Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman: So it turns out the doomers were overreacting when the full HPA/SHORT act didn’t make it through the parliamentarian? I’m shocked! Both sides are lItTeRaLlY the same!1!1!1 |
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, the world needs pole dancers too. ~Observer
|
Originally Posted By mechanical: The same logic should directly apply to machineguns. Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from Not really. It's a completely separate issue. With the $0 items, there's a heavy and egregious registration and penalty scheme "justified" by a tax, and the tax is no longer collected in any form. That's a situation that's comically unconstitutional without even invoking the 2A. With MGs, there's still a tax being collected. Hughes limited eligibility to existing items pre-'86, but those items are still transferred with taxes paid on a near-daily basis. Hughes is very much unconstitutional on 2A grounds, but I'm not sure it can be argued as unconstitutional without invoking the 2A, and there's also the issue of getting courts and bureaucrats to take up the MG cause to drive that home. |
"Sometimes, the grass is greener because it's on a septic system."
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Yes, but why didn't the Jensen plaintiffs address AOWs in their complaint? It seems like a dumb oversight on their part, but maybe they had a reason I don't see right now. Another example is how their challenge had two approaches, one was that the law should be void because the tax went to $0 on those items, and then they also challenged the NFA overall on pure 2nd Amendment grounds based on recent rules around that. The court rejected the straight 2A challenge as well and only ruled around the legality of regulating the now un-taxed items. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: If your state law says you need a license (or whatever they want to call it) from the ATF to have it, but the "license" becomes non-existent as it would in this case, then any MI resident would be able to challenge your law and probably get it struck down. I'd settle for the atf still issuing approvals for the states that need them but I'm thinking it will be all or none for them. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: True, but does Congress have the power to tax if it refuses to allow the tax to be paid? how has congress refused the tax to be paid? You still pay that $200 on transferables if you mean the hughes amendment, i dont see how this ruling changes any of that. |
Sun's up, Guns up!
"The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary"
-Vince Lombardi
"The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary"
-Vince Lombardi
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Not really. It's a completely separate issue. With the $0 items, there's a heavy and egregious registration and penalty scheme "justified" by a tax, and the tax is no longer collected in any form. That's a situation that's comically unconstitutional without even invoking the 2A. With MGs, there's still a tax being collected. Hughes limited eligibility to existing items pre-'86, but those items are still transferred with taxes paid on a near-daily basis. Hughes is very much unconstitutional on 2A grounds, but I'm not sure it can be argued as unconstitutional without invoking the 2A, and there's also the issue of getting courts and bureaucrats to take up the MG cause to drive that home. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By mechanical: The same logic should directly apply to machineguns. Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from Not really. It's a completely separate issue. With the $0 items, there's a heavy and egregious registration and penalty scheme "justified" by a tax, and the tax is no longer collected in any form. That's a situation that's comically unconstitutional without even invoking the 2A. With MGs, there's still a tax being collected. Hughes limited eligibility to existing items pre-'86, but those items are still transferred with taxes paid on a near-daily basis. Hughes is very much unconstitutional on 2A grounds, but I'm not sure it can be argued as unconstitutional without invoking the 2A, and there's also the issue of getting courts and bureaucrats to take up the MG cause to drive that home. I agree there are differences in the issues, but the Hughes Amendment still has a "how can you demand a tax then refuse to let it be paid?" problem. Your view of it only holds up is we pretend post-86 MGs somehow don't exist. |
|
Originally Posted By Amped: We’re still fucked ETA. If this pans out, the only thing that’s fucked is my wallet  Originally Posted By Amped: Originally Posted By Citadel: what does this mean? We’re still fucked ETA. If this pans out, the only thing that’s fucked is my wallet been waiting for just exactly this thing... please let it be true!!! |
|
Originally Posted By JAD: The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... That is AL. |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: When we got the $0 tax pushed through Congress, there was a TON of bitching about it here. Not good enough, the Ds can change it back and make it worse, etc. What wasn't appreciated was that it was more or less like capturing a little island called Tinian. The average guy has never heard of it and can't find it on a map, but it turns out Tinian might have been very important. Now the airfield is operational, and a new kind of bomber just flew its first sortie to the enemy homeland. Very underrated post. |
Grandfathering weapons only puts off until tomorrow what tyranny cannot accomplish today.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
The only people made safer by gun control are criminals and tyrants.
|
Originally Posted By JAD: The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... Originally Posted By JAD: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: When we got the $0 tax pushed through Congress, there was a TON of bitching about it here. Not good enough, the Ds can change it back and make it worse, etc. What wasn't appreciated was that it was more or less like capturing a little island called Tinian. The average guy has never heard of it and can't find it on a map, but it turns out Tinian might have been very important. Now the airfield is operational, and a new kind of bomber just flew its first sortie to the enemy homeland. The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... Well I was considering what it means where most of that stuff is codified in NYS laws prohibiting SBS, SBRs, etc. I think there was a chink in their armor for some “Others” but that was it. My thought went to the next step suing NYS for prohibitions on firearms in common use as they will be once federally deregulated. They’re already covered in my opinion as protected by the second as there was no historical text and traditions of laws in the founding period against them. But I just sit in the bleachers with my popcorn watching the pros work. 
|
|
Originally Posted By DaveyDug: What is the real world short term result of this, and what are the anticipated next steps here? Someone spell it out for me like I am a 6 year old of less than average intelligence. Why are you asking us a question like you are doing a dumb ass ai prompt? Learn to read and think for yourself unless you really are dumber than a 6 year old. In that case, just ask your mom. -ZA |
derp...