T O P
Retiredexeclv

The entire NFA needs to go as unconstitutional there is precedent that charging a tax to exercise a right is unconstitutional therefore having to pay a tax stamp to get a part of a firearm is patently unconstitutional let's get a move on


beaubeautastic

gun taxes are poll taxes!


XRhodiumX

I mean I can get behind that. But I hope for something that explicitly makes the clause of FOPA that makes it illegal to transfer post ‘86 machine guns to civilians unconstitutional. Im against the NFA in principle, but id rather pay for $200 tax stamps and be able to register as many MGs as I want than not be able to get MGs but get SBRs and Silencers tax-free.


mild-apsy

>Im against the NFA in principle, but id rather pay for $200 tax stamps and be able to register as many MGs as I want than not be able to get MGs but get SBRs and Silencers tax-free. 100% agreed


NickMotionless

Agreed. If the Hughes' was dead, I'd really appreciate the ability to even buy an MG.


Tai9ch

> id rather pay for $200 tax stamps and be able to register as many MGs as I want than not be able to get MGs but get SBRs and Silencers tax-free. Machine guns are fun. Silencers are a safety device. Not only do thousands of people get permanent hearing damage every year for the lack of a silencer, but the whole category of cheap silencers doesn't exist at all because of the tax stamp bullshit. If silencers were simply a legal accessory, you very well might be able to get a disposable silencer for your hunting rifle that would make it (nearly) hearing safe for 10 shots and only weighed 10oz because it's made out of rubber and bailing wire for like $30.


scul86

I think the way to attack Hughes without attacking the NFA overall would be arguing about them still being "legal", but the Gov't not accepting the tax (and thus the registration). However, I think that legitimizes the requirement for the Tax Stamp (aka a Poll Tax) and the registration. We already fought against a Poll Tax, and hell, one of our most iconic actions was the Boston Tea Party, in rebellion against unjust taxes. I'd hate to argue in front of the SC that a Tax on an enumerated Right is legitimate and just. Overall, I am against Hughes and the NFA overall, we just need to be careful how to attack one without legitimizing the other. Ideally, the NFA as a whole would be dismantled.


taxman5656

I think your on the right track. Id like to offer my two cents. If you read the Miller case it was upheld because of a lack of usage of sawed off shotguns in the military. So with that precedence set. If we could make a case using an example of say a saw or a m240. Cause I've always wondered how the Miller case would have gone if he was caught with a thompson or a BAR.


ClearlyInsane1

Now the US military uses the M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System that has a 7.75" barrel along with the Masterkey -- both are most decidedly SBSs and have tens of thousands in use. Miller was argued to SCOTUS with neither the defendant nor Miller's legal counsel present. SBRs, suppressors, and MGs are also quite pervasive throughout the military now. The NFA is ripe for a challenge in light of NYSRPA II.


Evamael

It wasn't about the tax it was specifically the East India Company and being required to buy it.


TheToastyJ

I completely agree. I mean I don’t want any infringements at all. But if this was a compromise, I’d take it. Outside of fun, I have no desire for full auto. I’d never use it in a real world scenario. Silencers and SBRs, however…


DreadGrunt

Sadly, striking the NFA down in full will never happen. With the way Bruen has changed the landscape though, getting rid of Hughes has become a *lot* more plausible. I will def throw money at the next machine gun case.


XRhodiumX

Im trying to figure out who to talk to get that started. We have a number of firearms advocacy groups that could lodge a suit.


DreadGrunt

SAF and FPC will do it, but the problem is someone actually needs to be in a position to bring a case. Honestly the old tried and true "try to register a new MG, sue when they don't allow it" might be enough to get the case going.


Okcicad

Honestly yeah. I wonder if FPC has consultations that a prospective candidate to launch the suit. And what they may desire to launch it such as a viable path to the SCOTUS? I'm not sure how these things work and if they'd have a preference for a certain judicial district to hear a certain case.


XRhodiumX

Im also new to this. I wonder what the best way to contact the FPC about something like this is.


Okcicad

Make a big donation so they'll call you! /s For real I think you'd need to find out what you need to do in order to bring that sort of lawsuit before the court, fulfill that requirement, then contact FPC for support after that possibly.


op_mindcrime

I'm not a lawyer, so everything I say might be wrong, but, I believe, you need to be personally injured, per se, to bring a case like that, as in you needed a machinegun and you were denied. And that caused you great harm, physically or monetarily. That is where a good case could come from.


Jlw1974

BUT, silencers/suppressors DO help lower the risk of harm to folks hearing….everyone should be on board for that. Not sure if they can piecemeal the breakdown of the NFA, but getting silencers/supressors out of the NFA would be a good start.


