Brace Ban

[mechmc17]

Ok. How will a night of losses help our cause if the left takes full control. This is a terrible catch 22 for us all and I see the issues very clearly “But”
How will putting the Billery’s Bernie’s and Beto’s in charge help. They will waste zero time going full AWB on us. And please do not say this is a protest thing because nobody in power cares. It is what they want.

Now what do we do.

Get the squishy R’s out in the primaries. Use the primaries to get real patriots on the general election ballot. Then we will have a true choice, instead of choosing between losing our rights quickly (D) or at a more moderate pace (R).

In the meantime, states need to start nullifying unconstitutional federal laws. Local sheriffs can also do this. Nullification is more risky for smaller towns, the feds may want to make an example of them if they are standing alone. Sheriffs have a surprising amount of authority under our legal system, and can effectively resist the feds.

 

[Aszerigan]

It’s not a popular opinion, but how about budgeting the tax stamp into your build and not skirting an ever-changing law?

I'm not a fan of the NFA but one law has been in force since 1934 and the others change by the day. Agree with it or not, it’s still consistency. And I sleep better at night knowing I’m within the law, no matter what day it is.

*crunching Cheetos deep in the woods*

 

[WebSnyper]

It’s not a popular opinion, but how about budgeting the tax stamp into your build and not skirting an ever-changing law?

I'm not a fan of the NFA but one law has been in force since 1934 and the others change by the day. Agree with it or not, it’s still consistency. And I sleep better at night knowing I’m within the law, no matter what day it is.

*crunching Cheetos deep in the woods*

Sounds a whole lot like paying protection money to me...

 

[patience0830]

Sounds a whole lot like paying protection money to me...

Protection $ are illegal. That would be racketeering. See how far a suit for racketeering goes against a government agency. Even one that is making new laws as they go along.

 

[patience0830]

It’s not a popular opinion, but how about budgeting the tax stamp into your build and not skirting an ever-changing law?

I'm not a fan of the NFA but one law has been in force since 1934 and the others change by the day. Agree with it or not, it’s still consistency. And I sleep better at night knowing I’m within the law, no matter what day it is.

*crunching Cheetos deep in the woods*

A wise choice from a talented fellow.

 

[BE Mike]

It’s not a popular opinion, but how about budgeting the tax stamp into your build and not skirting an ever-changing law?

I'm not a fan of the NFA but one law has been in force since 1934 and the others change by the day. Agree with it or not, it’s still consistency. And I sleep better at night knowing I’m within the law, no matter what day it is.

*crunching Cheetos deep in the woods*

There is more to the NFA to consider than just a $200.00 tax. One has to keep the item available for inspection by ATF and one needs permission to take the item out of state. There may be other restrictions of which I'm not aware.

 

[Aszerigan]

There is more to the NFA to consider than just a $200.00 tax. One has to keep the item available for inspection by ATF and one needs permission to take the item out of state. There may be other restrictions of which I'm not aware.

As an individual, you CAN decline inspection by the ATF. It is possible. Businesses can not. Having said that, of the hundreds of thousands of NFA items in the US in private ownership, I’m betting you won’t find three people on this forum that have *true* stories about the ATF calling them, coming to their house and looking at their NFA items. It nearly always happens after a subsequent crime - DWI, brandishing, fight, domestic abuse, drug investigation, other poor life choice....

Handguns are a different story, and we're close enough to Chicago that I *do* know of a personal safe inspection of handguns. He was born in Chicago, lived in Indy, was an older gentleman and collected S&W revolvers as a hobby. He had a scheduled BATFE inspection, after which they thanked him and left, finding no issues.

As for out of state travel, that’s a mild and very unusual issue as compared to worrying about whether your “non-SBR” will be legal in the morning.

One other thing... People assume the ATF is a bunch of body-armor clad jerks in riot helmets knocking in your front door. I've had extensive dealings with them, and they've always been very nice, polite, professional and genuinely cool people. Think what you want, but most of them are gun people too, and aren't out to crap on your parade.

 

[DadSmith]

Need to remove short barrel rifles, shotguns, and suppressors from the nfa. This get rid of all the unknown factors.

 

[Aszerigan]

This get rid of all the unknown factors.

SBR's, SBS's and suppressors aren't the issue. Generations of Americans have dealt with this tax. Generations more will. Anyone following ATF logistics and interests know the registry isn't going away.

Other unknowns will arise. Bump stocks, braces and binary triggers are the current targets. Until something better comes around. It always does.

 

[DadSmith]

Its an infringement on owning some of the finest self defense weapons on the market.

 

[Aszerigan]

Its an infringement on owning some of the finest self defense weapons on the market.

Oh, it's certainly not. Some of the "finest self defense weapons on the market" as you post, aren't NFA regulated at all.

The NFA is not an infringement. It's not a blight on constitutional rights. Originally, it had merits in public safety and prosecution of criminals. These days it's just a minor $200 hurdle, and teaches people patience and law, things so often reviled in this day and age.

Again, I'm not admonishing the amendment as good, but people really revolt against it without understanding its purpose. Should it be revoked in our current age, of course. But understand why it was placed into law before you rail against it, then petition the current government to change it.

