Case challenging NFA applies for SC cert

Sorry, but after seeing that those in powerful positions want nothing more than to destroy all means of self protection in this country.

The BATF will only get stronger and it's real purpose of citizen oppression being the reason all Federal and State judges shut down any and all civilian firearm related cases that bring to light that sovereignty!

Seriously, why is the govt. regulating alcohol?
Next why would they regulate a constitutional right like the 2nd amendment?
Money, control of the people and what other reasons could their be?

Look a muffler is federally required for most all gas engines sold to consumers.
But god help us if you quit down a shot from a civilian owned firearm!

The problem is not that a suppressor is somehow evil. But civilian ownership is!
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but after seeing that those in powerful positions want nothing more than to destroy all means of self protection in this country.

The BATF will only get stronger and it's real purpose of citizen oppression being the reason all Federal and State judges shut down any and all civilian firearm related cases that bring to light that sovereignty!

Seriously, why is the govt. regulating alcohol?
Next why would they regulate a constitutional right like the 2nd amendment?
Money, control of the people and what other reasons could their be?

Look a muffler is federally required for most all gas engines sold to consumers.
But god help us if you quit down a shot from a civilian owned firearm!

The problem is not that a suppressor is somehow evil. But civilian ownership is!

Suppressors are legal in Europe (maybe not everywhere). The NFA is one of those government acts that's been around so long that no one bothers to get rid of it. Trump and his nominees could change that.
 
.Gov has been regulating alcohol since the beginning because $$$$$$$$. A tax on whiskey was the first tax levied under the second US republic. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?
 
.Gov has been regulating alcohol since the beginning because $$$$$$$$. A tax on whiskey was the first tax levied under the second US republic. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?

The government taxes a few cents on a bottle of beer. The bar or restaurant then adds like 600% to the cost.
 
.Gov has been regulating alcohol since the beginning because $$$$$$$$. A tax on whiskey was the first tax levied under the second US republic. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion?

I grew up in Western Pennsylvania. So yes, I remember. I also remember what people did about it, and that it was ultimately repealed.

I also remember what the .gov did in response.
 
Suppressors are legal in Europe (maybe not everywhere). The NFA is one of those government acts that's been around so long that no one bothers to get rid of it. Trump and his nominees could change that.

The same Trump who took away bump stocks........
 
Suppressors are legal in Europe (maybe not everywhere).

In New Zealand suppressors are completely unregulated. Anyone can buy or have one without any license or registration or permission slip.

Also, SBRs and SBSs are treated like handguns; there’s no special category for them.
 
Even if it is granted cert I don't think it will destroy the NFA, but perhaps force a reform of the system. It's completely and utterly absurd why, if this is a
tax, why it cannot simply be collected at the point of purchase. Suppressors in friendly states should be nothing more than an extra checkbox on a 4473 and a check from the dealer forwarded to the ATF.

One thing that makes this case more compelling than most is the "cuz public safety wah!" argument is pretty indefensible WRT suppressors, which are a pretty
innocuous device, and the whole reasoning, from what I remember- for their inclusion into the NFA was "cuz poaching bs".

-Mike
 
It won't get CERT.

Depends on how well written it is, etc, and what arguments are used. Because legally, this is 10,000 miles away from "manpads and anti tank rockets and launchers are covered by the 2A" kind of argument, it likely stands a far better chance than most NFA cases on that basis alone. The court also has the option of "ruling cheaply" here and not creating an exceptionally broad precedent, and they like that sort of thing. Also, If a case is confined to a few needle-like points of accuracy it's less likely to be tossed out wholesale. (Heller was a perfect example of this. So was Abramski, although that one ended poorly because of f***ing Anthony Kennedy.... )

-Mike
 
In New Zealand suppressors are completely unregulated. Anyone can buy or have one without any license or registration or permission slip.

Also, SBRs and SBSs are treated like handguns; there’s no special category for them.

There's at least a half dozen euro-type nations that pretty much fit that template, with the caveat that most of them treat base level ownership like MA does, or
worse. This guy I used to talk to on rec.guns back in the day said NZ was pretty restrictive wrt storage, etc. I think he said carry was out of the question, too.

-Mike
 
There's at least a half dozen euro-type nations that pretty much fit that template, with the caveat that most of them treat base level ownership like MA does, or
worse. This guy I used to talk to on rec.guns back in the day said NZ was pretty restrictive wrt storage, etc. I think he said carry was out of the question, too.

-Mike


I went and spent an hour talking with some guys at "the largest gun store in the world" in New Zealand last fall. Basically like you say, but much more deterministic, less "I don't like the look of you" or "XXX town doesn't issue..." nonsense.

One thing that would make "no carry" less objectionable is the really low crime rate. In three weeks there there wasn't a single place that felt anything other than perfectly safe. So, not ideal, but nothing like "no carry available in Chicago" would be.


(it wasn't the largest, not even close! KTP puts it to shame!)
 
Back
Top Bottom