ShouldaJustLurked

***[email protected]*** It might take them a little while to get back to you, but they *will* get back to you. In my case, they asked me to forward any emails I had already sent to the Chief of Police and the Mayor, both of whom had previously ignored my communications. After that they had me CC them on all subsequent email exchanges, and low and behold, the local PD contacted me in under 24 hours and had my permits ready to pick up in two days. (Bs laws in Jersey make you apply for a permit to purchase a pistol and go through the full series of "required" State **and** local background checks. This is by law supposed to take no more than 30 days as outlined in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3. And on top of that, we still have to go through NICS which, in NJ, is run by the state police that just did your background check for the permits.)


TheTrooperNate

Ask Tim from Military Arms Channel seems like just his thing.


FCMatt7

Trust me, they are all brainstorming what to focus on right now. Tim still has the bumpstock case up for now.


jimmy1374

Tim will probably figure out how to only make his bumpstock a transferrable machine gun, and fuck the rest of us.


LaCroixOrbison

Fuck MAC and Copper Custom


Khainyte

Why?


TheTrooperNate

Maybe they like dudes with beards?


Khainyte

Did he shave his?


LaCroixOrbison

He swooped in on the deal for the Hungarian hd-18 rifles and wanted to charge people that were waiting for them way more money


Khainyte

Hmmmm...did they pay it?


1MoistTowelette

Why?


bimbodickinchrislar

I wonder if a state could argue damages from having a weak potential militia? Then no need for an individual. That being said I’m sure there’s already several test cases for NFA


JustynS

Maybe in the wings, but after *US. v. Miller* the courts came to the collective delusion that the Second Amendment was an exclusively collective right for states to have militias, and rejected all challenges to gun laws on the grounds that individual citizens didn't even have *standing* to challenge them. So, no there really havn't been any challenges to the NFA since *Miller*.


taxman5656

Yes but even so the cases decision was based solely on the fact he didn't have a weapon system used by the military at that time. So if he had a thompson or a BAR wonder how thing should be different today. Or if someone was to say want a saw or a m240 would that make a legitimate case? I'm not advocating to illegally build one or steal one. But I'd be curious knowing the courts use precedence to make decisions. Now that we have the right to own and now bear them in the eyes of the courts. Now it needs to be that we should treat them like books. Cause even if we could get them to submit to a current US issued wopon system then the precedence would be set allowing for all types. Look at suppressors. Their widely used now by the military.


JustynS

Considering the laziness of the justice who wrote the Miller decision, and the circumstances of the fact that FDR was attempting to extort the Court with threats of expanding the Court and filling it with yes-men if they didn't stop overruling his New Deal bills, I don't think it would have mattered. Miller was not decided on its merits. It was engineered to have a SCOTUS ruling to justify the NFA.


TheTrooperNate

>e out who to talk to get that started. We have a number of firearms advocacy groups that could lodge a suit FPC is where we should start. They seem to appeal to the young.


AsleepGarden219

FPC is the best in my opinion


OMGorilla

NFA should be easy. It bans arms that have legitimate military and militia use, and have historically been used for self defense and resistance to tyranny. Like Russians cutting down their mosins into Obrez’s so they could hide their guns from an authoritarian government. We used 13” short barrel AOW M37 Stakeouts in Vietnam to clear out VC tunnels. We mass produced and dropped liberator pistols into France so civilians could conceal and surreptitiously kill their invaders. Everything the NFA bans has a legitimate militia use. Everything it bans has been used in war. Edit: *regulates*… they are not banned, they are heavily regulated.


factorV

> Edit: ~~regulates~~… they are not banned, they are heavily ~~regulated~~. infringed is the word you are looking for.


Street-Chain

I figure the more shit the left throws at the justices the more likely they are to do things they don't like. We may run into more good news.


Boeing_777X

Getting rid of Hughes would make the NFA wait list 5 years long.


XRhodiumX

Hahah! Time to get that FFL SOT before it happens that way you can have your machine gun on layaway.


andylikescandy

There's a whole list of cases to resolve ahead of that - mag ban, roster ban, inability to buy ammo directly, etc. Next couple of months will be interesting.


ib_killinittheoutlaw

I believe it will, we need to fight hard to ensure it does


BuyRackTurk

> Sadly, striking the NFA down in full will never happen. I dont see why not. The original supreme court test has tons of easy and direct errors inside it. Not only that, but the law is overtly unconstitutional. I would expect it should, must, and will be overturned. Either via the present USA or else via nullification and or secession.


