|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: No one has said this would be a bad change overall and registration should continue for everyone. We're making the point that it is bad for people in some states. And if registration was optional, it would be good for us because the probability that the offending MI law would be changed is pretty much zero. Is it? I never thought the DOJ would sue Colorado but here we are! |
|
Originally Posted By FMJ0311: Say they bring back the tax in a couple years. How would you be able to prove that someone didn’t make that sbr,sbs, can during that period? They would have to do an amnesty registration, tax free. But yes you could claim you made 1000 supressors and SBRs during that time. |
"I am gonna laugh my ass off looking out the air vent of the box car watching some of you shot in the head in a ditch when you finally realize it's time to resist." stolen from RR_broccoli
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: If I am not mistaken, we want this appealed, so that SCOTUS can potentially make it apply nationwide, not to this specific case. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Originally Posted By evilyoda: In a perfect world, the ATF would not challenge the ruling. 1. Destroy all previous tax stamp records. 2. Have a downloadable PDF that allows for “self” stamp for free. Meaning buy a suppressor- download the form and boom. You just self served an ATF stamp in which the ATF keeps no record. BUT it is a federal ATF “approval” that would be recognized by they states because its a federal form based on the honor system just like no voter ID. If I am not mistaken, we want this appealed, so that SCOTUS can potentially make it apply nationwide, not to this specific case. The Federal gov't can choose to not appeal this then it can become the law, not every case has to go to SCOTUS to cause nationwide change. See the FRT settlement as a recent example. |
|
Originally Posted By 1BMF: I hope this sticks. No registration for a 3d printed short barreled AR with a suppressor and FRT. https://media4.giphy.com/media/QMcamps7Gzj2g/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cg7id5xirk0odvulskex3g7dkpt4cbcy8i7cnj3tx&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g  |
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: I never said anyone other than Congress would be doing this theoretical tax raising. Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By ffemt596: Originally Posted By Curmudgeon762: Am I the only one thinking they will just reinstate a tax? If nothing is ever codified, yes. An executive branch agency is just going to invent a tax without statutory basis? lol ok The laws and regulations which the ATF and DOJ are now enjoined from enforcing against the plaintiffs in this case are still part of US Code & the CFR. They just can't be enforced. Presumably if the taxes were raised to a non-zero amount then they could be enforced again. They were set to $0 by a law made by congress. Only congress can raise it above $0 I never said anyone other than Congress would be doing this theoretical tax raising. "If nothing is ever codified, yes" Thats where you jumped into the conversation. |
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 Malum-Prohibitum: Essentially, nothing has changed in Georgia as a result of this ruling. That is not "bad of people in some states." Life just goes on as normal. I was a bit caught up in the thought this would go nationwide. Which I'm guessing is a possibility as it goes through the court system. So, we'll see what happens. |
|
The judgment officially dismisses the plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims without prejudice as "abandoned". Because the plaintiffs won completely under Article I (Enumerated Powers), the judge exercised judicial restraint and chose not to issue a ruling on Second Amendment grounds. |
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
DEXAI
DEXAI
|
Originally Posted By The_Like_Button: So the NRA was in fact controlled opposition. FPC and GOA have constantly won cases that the NRA would have never touched. |
Live your life as you would wish to have lived, when you come to die. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot. Confucius
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: If the Hughes Amendment had been part of the original National Firearms Act, would the National Firearms Act have been a valid power of taxation? If the answer is no, why does an arbitrary period of time change that? Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: 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. Outside of the 2A space, there are other examples of things that cannot be taxed/registered, but that penalties apply to using them without taxes/registration. Think about something like certain cars in CA. It may not be 100% apples to apples, but there are similar mechanisms in play. Car A can be registered. Car B cannot due to whatever regulation. If you drive either car on the road without registration, you pay a fine. Nobody challenges the state on refusing registration on car B. The MG NFA situation is kind of like that. Taxes are being paid, but only some MGs are eligible. As a casual, I think this is only really unconstitutional in light of the 2A. If we were talking about cars or lawn mowers or whatever, I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional. With SBRs, SBSs, and cans, there are no taxes being paid at all, by anybody, under any circumstances. "Do your onerous $0 tax registration or spend a decade in PMITA prison" is blatantly unconstitutional even