Axxe55
Retiretgtshit stirrer
I didn't, but it appears everyone else did!Did you miss post #4?
I didn't, but it appears everyone else did!Did you miss post #4?
I read it. Exactly what does it cover not being discussed in the existing thread?Did you read post #1 attachment? You will understand why this separate thread
Welcome to TGT.As much as I want this to be a win for us, as much as I want the NFA to be struck down as unconstitutional and our rights to own machineguns and suppressors and the ridiculous "Any Other Weapons" (seriously, just the title on that one should've been a red flag so big and bright it would've made China sue for copyright infringement) restored to their rightful capacity... I just don't see it in the cards. It's been festering on the books for almost 90 years now, and no serious effort has succeeded at dislodging it yet.
I'll remain hopeful, but I'm also going to remain realistic and not hold my breath on it.
... no serious effort has succeeded at dislodging it yet.
US V. Miller (1939) is the primary one that comes to mind. It was the original stress test for the NFA and unfortunately the SCOTUS upheld it.Welcome to TGT -- can you list the efforts you consider serious?
US V. Miller (1939) is the primary one that comes to mind. It was the original stress test for the NFA and unfortunately the SCOTUS upheld it.
There was also a rash of laws passed by Montana and... I genuinely forget the list of other states, which would exempt any firearms made within the state (with some exceptions) for use by citizens of the state from any federal regulation, but, much like our own suppressor exemption, I have yet to see anyone actually producing and selling firearms under those laws.
That's an interesting way to read Bruen. I'm going to have to go back and re-read a bunch of stuff, now.See the attached PDF file.
This is the part I'm worried about. More than anything. I don't worry for the factual basis of the complaints against the NFA, a 5th grader could understand the phrase "Shall not be infringed" in the second amendment. I worry for the competence... no, not even that. I worry about the clearly malicious intent of the people in our government, and their unshakeable determination to do everything in their power to strip us of our rights.Then an alcoholic, racist, idiot SCOTUS Justice picked it up off the ground, belched out some poorly-considered rhetoric, and Miller was born, and for the better part of a century, it has been used to fuel gun control arguments everywhere.
yet the ATF has decreed from on high that it does. And somehow they get away with it.
As I said, I want, more than anything, to see the NFA go away for good.
Mercy, I hope you're right.with the recent Bruen decision, maybe now the stage is set for that serious effort.
Mercy, I hope you're right.
I've had time to think about it. Yes, Heller poisoned the well but it's not necessarily an ironclad precedent. Scalia was making a sidebar statement about something that was not central to the Heller decision and had not been fully developed in arguments before SCOTUS or the lower courts. Therefore, future courts should have an easier time overturning that part of Heller than is normally the case when stare decisis is honored.I know you think Heller poisoned the well, but if their best argument to defend the NFA is: "But your Honor, Scalia said it would be startling!" then they are skating on thin ice drinking hot coffee.
god willing, only time will tell.See the attached PDF file.
The Bruen case may be the most far reaching SCOTUS decision in my lifetime and I am 74.
It is not only a right to carry case, it is also much, much more.