quote:

Originally posted by mark60:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Wait for what? What part of this requires a change for GOA members?:

790.221 (3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

I'd like to read it the same way but is the law null and void? It's been declared unconstitutional but until Congress changes the law is it still a law?

The law is not even 'really' null and void, it's just not enforced for everyone else NOT covered by the injunction. The law was declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the tax was eliminated/reduced to Zero $ and without the tax, the remaining requirements for the affected arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis. If a future Congress restores the tax, and potentially even increases it to who knows what, we would be right back where we started, or perhaps even worse off than we were.

The common use/get out there and buy everything you can for the common good is great an all, but that would only apply to a future case, not Silencer Shop v ATF anyway. Congress needs to act and change the law, amending (or repealing?) the NFA permanently.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I am only speculating now, but what would prevent a future Congress and President from passing a new registration requirement that had nothing to do with taxes? Nothing I can think of.

Luckily there is a lot of case law now, including SCOTUS decisions, to hamper any such future new requirements. They can pass it, but it will be challenged and likely overturned. For me, my concern is being on a registration list of some sort, which I am already, via Forms 4473 or holding a ccw license. Though I am getting old enough now that it is less of a concern.

In Utah, we can purchase without the Form 4473 with a valid UT ccw. It at least reduces one's database footprint at the federal level.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
And there is no fundamental requirement that anything that was permitted under a previous law or rule (or lack thereof) must be “grandfathered” under a new rule or law.

While completely true, I believe the sentiment to conform with any future restrictions is getting much less than it was even just a few years ago. With the rise of socialists and the violence on the left, conservatives appear more determined to fight for the 2A.

And really the best thing that could happen now or in the future is an injunction to stop it. This ensures that the left is tied up in court spending money (against the USG) and will almost certainly put the issue before SCOTUS before 2029.

Believing that Congress will act in our favor is a pipe dream.

I believe if we can give Trump a House and Senate Republican majority that he will push for 2A bills in our favor.

We need to go vote R in these midterms!!

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Believing that Congress will act in our favor is a pipe dream.

I generally agree with this. But at least, we have congressman Andrew Clyde (of GA) to thank for getting the NFA taxes on SBRs, SBSs, AOWs and suppressors to zero in the OBBB Act, and from that, the successful challenge to the constitutionality of registration requirement on these weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
I believe if we can give Trump a House and Senate Republican majority that he will push for 2A bills in our favor.

We need to go vote R in these midterms!!

We’ve owned both chambers for nearly two years. Their main goal is re-election

Ok, for the ones who just wanna celebrate:



For those who want to keep pressing into the breach, here's a nice, long interview with Director Cekada:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
I believe if we can give Trump a House and Senate Republican majority that he will push for 2A bills in our favor.

We need to go vote R in these midterms!!

We’ve owned both chambers for nearly two years. Their main goal is re-election

I hate to sound jaded, but unfortunately, I agree with this. We had a chance to get these items removed from the NFA and the Parliamentarian and John Thune bungled it. An asshole said "nope" and a spineless fuckweasel said "ok." If this was going to get fixed in congress, there was never a better chance of it in almost a century, but the courts had to actually figure it out and give it to us. Now, that said, Brandon Herrera gives Trump tons of credit for it in the first video, and so do I.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Ok, for the ones who just wanna celebrate:

Celebrated in the previous page.

My LGS, here in Florida, is selling cans with just the 4473. I considered buying one yesterday when I got the new Gen 6s, but I need one like I need a tail so I passed.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Wait for what? What part of this requires a change for GOA members?:

790.221 (3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

Wait for this....

AG making it official not just peoples opinion or interpretation...

https://x.com/gunrights/status/2110072197738020932

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Wait for this....

AG making it official not just peoples opinion or interpretation...

Yay Florida! That didn’t take long.

I take back what I said about Florida. Good to see them get on board with free states.

Very cool Florida. I didn't know if we'd get something before the elections or not, now I'm going shopping.

Clarification - not Fl AG, Fl state attny for the 8th district.

Congratulations to Floridians! I figured they'd be the first to sort this out.

Yeah, clickbait thumbnail and all that. I know.

Two more pending cases in the 6th and 8th districts. Brown vs. ATF in Missouri, and Roberts vs. ATF in Kentucky. Potential for three separate injunctions against the ATF enforcing various parts of the NFA, and thus more protected parties. This would only strengthen our position against future Democrat governments.

Guys, I'm going to yet again bang the "common usage" drum. Go buy suppressors and start building SBR's and chopping shotgun barrels.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Wait for what? What part of this requires a change for GOA members?:

790.221 (3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

Wait for this....

AG making it official not just peoples opinion or interpretation...

Ya know that guy is not the AG of Florida, right? He’s the State Attorney for the Eighth Judicial Circuit which covers six rural counties representing 1.8% of the population of Florida. In fact, 5 of the 6 have a combined population about equal to the number of students at UF and UCF combined, but I'm glad he agrees with me.

I guess you’ll have it keep waiting.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: trapper189,

Damn, HRK, you don’t know who your state AG is?

No knowledge needed, if you read the memo. The guy’s name, position, and counties represented are top center in big print.

Well WA is now on board with choice of 4473 only or 4473/Form 4 for suppressors.

Catch 22 is that 4473 only, triggers the State Patrol doing the B/G check with a $33 fee on top of the dealer's transfer fee as well as a 10 business day (14 calendar day) mandatory wait period.

Voluntary form 4 is a faster turnaround of 3-4 days and cheaper.

Also, state law still requires "...legally registered and possessed under federal law". That hasn't changed, just the WSP saying there is "nothing to enforce".

Also lots of questions about SBR'ing using parts in possession before the WA assault weapon ban.


I imagine sooner or later someone will get to be the "test" case for the BS WA state laws.

I am impressed that commie WA is on board with this. They passed a 10 round mag limit, etc. only a couple of years ago.