https://reason.com/2019/12/06/...ition-era-gun-rules/

Dust off your hacksaws...

The Republican majorities would not pass legislation to remove suppressors from the NFA register. You think with stores choosing to not sell guns, red flag laws, large progressive/Democrat majority in the House, and The spinless Republicans we have in the Senate that a major component of a law that has been in place since 1934 is going to be repealed.


If one wants a shorter than 18 inch barrel shotgun, buy one of those Moseberg Shockwaves which are classed simply as a firearm. The pistol braces rifles have made the sBR academic. The short battled rifles you have to stay in state with the brace subject to local jurisdiction you can drive anywhere.

I do not like the NFA of 1934. I actually have larger problem with the subsequent Hughe’s Amendment. Folks need to start dealing in reality. This is not even a long shot. It is a campaign/donor talking, point/political grandstanding that I despise.

To be clear, I would rather not have the NFA of 1934. But this is tilting at a windmill.

WhT I would like to see is an Admin Reg with a penalty that mandates processing for tax stamp be completed in no less than 30, 45, or 60 days. So, the ATF, regardless of whether it is intentional, cannot slow ball a transfer as we have seen.

I totally agree with LHeym500. This will never happen. The Safeway and KingSupers grocery stores even stopped carrying gun rags. What is this world coming to! The lefties are taking control of company boards and HR departments. I would suggest that we give up, but the tide has certainly turned against us. Gun friendly values are fading fast.

Given the quality and content of some of those gun rags, they are an embarrassment anyway. I saw one that was called Recoil Carnivore or something equally as idiotic. Hot chicks with tattoos and knives talking about killing and eating. It is a strange world that breeds people who consume that kind of content. And it doesn’t do the sane gun owner or hunter any favor. I don’t buy the “any publicity is good publicity” mantra.

I am not saying surrender, but goals have to be based in reality. This is the equivalent of walking outside, flapping your arms real fast, and wanting to fly.

This type of play is at best stupid, not going to happen waste designed to get marks to pop )open their pocket books). At worst politically irresponsible that creates a debate we do not want to have and cannot win. Imagine if these folks ever put two and two together that you and I can actually own fully automatic rifles under the NFA.

Technology, new interpretations, rulings, court cases.

Has made GCA 34 obsolete.

But that well not stop the anti's from keeping it force.

A good solid court ruling on shall not infringe could destroy it. I am not holding my breath.

The only thing harder then getting a law passed is getting one repealed.

I wish folks would stop saying, “shall not infringe” for the proposition Congress or state legislators cannot pass firearm legislation. Every right conferred by the Bill of Rights has limitations even speech. The question that now exist post Heller and McDonald is what level of scrutiny is to be applied by the courts when asked whether a specific limitation placed by a legislature upon the right is appropriate.

There are three levels of scrutiny the higher the scrutiny applied the less discretion the legislature’s action receives, the more court protection the court offers.


Other than manufacturers thumbing their noise by using specific definition within the NFA of 1934 itself, ar pistols and shockwaves, the NFA of 1934 and GCA 1968 are very much in force.


THere are two Supreme Court cases holding the NFA of 1934 as Constitutional. The first in 1939 allowed conviction to stand for possessing a short barrel shotgun.


This hits another point of contention. We need to stop lionizing the Supreme Court when they do something we like or agree with like Heller, and damning them when they do things we do not like such as he Affordable Care Act.

The most honest thing Chief Justice Robert’s ever said, “Elections have consequences.”

The Incorporation Doctrine where we receive the application of Strict Scrutiny to fundamental rights as the idea that the Bill of Rights is a limitation upon State and Federal Governments as to those rights that are fundamental (there is a test to be applied by the Courts for that). The idea is that no matter where you are to be a US Citizen means you have these certain rights. However, all fundamental rights, including speech, can be limited by legislators. The question is how much and why is the legislature so doing.

For the record, I believe Justice Scalia was specific the 2nd Amendment was a fundamental right that is to receive strict scrutiny. However, Circut and Courts of Appeal have refused to extend this level of analysis.

I agree that clever people who can read the NFA of 1934 have made weapons that make the short barreled clauses moot. But they are not going to be written out. Only the opposite, this will cause a debate about amending the NFA of 1934 to include those new short weapons. Democrats already have a bill floating to add semiautomatic weapons to the NFA of 1934 registry.

Looking at the intent and the letter of the constitution, the NFA 1934 and most gun laws should be thrown out. Our best defense against invasion is a well armed patriot population. I want all law abiding citizens to be able to take on an army. No, everyone does not get city melting weapons, but small arms that military get should be available to citizens of good standing.

John Marshall wrote in 1812 that the Bill of Rights were limitations on the Federal Government only. Meaning Congress could pass no law. State legislatures under that precedent could do what they wanted. A state citizen had to look to their state Bill of Rights and State Constutions through state courts for protection. We have not lived under such precedent for over 100 years.

If such precedent were still in effect McDonald and Heller would not be the law of the land.

Statements of what should be or what was meant to be will not advance our positions. Fantasy will get us nowhere.

Charlton Heston even advocated felons should not be allowed to posses firearms.

McDonald and Heller call this restriction, at least in non violent, felons, into serious question. But nobody is dying on that hill.

Ever wonder why the NFA of 1934 imposes a then cost prohibited tax and registration. It is because no one in 1934 thought Congress had the authority to ban possession of those weapons, but could tax them and make possession without paying the tax a crime.

the house won't approve new-nafta - they aren't going to do JACK for us