without considering 2A rights. If the Hughes Amendment had been part of the original National Firearms Act, would the National Firearms Act have been a valid power of taxation? If the answer is no, why does an arbitrary period of time change that? I think I see what you're getting at there. The argument does have merit. I'm not sure I'd call it "an arbitrary period of time," though. There have been significant changes in our government. Cases like Wickard matter a lot. Before Wickard, Congress understood that they didn't actually have the power to ban things. That's why prohibition was a constitutional amendment and why the NFA was created as and later upheld in court as "a tax." Before Heller, the 2A wasn't properly recognized as an individual right. It's crazy to think about how far we've come in 18 years, but here we are. The time that elapsed in between Wickard and Heller was an anti-2A black hole. Drop something like Hughes in 44 years after Wickard and 22 years before Heller, and nobody says anything. I'm not saying it's right, but we can see how it was allowed to happen in that context. And from where I sit, post-Wickard American government is so messed up, I still think Hughes or the NFA itself has to be fought on 2A grounds. If that tax policy was applied to something not protected as a right, I think it would probably be upheld. In regards to the 2A, SCOTUS has spent the last 18 years defining who are "the people," what it means to "keep and bear," and what are "arms." I think that's the path to defeat the remainder of the NFA. I would expect more vanilla cases saying "you can't tax a right" will come first. That will first be applied to things like state taxes and excise taxes, but the precedent will be important. Once that's decided, then Bockscar can take off, fly north, and the question of whether or not MGs are "arms" can be handled. |
"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
|
1. The Specific Laws Being Blocked The court permanently enjoins the government from enforcing the core NFA regulatory machinery against protected parties for untaxed items (silencers, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs). The enjoined statutory and regulatory codes are:
Because the Jensen plaintiffs raised specific challenges to marking requirements, the judge also enjoined enforcement of:
The judgment officially dismisses the plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims without prejudice as "abandoned". Because the plaintiffs won completely under Article I (Enumerated Powers), the judge exercised judicial restraint and chose not to issue a ruling on Second Amendment grounds. 4. Case Closure & 7-Day Administrative Stay The judgment directs the Clerk of Court to close the case and reiterates the seven-day stay. This gives the Department of Justice seven days from entry (until August 12, 2026) to request an emergency stay from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before the injunction actively stops ATF enforcement for protected parties. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Under the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 136) and Final Judgment (Dkt. 137), the permanent injunction applies only to the following specific entities, individuals, and affiliated groups: 1. Individual Plaintiffs
The injunction protects these 15 state governments, including their state/local law enforcement agencies and political subdivisions (e.g., city/county law enforcement acquiring NFA items for official use):
3. Named Commercial Plaintiffs & Their Direct Customers The injunction covers these specific commercial businesses and their current and future customers (for transactions conducted directly with these companies):
4. Organizational/Associational Plaintiffs & Their Members
Key Exceptions & Scope Limits Non-Party Customers:
Exclusions:
|
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
DEXAI
DEXAI
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: Possible future NFA elimination for suppressors, short barrel rifle and shotguns. Since there is a zero NFA tax, no reason to register via the NFA. Please let common sense finally win. |
Stuff I learned from A-Team: 1)Always pity da fool 2)Carry wire cutters (you may need to defuse a bomb or start a car) 3)Never trust a crazy fool 4)Carry grenade launcher/machine guns in the van 5)Know how to weld 6)Love It When A Plan Comes Together
passenger on Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B
Joined:
Aug 2007
Posts:
5206
EE: 0% (0)
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: It's an affirmative defense to have them registered, and is the only option to possess them legally, hence the attempted law change. Just FYI, since you live in Georgia, a prosecution for possession of one of these "dangerous weapons" (legislature's term, not mine) need not negative any exemptions. That's fancy lawyer talk for saying that they can prosecute you and need not even inquire into the exemption, and the burden is on you to prove the exemption to the jury. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-16/chapter-11/article-4/part-2/section-16-11-125/ "In any complaint, accusation, or indictment and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of this part it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption contained in this part, and the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption shall be upon the defendant." |