Ebalosus

Pray-tell on Bruen? As an outsider looking in, the NFA looks a lot more spurious in the face of loud noise health concerns (suppressors) and constitutional carry (SBRs and SBSs). Like the only gun-grabbers I hear that fully support the NFA are beltway wonks and not your average gun-grabber.


Intrepida1

Look into US v Miller. You will be surprised to learn this issue has already been settled (the $200 tax was found to be constitutional). However, there is one massive reason no one talks about this ruling: the court determined that ownership of military grade weaponry is protected by the 2nd Amendment.


jimmy1374

So, that sounds like the Hugh's amendment is what is unconstitutional, and if you get that in court, argue the tax stamp is similar to a poll tax, and get it gone as well.


Intrepida1

I think you're spot on.


jimmy1374

Shoulda gone to school to be a lawyer. Too bad I hate schools... And courts... And being around cops.


Retiredexeclv

Roe was already settled too until the flaws were found and it was fixed


Intrepida1

Very true.


Evamael

Miller was shot to death and his counsel never made it to court. I'm sure something can be done.


groynshot

So, why can NY ban NFA items?


Evamael

Because they like denying civil rights and natural rights.


groynshot

Or because that wasn't actually established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller


Evamael

Miller was executed and his lawyers never showed. Us v Miller should have been postponed.


groynshot

Well, it certainly should have been handled differently.


skunimatrix

US V. Miller was the worst decision of the 21st century SCOTUS primarily due to the fact the court only heard one side of the case. However the establishment that the 2nd Amendment protects weapons of the types used by the military brings about an interesting situation these days considering the standard issue military firearm for the past 20 years has been the M4, which is a select-fire short barreled rifle both of which are regulated under the NFA. Since the 14.5" M4 is the "common arm" of the US military it could, and should be argued, that they should be made available for purchase to the average citizen as a "common arm" making the Hughes Amendment and even parts of the NFA unconstitutional


jimmy1374

Many are issued suppressed as well.


The_seph_i_am

This would also help end the common refrain I hear from anti-gun folks. (“YoU tHiNk An AR WiLl StAnD uP tO tHe GoVeRnMeNt?”)


jimmy1374

Many are issued suppressed as well.


Tanks4me

But looking farther into the future, I have a very, VERY big problem with the whole "common arm" idea. Firearm technology has more or less been at a plateau for like 60 years. But eventually, we *will* figure out how to make superconducting magnets that operate between room temperature and 150 degrees Fahrenheit, finally making rail guns and coil guns a reality. They won't be common because they'd be brand new technology, meaning they might not be constitutionally protected.


sicsempertyranni5

Absolutely right. The constitution doesn't say anything about only protecting "arms in common use". It says "arms". The founders didn't stutter.


Tanks4me

It's not the founders that concern me. It's the finer details of the subsequent SCOTUS interpretations combined with how exactly SCOTUS will utilize the *stare decisis* principle for future cases involving the legality of electromagnetic guns, lasers, etc. that concern me. (I am 1,000,000% sure that we'll eventually see cases coming out of the bluer states where they'll try to ban "non-gunpowder weaponry.")


pahnzoh

Machine guns weren't banned in 1791, so bingo, unconstitutional.


XRhodiumX

Oh I know trust me. I have a pretty good feeling it would work. The tricky part is getting the lawsuit onto their desk


DontRememberOldPass

Never forget what Ronald Regan took from us.


XRhodiumX

Its just a prime example of why congress shouldn’t be able to attach poison pill amendments to legislation. It’s so dumb.


DontRememberOldPass

That’s a bullshit cop out. Reagan could have not signed it and sent it back for revision.


PanzerGrenadier1

And “Lord Reagan, Champion of Conservatism” is also a champion of “nobody needs a loaded weapon in a civilized society”…


isthatsuperman

But we don’t live in a civilized society.


Opinions_ArseHoles

But not everyone is civilized. Sigh.


DingbattheGreat

Prez can veto or not. He has no “please revise” power. If he doesnt sign, it automatically becomes law after 10 days. I know there is a “line item veto” but thats still a veto.


ihatethisplacetoo

The Presidential line item veto was only allowed for 2 years from 1996 to 1998 between the act that allowed it and the SCOTUS ruling that stopped it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York


DontRememberOldPass

In practice however the president does indicate why he won’t sign it and sends it back for revision. They can either get more votes to override the veto or change it. It’s not like the president just yells “veto” and they play a rousing game of charades to guess why.


Belkan-Federation

Reagan supported the AWB too


kakklecito

Reagan was corrupt af lol and to think that conservatives today aren't is a joke. They don't want to protect our gun rights.


Evamael

Don't forget the NRA whispered in his ear.


