quote:

Would love for the NFA to go away but don’t see it happening.

When it eventually makes its way to SCOTUS, and if we still have majority, I can see it happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

This is absolutely the boat I am rowing but take a scroll down YouTube and everyone seems to believe that it is a done deal next week.

Granted the typical click bait annoying folks like the guns and gadgets dude and the armed scholar are saying it’s done but quite a few more even keeled folks are pretty confident that the NFA is toast.

Yeah, outside of Mas Ayoob and James Reeves, I do not take legal advice from YouTube channels, and generally actively avoid anybody who is offering it.

quote:

Originally posted by Shackelford:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

This is absolutely the boat I am rowing but take a scroll down YouTube and everyone seems to believe that it is a done deal next week.

Granted the typical click bait annoying folks like the guns and gadgets dude and the armed scholar are saying it’s done but quite a few more even keeled folks are pretty confident that the NFA is toast.

Yeah, outside of Mas Ayoob and James Reeves, I do not take legal advice from YouTube channels, and generally actively avoid anybody who is offering it.

Check out Mark Smith at The Four Boxes Diner and William Kirk at Washington Gun Law. They are the definitive YouTube voices re: The Constitution as well as all matters relating to 2nd Amendment cases.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
This is absolutely the boat I am rowing but take a scroll down YouTube and everyone seems to believe that it is a done deal next week.

Though it does not precisely fit the matter at hand, it is close enough to offer up as a thought to the hopeful:

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things." Machiavelli, The Prince

Keep in mind the determined opposition we face in making complete and permanent change to this decades-old law, from those who wish to keep the status quo. I believe this will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, and nothing coming from that body these days surprises me. Until the ultimate ruling comes down, nothing is certain in this matter and therefore I choose to watch it play out without putting up hopes to be dashed.

And as has been alluded to in this discussion, we should be aware of potential second-orders effects at the state level.

Last year, when it started looking like real changes to the NFA might actually happen, Democrats who knew almost nothing about guns—and even less about NFA items—suddenly scrambled to get up to speed. More than once they made it clear that the moment they regain power, they’ll use budget reconciliation to raise the NFA tax stamp from the original $200 (set in 1934) to its inflation-adjusted equivalent of roughly $5,000 today. Guys who've been hesitant or waiting for the perfect opportunity may look back at this time and realize that time was now. I'm going to continue to treat this like a brief window of opportunity to acquire whatever NFA stuff I can reasonably afford to stock away, the way I wish my father had in 1986 when he had the opportunity, and didn't do anything with it because he didn't want to get put on a list. From April 10th to May 19th of '86, there were guys who had the foresight to have as many DIAS stamped out and registered as they could afford. Figure an ounce or so of aluminum and steel, and what that cost forty years ago being worth $40-50k apiece today.

I'm not going to get my hopes up for this decision somehow standing and applying nationwide, but similarly, we need to keep pushing things in the other direction now that we have momentum. Yes, they dangled the HPA in front of us for what? A dozen years? Sure looks like an overnight success that's too good to believe, but this has been a concerted and consistent effort by a number of the newer groups like SAF/GOA/FPC et al. for a long time now.

This court decision doesn't functionally change much, if anything for me either way. In fact, I went ahead and filed a Form 1 on a Griffin Mk2 lower tonight to see if I could take advantage of the faster processing times I'm seeing reported elsewhere (there was a whole rash of Form 1 approvals this morning, some filed only days ago). That'll bring me to more than a half dozen lowers banked against future GDC nonsense, and if this somehow holds and applies to everyone in five days, I'll just send the ATF a signed letter saying I never built them into SBR's and to remove them from the registry, and they'll still sit in the safe. I've already filled out enough 4473's in the modern era, it's not like they don't know I don't have scary guns anyways. I lose nothing moving forward on this, they're Schrödinger's SBR's. I also need to get after it with Form 1 suppressor submissions while I'm at it. Same thing there, I can opt to just not build them at any point, but a raft of approved $0 tax stamps would sure be nice to have.

quote:

Originally posted by motorheadjohn:
if you are a current or future member of any of these organizations (the plaintiffs). Another article I read indicated it applied to 15 states covered by that district.

+ Texas State Rifle Association
• Gun Owners of America
• Gun Owners Foundation
• FPC Action Foundation
• The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms or
• The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.

Added TSRA to the list for us Texas members.

HK Ag

edited to address comments below.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HK Ag,

One interesting thing I noticed is Academy Sports & Outdoors is selling suppressors, now. I doubt they have any insider info, BUT if buying a silencer became just as simple as purchasing a pistol, than the timing would be an amazing coincidence.

I've not attempted to use them, to purchase one, however. Perhaps you "buy" it there and it's fulfilled by someone like SilencerShop. I was amazed to see silencers sitting right in the case.