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: I think I see what you're getting at there. The argument does have merit. I'm not sure I'd call it "an arbitrary period of time," though. There have been significant changes in our government. Cases like Wickard matter a lot. Before Wickard, Congress understood that they didn't actually have the power to ban things. That's why prohibition was a constitutional amendment and why the NFA was created as and later upheld in court as "a tax." Before Heller, the 2A wasn't properly recognized as an individual right. It's crazy to think about how far we've come in 18 years, but here we are. The time that elapsed in between Wickard and Heller was an anti-2A black hole. Drop something like Hughes in 44 years after Wickard and 22 years before Heller, and nobody says anything. I'm not saying it's right, but we can see how it was allowed to happen in that context. And from where I sit, post-Wickard American government is so messed up, I still think Hughes or the NFA itself has to be fought on 2A grounds. If that tax policy was applied to something not protected as a right, I think it would probably be upheld. In regards to the 2A, SCOTUS has spent the last 18 years defining who are "the people," what it means to "keep and bear," and what are "arms." I think that's the path to defeat the remainder of the NFA. I would expect more vanilla cases saying "you can't tax a right" will come first. That will first be applied to things like state taxes and excise taxes, but the precedent will be important. Once that's decided, then Bockscar can take off, fly north, and the question of whether or not MGs are "arms" can be handled. Unfortunately, Justice Thomas is the only Justice that seems to see this issue the way you and I do. Wickard v. Filburn is a monstrosity of a case, and I cannot believe it has survived almost 100 years. It would be dead if Scalia had not been so motivated to join the liberals in the home grown marijuana case, Raich v. Gonzalez. Read Justice Thomas's dissent in that case if you want a good education on what a real Supreme Court Justice should be like on constitutional issues. |
|
Originally Posted By MateFrio: The injunction protects these 15 state governments, including their state/local law enforcement agencies and political subdivisions (e.g., city/county law enforcement acquiring NFA items for official use):
That doesn't make any sense. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: If only we had a man on the inside, that could make sure the ATF files an appeal to SCOTUS, but the appeal is so legally unsupportable yet so egregious that SCOTUS has to immediately address it and rule against it nationwide.  Sounds like an ethics issue... |
|
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.... How are their laws written? Copying the NFA wording? Saying items that fall under NFA are banned, because if NFA goes away, they can't be banned that way. |
|
Originally Posted By madmacs69: Sounds like an ethics issue... Originally Posted By madmacs69: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: If only we had a man on the inside, that could make sure the ATF files an appeal to SCOTUS, but the appeal is so legally unsupportable yet so egregious that SCOTUS has to immediately address it and rule against it nationwide. Sounds like an ethics issue... You're right, tyrants violating rights is an ethics issue. As are people defending those violations. |
|
Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: That doesn't make any sense. Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Originally Posted By MateFrio: The injunction protects these 15 state governments, including their state/local law enforcement agencies and political subdivisions (e.g., city/county law enforcement acquiring NFA items for official use):
That doesn't make any sense. The 15 plaintiff states argued that these mandatory ATF application forms, waiting periods, administrative overhead, and registry requirements imposed a direct compliance cost and operational delay on state and local law enforcement. In the ruling, Judge Hendrix pointed out that because the core NFA regulatory machinery is unconstitutional without a revenue-generating tax, forcing state agencies to submit Form 5s and wait on ATF permission slips to equip their officers exceeds Congress's enumerated powers. So, while state agencies weren't paying the $200 fee to begin with, the permanent injunction frees those 15 state governments, county sheriffs, and local police departments from needing ATF's permission or registry approval to make or acquire silencers and short-barreled rifles for official use. |
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
DEXAI
DEXAI
|
Originally Posted By MK3110: How? Once SBRs, SBSs, and silencers are removed from the NFA they won’t be able to add the tax back through the budget reconciliation process. They’d have to craft completely new legislation to tax them again. And if they add the tax back, at even $1 they effectively kill any appeal before it gets to SCOTUS. If it isn't appealed, doesn't it only affect 1 circuit? |
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy:It means progress. The good guys just reached a new phase line on the battle map. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By Citadel:What does this mean? It means the judicial “Overton Window” has now shifted substantially as to how federal “gun control” statutes formerly thought untouchable are now viewed. |
|
Originally Posted By Hill_monkey: Originally Posted By metalsaber: To all the people that said eliminating the tax was a dumb idea. How do you feel now now? Quite a few figured this was the possible end game. https://memes.memedrop.io/production/RX41ZVVg8oJ2/source.gif I'm pretty sure I was one of the first people to celebrate this tactic seeing it for the potential of what it might bring. |