 

[DadSmith]

The Hughes Amendment of 1934 is not an infringement. It's not a blight on constitutional rights. Originally, it had merits in public safety and prosecution of criminals. These days it's just a minor $200 hurdle, and teaches people patience and law, things so often reviled in this day and age.

Again, I'm not admonishing the amendment as good, but people really revolt against it without understanding its purpose. Should it be revoked in our current age, of course. But understand why it was placed into law before you rail against it, then petition the current government to change it.

The word infringed was used in the constitution. This is clearly an infringement and violates the 2nd amendment as does many of the current laws on the books.

 

[Aszerigan]

The word infringed was used in the constitution. This is clearly an infringement and violates the 2nd amendment as does many of the current laws on the books.

The word "Infringed" is certainly used several times in the Constitution. No argument there.

Explain exactly how the NFA violates many of the current laws on the books? What laws are you referring to?

 

[DadSmith]

The word "Infringed" is certainly used several times in the Constitution. No argument there.

Explain exactly how the NFA violates many of the current laws on the books? What laws are you referring to?

I'm saying many laws we have now are also infringing on what is supposed to be the Supreme law of the land.

 

[Aszerigan]

I'm saying many laws we have now are also infringing on what is supposed to be the Supreme law of the land.

Still unclear what you're referring to.

A blanket "Because the government sucks" doesn't cut the mustard. What is this "Supreme Law of the Land" you refer to?

I understand that many people are mad, and smaller and less intrusive government is - as we all believe - a better idea. But being blindly pissed about things you can't articulate isn't helping you.

What laws are you mad about, and how are you helping them to change?

 

[DadSmith]

Still unclear what you're referring to.

A blanket "Because the government sucks" doesn't cut the mustard. What is this "Supreme Law of the Land" you refer to?

I understand that many people are mad, and smaller and less intrusive government is - as we all believe - a better idea. But being blindly pissed about things you can't articulate isn't helping you.

What laws are you mad about, and how are you helping them to change?

Any firearms related laws.

Infringe
to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

encroach
to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

All firearms laws are imo illegal. They are removing our right to access that right or hindering the free exercise of it.

You already said you had no problem paying and waiting for an NFA item and it was a good law. It makes you feel cozy. If a law has made you take steps to use a right that is infringement. Each person has a right to own a firearm until due process takes that firearm right away per individual. NICS check is an infringement. Forcing you to have a permit to carry a firearm. That's is just a few. Many more can be added to the list. Those are just some of the ones that hinder the right to own and carry firearms.

What am I doing about it? I'm writing email to my congressman, donating to several gun rights groups in hopes that they will try to change the law. Gun rights groups leadership may have your opinion that some infringement is good. The majority of congressman share that view too.

 

[johny5]

These days it's just a minor $200 hurdle, and teaches people patience and law, things so often reviled in this day and age.

But understand why it was placed into law before you rail against it, then petition the current government to change it.

You've made two points here that are not entirely compatible, so I will deal with them individually.

1. You may have sufficient disposable income to see $200 as an insignificant hurdle. This is simply not the case for all of us.

2. Adjusted for inflation, the $200 tax stamp is equivalent to $4,000, in today's money. This is what makes your statements above incompatible. The $200 tax stamp was originally intended to place NFA items completely out of reach for the overwhelming majority of people by making it financially unattainable.

 

[dudley0]

You've made two points here that are not entirely compatible, so I will deal with them individually.

1. You may have sufficient disposable income to see $200 as an insignificant hurdle. This is simply not the case for all of us.

2. Adjusted for inflation, the $200 tax stamp is equivalent to $4,000, in today's money. This is what makes your statements above incompatible. The $200 tax stamp was originally intended to place NFA items completely out of reach for the overwhelming majority of people by making it financially unattainable.

Financially unattainable for the honest working person.

The criminals will either cough up the money because they have plenty or just ignore the law because... well criminals.

 

[KLB]

Oh, it's certainly not. Some of the "finest self defense weapons on the market" as you post, aren't NFA regulated at all.

The Hughes Amendment of 1934 is not an infringement. It's not a blight on constitutional rights. Originally, it had merits in public safety and prosecution of criminals. These days it's just a minor $200 hurdle, and teaches people patience and law, things so often reviled in this day and age.

Again, I'm not admonishing the amendment as good, but people really revolt against it without understanding its purpose. Should it be revoked in our current age, of course. But understand why it was placed into law before you rail against it, then petition the current government to change it.

You must be a fan of the common sense gun laws in circulation today. The same arguments are made for them.

As for its purpose, it was a feel good move that was implemented after the majority of the big criminals of the time were already out of circulation. Not only should it be revoked, it never should have been passed.

And Hughes was totally an infringement, since it actually stopped us from being able to purchase any automatic weapon manufactured after 1986. It is even more egregious than the NFA

 

[Aszerigan]

You must be a fan of the common sense gun laws in circulation today. The same arguments are made for them.

And the personal attacks have started. Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is that making your opinion more valid?

I mistyped the Hughes of 1934, I meant the NFA. And if you read the prior posts, I DO agree it should be abolished, I'm just saying its not a huge a hurdle as people make it out to be.