JustynS

Reagan didn't take machine guns. The Hughes Amendment was a poison pill meant to kill FOPA.


Belkan-Federation

Yes he did He also supported Clinton's assault weapon ban and is part of the reason some Republicans agreed with Clinton


DeepDream1984

I think the NFA (National Firearms Act) needs to be repealed as unconstitutional. It is clear their effort to "it's not a ban, it's just a tax" is a disingenuous de-facto ban through onerous restrictions and pricing. Conservatives would be wise to start pushing it now and go on the offensive against the gun lobby rather than just waiting until their next set of gun legislation.


BogBabe

>It is clear their effort to "it's not a ban, it's just a tax" is a disingenuous de-facto ban through onerous restrictions and pricing. I think (and hope) you're right. In general, the courts give deference to legislative statements of fact and intent. A law says that a fee or a penalty is "just a tax," the courts accepts that it's a tax and judge the case based on that. A law says that it's for safety reasons, the courts accept that the law is for safety reasons. And so forth. But in Bruen, in discussing the two-step interest balancing that lower courts have used in assessing 2A cases, the SCOTUS decision said "But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is not deference that the Constitution demands here." That specific statement was in regards to the interest-balancing process, but I'm heartened by the flat statement that **"it is not deference that the Constitution demands here."** I think this court will be a lot more receptive to arguments that the the NFA/Hughes Amendment/etc. are not "just a tax." It should be obvious to anyone with two working brain cells that those laws are not really taxes but are specifically designed to discourage individuals from owning NFA-covered firearms and accessories. I think that if a case could argue convincingly that automatic weapons and other NFA items are 2A-covered arms, they won't extend judicial deference and accept the argument that it's "just a tax." I hope, anyway.


JCuc

Conservatives (republicans) don't give two shits. Hell they just passed more gun control. It's obvious only the courts care now about the unconstitutional laws and actions passed by the states and congressional people.


scotsdail

The biggest issue is the banning of the manufacture of fully automatic weapons in 1986. Making people pay $200 for a stamp is a smaller issue.


XRhodiumX

Agreed. It’s a larger under-taking for a smaller payoff that if reversed in the future by a different court has virtually no lasting benefits. On the other hand, reversing Hughes is at the very least likely to put a modern round of machine guns into permanent circulation.


fiddlerbynight

It's a compromise I'd gladly make if I could still obtain automatic weapons, $200 and a two-year wait is far better than fighting for the dwindling pool of legal machine guns.


JCuc

The NFA was only deemed constitutional because it was a tax (it's not) and not a total ban. Now that the government refuses to accept that tax it is blatantly unconstitutional. Just another prime example of the slow erosion of firearm rights and the "today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole" tactic.


AbominableDerp

It’s all gone. It may happen piece by piece, bit by bit, but all of these unconstitutional laws will be gone.


1787Project

I'm not sure how the SCOTUS surrendering authority to the States is aggressive. Specific to the OT, I'd say start with FOPA and the Hughes Amendments and move on from there. Piece by piece. It is notable that the SCOTUS is recognizing 2A rights and Federalism more generally while Congress [works to undermine the 2A](https://www.1787project.com/post/the-gun-restrictions-hidden-behind-roe-v-wade).


Opinions_ArseHoles

IMHO, it's blatantly unconstitutional. Here's why. Do you need to register with the government to practice your religion or post a comment on social media? Would you pay a tax to do so? Why must I do so with machine guns or suppressors? Taxing a right was declared unconstitutional in 1943.


MrEd57076

Conservatives do not control the court. The recent decisions that make it seem that way were more of a procedural nature. Overturning a court opinion that never should have been decided that way in the first place is hardly a great conservative mandate. This court has a spine. But Im quite sure they'll come down strongly on the side of the left if they feel it is Constitutional and appropriate.


gofish223

Which isn't a bad thing. Rulings that are more Constitutional lean heavily pro-gun & for less government control. I'd rather the high court follow originalist rulings than "Conservative" rulings that risk being seen as strictly political.


XRhodiumX

It’s a bit of a semantic argument. Arguably what makes the court conservative is that they take an originalist viewpoint on the constitution, whereas a leftist court will take a “living document” viewpoint. We can argue about which of these is the correct interpretation but that’s neither here nor there. Whats important is we’re seeing a sea change in how the courts operate. That change seems to indicate that now might be our best chance to dismantle overbearing gun control legislation.


alkatori

I'd love to see it gone, I want to help too. But the logical part of me says that we want to see wins in AWB cases and magazine cases first. Think of it as building moment. I worry that a machine gun case first would stop momentum as a bridge too far. That being said, those cases are already working their way through. If someone were to attempt to register and get a denial and start a case now, it might come to the supreme court in 4 to 5 years.


[deleted]

I don’t care about full auto nearly as much as I do about short barrel stuff and suppressors. I second what the other guy said.


XRhodiumX

Hey, you do you, man. I agree the NFA is bullshit. But for me that’s just not where my hearts at. I pretty much stick collecting stuff in the $2000+ range, so far only civilian versions of military pattern rifles. At that point $200 isn’t a big deal to me to SBR them.


[deleted]

Yeah well that’s the problem. That attitude is wrong in my opinion. You might be able to afford that extra $200 to buy your right but what about everyone else? You’re ok with pricing lower income individuals out of their rights? I’m not.


XRhodiumX

As I’ve said, Im not okay with either. But I consider expanding the breadth of what legal firearms owners can buy to be a bit more important than lowering taxes. I’m bias’d by the fact that I can already budget for a tax stamp, sure. You’re bias’d by the fact that you don’t really care that much about full-auto weapons. At the end of the day it’s not like you can’t start a lawsuit that covers both or a lawsuit for each to put before the Supreme Court. I just want to see these lawsuits start headed up the chain ASAP.


[deleted]

That’s not true. I do care about the ability to own machine guns. It’s just not as important to me from a practical standpoint. Suppressors and SBR’s are much more applicable to the average American gun owner than having a belt fed or something.


XRhodiumX

On my end its not so much about belt feds. It’s more about PDWs and SMGs. Rifles are most practical as semi-automatic weapons, with fully automatic fire having a niche application. PDWs on the other hand tend to rely a bit more on automatic fire for excelling in their intended role. On top of that, some of the most popular PDWs that civilians might like to own don’t have a true semi-automatic counterpart from the manufacturer and either rely on replicas or straight up don’t exsist (think MP5).


[deleted]

MP5’s are expensive regardless so most people aren’t going to own one but I do agree and that’s a good point.


Senditwithethan

Mac 10, pretty sure those used to be like $200 brand new at the time


[deleted]

Yeah because they’re junk hahahaha.


TheAzureMage

$14,500 junk as per the one I saw at the gun show last week. Crazy.


markt888

It’s not the $200 dollars it’s the stupid long wait . The SBR law is wrong and having to purchase a stamp. There is no commonsense in these laws.


Evamael

You should care about all infringements.


[deleted]

I absolutely do.


sicsempertyranni5

Just throwing this out there: The federal definition of "Machine Gun" imposes no minimum barrel length or overall length. So MG trumps SBR / SBS. So fight for MGs and make your shorties select fire. Profit. (Obviously, it's all unconstitutional. ALL arms are protected.)


Irish_Punisher

NFA needs banned.


Wildtalents333

Everyhting I've read regarding Scalia was that he never supported that idea and if he wasn't on board with such an idea I don't see Kavanaugh or Gorcush breaking that way.


XRhodiumX

We won’t know until someone tries.


TheTrooperNate

FPC and GOA lezzz go!


JustynS

The claims that I would make are that: Machine guns are not "[dangerous and unusual weapons](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=227111111064075001002113100064066086097034061055016020027102092099121006094008069096030000020103007009008123076028093064023090051007069048051090075114125086093126055081094003024083072002010070081071007121092070004094100017088023025002075102013121116&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE)" because such a concept refers to weapons that are either *indiscriminate* in their ability to cause wanton destruction in an uncontrolled manner, or are weapons that are something bizarre and terrifying to evoke terror in the population. Machine guns are not weapons that are *unusually dangerous* because the same functionality as a machine gun can be achieved through nothing more than skill on the part of the operator or a piece of string. And they are not *dangerously unusual* as nothing about the device makes it uniquely applicable to criminal activity in the way that a firearm disguised as a cell phone or a pack of cigarettes would be for smuggling such a device into a sensitive location, or to have such a device on one's person while lulling one's target into a false sense of security that you are unarmed. "Dangerous and Unusual Weapons" is a category for items that are either intended to in some way invoke terror in the population, by either causing indiscriminate destruction, or because they are designed in such a way as to make them uniquely suitable criminal activity. Machine guns are weapons that are in the common use for legal purposes, by any definition of the term. If one defines "in the common use" to refer to a *number* of such items in circulation, then machine guns fall under the definition as the Supreme Court held in *Caetano v. Massachusetts* that electric stun guns were "in the common use for legal purposes" when there were as few as 200,000 of them in circulation across the United States, and as there are nearly 700,000 machine guns in civilian hands registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, by a numerical definition of the term, machine guns clearly fall within "in the common use for legal purposes". If one instead uses [Black's Legal Dictionary's](https://thelawdictionary.org/common-use/) definition of "common use" to mean "used by the general public" then the definition is even clearer, as such weapons are only used for criminal use for only astonishingly rarely, with years, and sometimes *decades* passing by between criminal misuses of machine guns. By *any* definition, machine guns are weapons that are in common use for legal purposes. Further, one cannot make a legitimate claim that machine guns are "unusual" or "not in the common use" because of the results of the ban of them and chilling effect upon them. Why are they banned? Because they're uncommon. Why are they uncommon? Because they're banned. Why are they banned? Because they're uncommon. Why are they uncommon? Because they're banned. *Ad infinitum.* The state cannot make the claim that a constitutionally protected right has been so diminished and thus no longer benefits from constitutional protections because the state was uncontested in *successfully quashing* the exercise of that right. Any ban on "NFA firearms" hinges upon the results of the ban and restrictions upon them to *justify* them continuing to be banned and restricted. EDIT: I cleared up a few typos and expounded on a few points.


glendocalrissian69

All modern bearable arms are protected. As per St Clarence Thomas


Vincit_quie-vincit

Can't see the machine gun ban being lifted. (specially times like it is now). But hopefully we can get silencers and short barrel rifles unregulated.


fatherdeath

if they could get a case in reference to the GCA there is a chance its at least amended or changed and freed up a bit


ericjames2k2

If the SCOTUS slaps down the EPA and the bureaucracy in general, rulings that came from agencies should be vacated or challenged and overturned.


G8racingfool

Yea the upcoming EPA ruling will be huge for a ton of areas, not the least of which gun owners.


Literaturefans

I think it would be amazing. If we could get it reversed and then have machine guns get into the homes of law abiding citizens there will be no turning back. Just like when they assault rifle ban went away and people went nuts buying to the point where there is no logistical way to ban and confiscate.


BigBeefyWalrus

It’d be smarter to go after NFA first. Can’t prove it’s a new production MG without the registry. Then again, the Feds have been secretly making a registry of normal transactions so it may not work entirely but the sentiment is nice


XRhodiumX

They can prove it if your P90 is suspiciously not a P86


tonytdmd

Please yes! I’m fine with my “investments” going down if we can get new NFA items!


sicsempertyranni5

100% agree.


hutnykmc

It’ll never happen. That being said, free men do not ask permission.


XRhodiumX

To be frank, the current Supreme Court appears to be very partisan and has been on an overturning spree lately. All bickering aside, they just overturned Roe v Wade and I believe the gun laws in New York they overturned had been on the books for around 100 years if I’m not mistaken. The details of their verdict on the latter seems to imply they are ready and willing to take more originalist stances on the second amendment. I think its definitely possible.


GodsRighteousHammer

I disagree. The current Supreme Court seems very focused on ruling on law and constiutionality as opposed to setting policy and being an activist judiciary. Policy and legislation is properly the role of the legislative branch. I'm glad to see the sanity returning to separation of powers, and respect returning for all the Amendments including the 10th.


XRhodiumX

Speaking practically I don’t see there to be much of a difference.


pahnzoh

Not deciding for constitutional carry does show they had restraint in allowing for states to regulate guns however.


hutnykmc

More possible than in years passed, but odds are still closer to nil than anything else. Kicking out the 1934 and 1986 bullshit would force an entire overhaul of a lot of bureaus and agencies in local and federal governments. Regardless of the nature of any legislations, the logistics of making this particular one extinct would be an absolute nightmare and not worth the time or money for any entity to invest in dismantling. If there’s one thing lawmakers don’t like, it’s losing potential revenue generation regardless of how unconstitutional their infringements may be.


XRhodiumX

That assumes the supreme court is acting in the best interests of regulatory agencies. I also fail to see how striking down Hughes cuts a revenue stream nor causes massive logistical issues. That seems more symptomatic of striking down the NFA. Striking down Hughes, if I understand it correctly, just re-opens the machine gun registry and returns Machine Guns to the status of a normal $200 tax stamp NFA item.


hutnykmc

Fines, fees, licensing, stamps, and penalties are all part of their revenue generation and while we do have a Court with friendlier intentions to firearms, the bottom line is still going to win out as it has a vast majority of the time in their rulings. Hughes would likely fall off easier than FOPA, outright, but I have to believe that the odds of that are still pretty low based on passed tendencies. If we do get our wish, I’d eat my hat.


XRhodiumX

Don’t eat your hat, it won’t taste good.


hutnykmc

I guess only Wisconsinites get away with that.


XRhodiumX

Cheese hats.


Evamael

Taxing a right was found to be unconstitutional.


SomeRandomCali

Hey, can’t reply in NFA Bc I got banned. They essentially said that NFA items weren’t constitutionally protected, and if they’re not constitutionally protected it’s kosher to tax them. Just requires a good challenge.


AxG88

What happens to prices of transferable MGs if the NFA was overturned? Will they stay the same? Significantly drop in value? Or?


XRhodiumX

If Hughes was overturned the prices would drop sharply. If the NFA was overturned probably not much would change for machines guns except that the tax stamp to transfer would be gone.


sicsempertyranni5

Yeah, they'll drop in value some, but who cares! Every current transferable MG owner will rejoice at being able to add another 15 to 60 ***more*** brand new unobtainable MGs to their collection for the price of one beat up $30k M16. Or 1 brand new M16 and a pallet of ammo. Pretty much the *only* people who will be upset by this (maybe) are the \~4 MG dealers that have significant transferable inventory. Anyone who owns MGs purely as an investment is rather dumb, since MGs are illiquid (complicated to sell) and could potentially be worth $0 overnight if future transfers were ever banned. MG owners buy MGs because they love them. Most would give their left nut for the ability to buy or make as many as they could. Collectors can get rare old models at a discount to fill out their collections and they'd be in better shape too since the MG shooters won't have beaten them all to hell. Amortization. Dollar-cost-averaging. Take your pick.


annonimity2

I seem to remember someone somewhere saying the president has the power to open up the machine gun registry again, I don't have a source for this beside a vauge recollection if a reddit post but if anyone has more information it would be appreciated.


andylikescandy

I think more critical is the power for an appointee and their hires at an agency to decide what does and does not constitute a felony when attempting to exercise a protected right. A small fine and confiscation of offending parts would be one thing, but some rando gets to decide which of your possessions gets you 20 years in pound-me-in-the-ass-prison and strips you of your rights forever.


SandyBouattick

I would buy so many little pieces of metal. A few thousand transferrable drop in auto sears sound pretty nice.


BadDogEDN

I'd just would like the CT bans on all the fun guns to go away, AR-15s any gun/mag that can hold more than 10 rounds etc


Purplegreenandred

Conservatives politicians want gun control just as much as the dems they just know that they would be eviscerated by their base if they ever actually backed it.


SirEDCaLot

Possibly. But I'd rather start with 50 state carry reciprocity.


anoiing

Just go after the NFA, get suppressors and machine guns.


slk28850

Time to strip gun control back to just the second amendment.


Heinrich_Lunge

Not gonna happen, Thomas nods to it in the NY case and suggests it's reasonable. “We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by **demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation**.”


DingbattheGreat

Yeah except there was essentially zero *national* historical tradition of nationwide bans of arms before the NfA. And you have to ask, was it ever intended to be that way.


MuttFett

The NFA would have to get repealed via the Congress, Senate and POTUS. I think what the current vision of the court is not to legislate from the bench, but rather put the onus back onto the proper legislative bodies. The first step to get rid of the NFA is to put the ATF back in check, and obliterate their power to make up laws (which is illegal).


Lespaul96

The scotus could 100% deem the NFA as unconstitutional and overturn that decision as well, which is in their purview.


MuttFett

And I don't think they would, for the reasons I've already mentioned.


Mr-Scurvy

I agree. Its pretty rare to see a body of govt try to depower itself.


SamBaxter420

Unfortunately people with a lot of loot don’t want that to happen because of the astronomical price they paid for their M16 would cause it to be worthless overnight.


rcortland

IMO this is largely bunk, particularly among younger(ish) MG owners. I bought my Colt M16A1 within the last year. I paid out of the nose for it. I'd _happily_ watch its price fall back down to earth if it meant I could have a bunch more full autos at normal prices.


sicsempertyranni5

The vast majority of MG owners would vehemently disagree. They want more cheap MGs just like you. I'd happily spend my next $30k on 15 to 60 cool new MGs that are currently unobtainable as transferables rather than one beat up old M16. Or a brand new M16 for $500 and a pallet of ammo. Collectors get rare collectibles for less since demand from the MG shooters who are abusing them will go down. MG owners buy MGs because we love them. Most would give their left nut for the ability to buy or make as many as we possibly can. MG "investors" who don't love MGs made stupid choices since they are illiquid and could be made potentially worthless overnight if future transfers are banned. Only a very small handful of FFL dealers who specialize in transferable MGs are likely to be upset. Please stop spreading this myth.


[deleted]

Machine gun ban was put in place by a Republican. This is doubtful.


SuperRedpillmill

An actor.


hawkxp71

FDR wasn't a repub. The FoPA closed the NFA registry to new firearms, but the initial ban was from the NFA in 1934


revolootion

I just want readily available suppressors man


halolover48

Is someone looking into it? I'm sure. Is it going to happen? Nope


Past-Cost

Since Kavanaugh included the statement regarding “in common usage” in his concurring opinion. He does not seem to be supportive of striking down the NFA or open to making access to machine guns less restrictive. I wouldn’t hold my breath on changes with the current court; however, I would like to see it happen.


mmgc12

If we go by "in common usage" though for many years now SBRs, SBSs, Suppressors, and Full autos have been 'in common use' by, and standard issue for Law Enforcement, The National Guard, and Many branches of the military. As well, the ruling also said that the 2nd Amendment covers all bearable arms including those that were not in existence during the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. So, as long as it can be proven that they're 'in common use' and there's no historical tradition of regulating them within the context of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment then it shouldn't be an issue.


Past-Cost

In common usage would refer to the general population, as I understand the argument decided by the Court. This would exclude military and LEO. As much I want to agree with you and would support your position, I do not think that with both Kavanaugh and Roberts and 3 left justices that the numbers would be in the favor of a more liberating interpretation of the 2A. Regardless of how we may understand the straightforward nature and wording of “shall not be infringed,” the Court is not ready to encourage the same level of freedom our Founding Fathers ordained law abiding citizens nearly 250 yrs ago.


emperor000

How could something illegal or restricted ever be considered ot expected to be in "common usage"? The definition would have to take other things into account or use the reasoning that an SBR isn't really special compared to a normal rifle.


Past-Cost

This is my same argument against “in common usage.” It should be irrelevant to whether it should be either regulated or limited in use. Restricting access only to those who have the financial means to afford such luxuries is antithetical to the core foundations upon which our liberties are based.


emperor000

No disagreement there.


sicsempertyranni5

Exactly, especially since the primary purpose of the 2A is to ensure the people own, and are able to become proficient with and use, arms suitable for militia/military purposes to maintain parity with and/or overmatch *any* military for the purpose of "securing a free state" from tyranny. Today, that means MGs, suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, DDs, artillery, etc., plus armor and accoutrements. Tomorrow it might mean rail guns and lasers. "wEaPoNs Of WaR" was the point.


AZREDFERN

Nobody controls the Supreme Court my dude. That’s the point…


Graph__

Let's do this. We need to crowdfund some good lawyers.


Speedhabit

That’s a legislative issue, these are all fucking legislative issues


hailcapital

I don't think we have 5 votes for overturning the Hughes amendment. Thomas and Alito are the only ones I could see voting our way on it.


solaris7711

I would expect it to be far easier to go for SBR/SBS first. If my understanding is correct, the question of whether these can be banned/classed as separate from normal weapons was going through the courts, until a mobster ended up dead and couldn't continue his case. He only had to prove they were useful for home defense, and had a decent shot of getting the law tossed... Of course they're useful, a shorter shotgun is more maneuverable in the hallways of your house.


gwhh

Let’s start small. Reverse Bush 1989 (illegal and over reach) executive action ban on imported guns first.


LostInMyADD

We can't even get them to remove restrictions on these so called "assault weapons" lmao... We cant even get states to follow any of their SIMPLE rulings on something like "shall issue" concealed carry permits lol It just doesnt matter what the supreme court says anymore, because there is NO recourse for the people in power who just disagree and go against the ruling...our country is dead, or dieing at best.


XRhodiumX

So called “Assault Weapons” aren’t federally regulated any more than other firearms as long as they don’t fit another NFA category. Sounds like a California problem.


theguzzilama

What makes you confident future bans will still allow transfer of machine guns?


tiberius0

Don't care, I'm not rich enough to afford ammo for a machine gun.


db_car_days

No need as far as Im concerned.


FunDip2

I can't imagine it would be overturned. Although I would love it. I also don't think that gun manufacturers would ever sell fully automatic weapons even if it were legal to do so. I don't think they would take a chance on being attacked exponentially more from the government, banks etc. Imagine a gang member legally buying a M249 from Bass pro then using it to shoot up a neighborhood. I don't think FN would ever get out from underneath of that.


XRhodiumX

I could see PDWs being sold. It would also open up SOTs selling to civilians, on top of that it would allow SOTs to manufacture without a law letter and transfer machine guns to themselves such that they don’t have to give up their machine guns when their FFL expires.


justan0therusername1

You wouldn't even need a SOT...you could just Form 1 a machine gun like some did prior to 1986.


hcmadman

The fudds who view MGs as 'investments' will spend lots of money to squash that.