Joined:
Jul 2026
Posts:
4
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By M-203: In before some idiot says some MG owner here will write to their representatuve to protest that their NFA collection value will plummet if the NFA is overturned. Considering there was/is an organization dedicated to doing exactly that kind of thing why would it be surprising? I can't remember the name off the top of my head but I remember Oleg Volk being tied to them and distancing himself when they revealed their asshattery in dealing with a Dem ATF to get things restricted because they thought it might threaten their investments. ETA: NFATCA I forgot it involved our own HistoricArms https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Here_are_some_more_fun_facts_about_our_friends_at_NFATCA/5-1527118/ https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Let_s_find_out_what_other_petitions_for_rulemaking_NFATCA_has_sent_to_ATF__Answer_due_7_27_/5-1865927/ |
|
Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: This ruling is limited to the plaintiffs and their customers. So if you are purchasing an SBR or a gun muffler from somebody other than one of the plaintiffs, it still must be registered. Doesn't that create an unfair monopoly...? "Buy from us, the govt made it $200 cheaper to do so!" |
|
Originally Posted By madmacs69: And if they add the tax back, at even $1 they effectively kill any appeal before it gets to SCOTUS. If it isn't appealed, doesn't it only affect 1 circuit? Originally Posted By madmacs69: Originally Posted By MK3110: How? Once SBRs, SBSs, and silencers are removed from the NFA they won’t be able to add the tax back through the budget reconciliation process. They’d have to craft completely new legislation to tax them again. And if they add the tax back, at even $1 they effectively kill any appeal before it gets to SCOTUS. If it isn't appealed, doesn't it only affect 1 circuit? The odds of Congress doing that are tiny. |
USPSA Master Race
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
26684
EE: 100% (49)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By WEAPONIZEDSTUPIDITY: So hypothetically right now ; a Texan can install his oil filter adapter on to his threaded barrel handgun , screw on an oil filter , and safely shoot at something and there be no legal repercussions? No I think there's a 7 day period before it takes effect for appeals to be filed. Plus I'm not clear on who this applies to. |
|
Originally Posted By madmacs69: Doesn't that create an unfair monopoly...? "Buy from us, the govt made it $200 cheaper to do so!" Originally Posted By madmacs69: Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: This ruling is limited to the plaintiffs and their customers. So if you are purchasing an SBR or a gun muffler from somebody other than one of the plaintiffs, it still must be registered. Doesn't that create an unfair monopoly...? "Buy from us, the govt made it $200 cheaper to do so!" Can the DOJ not accept the ruling and let it stand as Federal law? If that happens won't it apply universally? If it's appealed I would understand the ruling only applying to the plaintiffs during that time period. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: You're right, tyrants violating rights is an ethics issue. As are people defending those violations. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Originally Posted By madmacs69: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: If only we had a man on the inside, that could make sure the ATF files an appeal to SCOTUS, but the appeal is so legally unsupportable yet so egregious that SCOTUS has to immediately address it and rule against it nationwide. Sounds like an ethics issue... You're right, tyrants violating rights is an ethics issue. As are people defending those violations. And attorneys have an obligation to represent THEIR client to the best of their abilities. They took the 30 pieces of silver after all 
|
|
Originally Posted By WEAPONIZEDSTUPIDITY: So hypothetically right now ; a Texan can install his oil filter adapter on to his threaded barrel handgun , screw on an oil filter , and safely shoot at something and there be no legal repercussions? Isnt there a 7 day delay? |
|
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. NH was not one of them. We're silent/permissive on all things NFA. Only oddball thing is anything with a barrel under 16" is a pistol. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: The odds of Congress doing that are tiny. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Originally Posted By madmacs69: Originally Posted By MK3110: How? Once SBRs, SBSs, and silencers are removed from the NFA they won’t be able to add the tax back through the budget reconciliation process. They’d have to craft completely new legislation to tax them again. And if they add the tax back, at even $1 they effectively kill any appeal before it gets to SCOTUS. If it isn't appealed, doesn't it only affect 1 circuit? The odds of Congress doing that are tiny. The odds of the Hughes amendment getting passed by a voice vote with no recorded vote were tiny too, and yet... here we are. |
|
Originally Posted By SturmgeschutzIII: Then donate to GOA/FPC. They go after State battles too. Last state battle GOA's NH rep tried to go after is allowing municipalities to restrict the use of firearms. Thankfully their efforts failed. I'll send my money to the local orgs. Particularly since GOA doesn't have anyone local. |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter