The NFA

[srjdsmith]

So, born 1964 the NFA has been a thing my whole life. I remember Dad talking about “Saturday Night Specials” and the fact that he had some. One, for example, was a Herter’s single action.22 revolver. It’s extremely low price- even for those days- made it technically, legally, a Saturday Night Special.

I see lots of ‘chatter’ that the pro-2A rulings, such as the FPC and GOA have gotten recently, spell an end to the NFA. I think this is really just wishful thinking? Those rulings seem to be saying the ATF can’t make laws- but the NFA is law. In order to get rid of it, the law itself would have to be ruled unconstitutional, and I don’t see that happening.

Thoughts?

[Rampy]

Look at what laws the NFA is based on, is it built on solid case laws & historically consistent

Or is it based on laws built on a sand foundation??

Look at United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and how that is the foundation for current laws and how shaky it is…..

And how it was a tax thing

[srjdsmith]

Look at what laws the NFA is based on, is it built on solid case laws & historically consistent

Or is it based on laws built on a sand foundation??

Look at United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and how that is the foundation for current laws and how shaky it is…..

And how it was a tax thing

So… you think the NFA could possibly be thrown out? I’d like to think so. Robert’s seems pretty focused on his “settled law” standard, but Roe did get overturned, so maybe?

What would happen to the price of items-formally-known-as-NFA? (suppressors, etc) Would they skyrocket once commonly available due to demand, or would the price drop due to easier access?

[MontanaLon]

Look at what laws the NFA is based on, is it built on solid case laws & historically consistent

Or is it based on laws built on a sand foundation??

Look at United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and how that is the foundation for current laws and how shaky it is…..

And how it was a tax thing

So… you think the NFA could possibly be thrown out? I’d like to think so. Robert’s seems pretty focused on his “settled law” standard, but Roe did get overturned, so maybe?

What would happen to the price of items-formally-known-as-NFA? (suppressors, etc) Would they skyrocket once commonly available due to demand, or would the price drop due to easier access?

Back in 2017 when it appeared the hearing protection act may go somewhere, removing suppressors from NFA, I talked with a manufacturer that was going to introduce a line of suppressors. They already had the designs worked out and tested and the retail price was going to be $199.99. Now they weren't high end suppressors but they were entirely functional and you could buy all of the parts over the counter if you broke something which you can't do with suppressors on NFA, you break the registered part and you have to repay the tax and wait the months for the new BGC. When the Vegas shooting happened and HPA died on the vine it all went away but you can be sure if they get rid of NFA the prices will drop significantly as there is more competition in the market. Same with full auto, M16's would go from $20,000 and up, to about $100 more than a comparable AR. There just isn't that much more too them, a couple of holes and a few stamped parts.

What pisses me off is the DOJ allowed the criminals to get "switches" for their Glocks and we haven't seen an exponential rise in possession of an unregistered machine gun charges being levied at state or local levels. Case in point, over the summer a "teenager" in Chicago was arrested with a Glock with a switch installed. Literally multiple decades he could have spent in prison for the state and the feds and they let him off with misdemeanors and "boot camp" incarceration. I guess they only hammer the law abiding gun owners who order their switch off Aliexpress with the felonies. [/quote]

[hkriflenut_aka_sasquatch]

NFA is bad law and could easily be overturned - especially if Miller, Heller, and Bruen are appropriately applied. The only thing that *may* not pass "in common use" muster would be machine guns - but if there are 200,000+ legally registered machine guns out there, even that would probably fall. Or if one applied "in common use" to include government agencies - then it certainly falls. And of course Miller states that a gun suitable for military use would be expressly allowed, so IF that were applied then - almost everything becomes fair. Short barrels, machine guns, suppressors, destructive devices - all fair game, because its all used by the military.

Then there are the simple words "shall not be infringed" - which simply requires SCOTUS justices have a spine and real the text of the second literally.

The only people who don't want the NFA thrown out are anti-gunners and NFA collectors who intend to sell their guns some day to fund their retirement, and suppressor makers who don't want to cut the cost of their products by half or more in order to remain competitive in a wide open market. Suppressors shouldn't even be a 4473 item - they're a damn screw-on tube that reduces noise - not a firearm. They should be no harder to buy than a magazine, a trigger group, a spare spring, or a box of ammo (sorry, Californians - I'm referring to those of us in non-commie occupied territory - I'm rooting for you though!)

[Rampy]

Golly…….biden shut off the 26% of 5.56 ammo that he could control

[Rampy]

[srjdsmith]

Hahahaha!

I lay there wondering why ANYBODY did that!

[specops56]

Terry