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:

quote:

Originally posted by motorheadjohn:
if you are a current or future member of any of these organizations (the plaintiffs). Another article I read indicated it applied to 15 states covered by that district.

+ Texas State Rifle Association
• Gun Owners of America
• Gun Owners Foundation
• FPC Action Foundation
• The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms or
• The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.

Added TSRA to the list for us Texans.

HK Ag

I've watched a lot of videos, and there doesn't seem to be consensus on plaintiff state residents. Armed Attorneys over in Houston seem to think that for states, it would only cover governmental agencies or political subdivisions. They also mention that there are some affiliated groups of plaintiff advocacy groups (say, affiliate Louisiana Shooting Association/plaintiff CCRKBA) aren't covered.

They also think that (say) having bought a set of night sights from PSA isn't sufficient; you'd have to have bought an NFA item from them, previously.

One other thing-Silencer Shop and Jensen were combined on the taxation/registration issue, but there are differences in what was at-issue in the body of the cases. Jensen seems to have prevailed on markings, but lost on AOWs. Silencer Shop not covered on markings, but AOWs part of the decision.

Assuming an appeal and outcome aside, probably the best people can do is join one of the named plaintiff advocacy groups like CCRKBA/TSRA/GOA/etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Vgex:
One interesting thing I noticed is Academy Sports & Outdoors is selling suppressors, now. I doubt they have any insider info, BUT if buying a silencer became just as simple as purchasing a pistol, than the timing would be an amazing coincidence.

I've not attempted to use them, to purchase one, however. Perhaps you "buy" it there and it's fulfilled by someone like SilencerShop. I was amazed to see silencers sitting right in the case.

Almost certainly 100% coincidence on the timing. Everyone who has an FFL and didn't also file to get their SOT so they can start selling suppressors and SBR's at the start of the year was leaving lots of money on the table. I'm not surprised that it took some of the bigger corporate chain sporting goods to get their ducks in a row and get in on it.

So I'm in SC, one of the states mentioned.

I have a DD pcc 8.5, currently with a brace, now defined as a pistol.

So I could add a full stock and a vertical grip, as there would no longer be a definition of a SBR?

I hope it goes away then I can order them from my distributors like I do any other firearm. Since I am an FFL, then I can buy suppressors for myself and pay wholesale prices.

quote:

Originally posted by mike56:
So I'm in SC, one of the states mentioned.

I have a DD pcc 8.5, currently with a brace, now defined as a pistol.

So I could add a full stock and a vertical grip, as there would no longer be a definition of a SBR?

This is my question too?

^^i wouldn’t wanna be the first person to test it.

They’ll wait till 5 minutes before the deadline to file the appeal just to mess with us.

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:

quote:

Originally posted by mike56:
So I'm in SC, one of the states mentioned.

I have a DD pcc 8.5, currently with a brace, now defined as a pistol.

So I could add a full stock and a vertical grip, as there would no longer be a definition of a SBR?

This is my question too?

Just because your state was mentioned likely doesn't mean anything for you. According to the info from The Law Office of John Pierce, Esq. at the link posted by 'motorheadjohn', and which 'para' encouraged all interested parties to read:

quote:

Who Is Protected by the Injunction?

The fifteen plaintiff states

The state plaintiffs are Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The injunction protects those state governments, their agencies, and their political subdivisions. It does not protect every person who resides in one of those states.

Who Is Not Protected?

The injunction does not protect:

Members of the general public who are not named plaintiffs, qualifying association members, or customers in covered transactions;

A resident of a plaintiff state merely because of residency;...

https://johnpierceesq.com/unde...dation-v-batfe-case/

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
If they did, how would your feelings on 11.5" AR barrels change?

What do you think are my feelings about such?

It would seem you're not a fan, and it's mostly due to the NFA.
https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...510066125#9510066125

I guess I’m in the same boat as the majority here.
I wouldn’t mind having a few SBR’s and suppressors.
The money isn’t really a barrier, but I don’t really want the hassle of extra forms, trusts etc and have to worry about where and when I can take it.
Not really a fan of asking the gov permission.
We will see I guess

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
It would seem you're not a fan, and it's mostly due to the NFA.

The discussion was regarding "best" barrel length and the point I was making is that the question is subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
It would seem you're not a fan, and it's mostly due to the NFA.

The discussion was regarding "best" barrel length and the point I was making is that the question is subjective.

agreed it is subjective.
I also think, beyond the range my use and I suspect, the use by many people, falls fairly in line with the FBI, that being bad actor human being targets at sub 200 yard ranges. the 11.5" suppressed rifle is what the FBI has worked out to be best case for that. 16" is great don't get me wrong here but lets assume the best case and the NFA is dead, would your opinion change without having to do the hokey pokey to get that setup?

My opinion is based upon the estimated 16 to 20 million owners of AR-15s in the United States, and the range of attitudes and gun knowledge across that spectrum.