VTski4x4
NES Member
It will be interesting to see if there is any response.
Attorneys General to SCOTUS: 2nd Amendment Protects Suppressors
Attorneys General to SCOTUS: 2nd Amendment Protects Suppressors
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Everything related to 2A should be protected under 2A
Was Maura one of the 8?
.gov should be forced to tell us why they're so tightly regulated in the first place. The current ban was passed based on lies, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
If anyone was even one iota concerned with "gun safety" they'd be mandated, not banned.
Post of the day. Jack.Yeah, she wrote the amicus brief in between renewing her Harvard Sportsmens Club membership and heading off to an 80% lower group build with NES green members.
in 1934, a $200 tax posed a significant economic barrier.
in 1934, a $200 tax posed a significant economic barrier.
FWIW, $3,756.90 in 2019 greenbacks.
I would love to see this be resolved by SCOTUS, and would argue that since the stamps, and LTC Fee's for that matter were violations of the Constitution all should be refunded.
“They reached their finding, in part, by ruling that suppressors are not protected under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) because they are not “bearable.”
Nor are they arms to be regulated by NFA.
In an alternative universe, using a suppressor would be legally required in nanny states. What a strange twist of fate that the government has made it expensive to use a device that greatly reduces the nuisance and hearing damage of firearms. Oh well.