User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 1:20:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 1:33:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 1:34:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 1:41:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal?
McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 1:46:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal? McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... Yeah, the guy who thinks it makes the NFA unconstitutional. Hence my curiosity about the happy meal prize, and all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:08:39 PM EDT
[#6]
I honestly don't have a problem with the NFA itself but some of its laws are completely retarded. As far as the MG ban that DOES need to go period! With the NFA in place it would be harder for the anti-gun crowd to claim that MG's can be bought anywhere by anyone. Besides the laws regarding MG's are so complicated at times even the ATF one day says "sure that bump stock is fine to use" and the next minute "NO NO NO it's illegal you cannot use it or we'll put you in jail!"
The short barreled requirements are also pretty stupid IMO. As if having a short barreled AR15 is more "dangerous" than a regular 16" barreled one. You could argue that it is more concealable but then all you have to do is register your lower receiver as a pistol lower and bingo you have the same firepower and the same concealable AR15 but you can't put a stock or fore grip on it
Same thing goes with shotguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:19:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there an organization that is working to repeal Hughes??? What we should do is use the current Border Violence as a tactic to repeal this amendment. I believe it would be a good way to get the support of people especially in border states. The government has always used scare tactics to pass bills. We should use this as an advantage to REPEAL one, plus we all know this is a legitimate danger to our nation Elaborate. I see the dems twisting it around a lot. We need hard data to prove that registered weapons are used in crime far less than unregistered guns, and that the cartel guns arent NFA weapons which slipped through the cracks.On the subject of the tape, I will gladly burn off 30-some copies, and distribute them to a local gun shop (better than your average fools there, NFA-friendly too) and range. Without making the case for total registration.  That is the damning part. I'd rather have registered guns than no guns at all, but I also doubt a registry could ever be done away with once it existed. Especially since ranges would hop on board and require you to register the weapons you bring, the records would likely also go public (and smart criminals would find unarmed houses and rob them blind), and if we managed to repeal the registry, the records might never completely go away. And yes, any feds who read this (not that any feds on here are going to have their minds changed by this statement) I swear with my right hand on the holy Bible in sight of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that should you lift the MG ban, I shall not persue repealing the rest of the NFA act. I would like the whole deal with the CLEO's to be "shall-issue" not "may-issue" though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:24:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. Well...except for, say, 1933 and back? My great grandfather bought his first gun at the age of ten for $56 in cash. The year was 1908. He walked into a local village store, said he liked the lever gun on display, and bought it, along with 75 rounds of ammo (stockpiling rounds is family history for me  ).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:51:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal?
McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... Yeah, the guy who thinks it makes the NFA unconstitutional. Hence my curiosity about the happy meal prize, and all that. Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:54:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal?
McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... Yeah, the guy who thinks it makes the NFA unconstitutional. Hence my curiosity about the happy meal prize, and all that. Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Which three laws? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:56:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal?
McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... Yeah, the guy who thinks it makes the NFA unconstitutional. Hence my curiosity about the happy meal prize, and all that. Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Which three laws? We're not ready to disclose that yet. We don't want to give the enemy too much information. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:59:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal?
McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... Yeah, the guy who thinks it makes the NFA unconstitutional. Hence my curiosity about the happy meal prize, and all that. Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Which three laws? We're not ready to disclose that yet. We don't want to give the enemy too much information. PM? Oh wait you were joking. It's funny because it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 3:01:09 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I may be getting ahead of things here....but do we have an idea of how many gun manufacturers would be behind the repeal?? I'd love to see it gone. Machine guns are still regulated the same way before May86. What does a born on date have to do with it? Congress would be wise to repeal the MG ban fast... because if we take it to the courts, the NFA is going to go away as well. (thank you Justice Scalia!) If they repeal the MG ban, we won't need to go after the NFA. Feel free to pass that along to your congress critters. NFA needs to be done away with regardless of whether or not MGs are allowed to be entered into the NFRTR. That's pretty damn low on the list of priorities. Getting rid of the MG ban is a major thing, tilting at windmills like the NFA is a waste of time and would probably do more harm than good. Right now, gun rights are better protected than at just about any time in our nation's history. The NFA tax is less than 1/15th of what it was at its inception, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense is enshrined specifically in the very high law, the ability to carry a gun concealed is unprecedentedly guaranteed across most of the country, etc etc. Probably a compromise on the NFA....with the computer background check, maybe you fill out the paperwork at the Gun Shop and ship it in with the tax without having to have a LEO sign off.....the background check clears you and the paperwork and tax just register you on the NFA list. Would be nice, but I'd settle for just repealing the MG ban. The NFA restrictions really are no big deal. Definately the ban needs to be repealed....I was simply making a comment on the Registry itself. Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal?
McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... Yeah, the guy who thinks it makes the NFA unconstitutional. Hence my curiosity about the happy meal prize, and all that. Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Which three laws? We're not ready to disclose that yet. We don't want to give the enemy too much information. PM? Oh wait you were joking. It's funny because it is. You just keep thinking that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 3:10:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Just curious why you'd leave NFA alone if it's provably unconstitutional, and solves all of the problems above? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 3:34:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Just curious why you'd leave NFA alone if it's provably unconstitutional, and solves all of the problems above? Probably incrementalism and having precedence on our side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 5:24:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: (snip) Under the McDonald decision, the NFA is UnConstitutional. However, for the feds that read this site, repeal the MG ban and we won't go after the NFA. We won't wait long for the repeal so don't hesitate... The Ronald McDonald decision? That you found in your happy meal? McDonald v. Chicago. Obviously someone hasn't read the decision... Yeah, the guy who thinks it makes the NFA unconstitutional. Hence my curiosity about the happy meal prize, and all that. Earlier this month, McDonald was used to strike down the Cook county AWB. Since the wording in Heller and McDonald were specifically trying to isolate the decision to the right to keep a handgun in the home, this decision to extend protection to "modern sporting rifles" is another significant step forward in case law. Using Heller and McDonald to strike down 922(o) is still a ways off, but it's getting more and more possible with every decision like this. http://www.isra.org/ ISRA SUPPORTED SUIT AGAINST COOK COUNTY SUCCEEDS IN STATE SUPREME COURT A case brought against Cook County, challenging its "Assault Weapon” ban passed in 2006, has finally been decided favorably for the ISRA backed Plaintiffs. The case of Wilson, et al. vs Cook County et al., was returned to the State Appellate Court pursuant to the Supreme Court’s exercise of its judicial authority, and the First District Appellate Court has been ordered to vacate its decision and reconsider the case based on the recent decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago. McDonald was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which ISRA was one of the Plaintiffs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 5:36:23 PM EDT
[#17]
I hadn't heard of that case. Where's the info on that and why haven't we heard much about it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 6:15:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: I hadn't heard of that case. Where's the info on that and why haven't we heard much about it? IL HTF |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 7:32:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shit I knew it would get "lost"  remember, the order form said it'd take 4-6 weeks The website had 6-9 weeks mentioned in places as well iirc. Also keep in mind that this is a government operation, with government employees over a holiday. I'm not going to stress out untill february 1st, But it could be possibly here as soon as Jan 14 or so. I'm trying very hard not to think about this too much, it makes for trouble sleeping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2010 7:34:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: I hadn't heard of that case. Where's the info on that and why haven't we heard much about it? According to what he posted, the law hasn't been struck down, the upper court has just instructed the lower court to decide it again, taking into account the McDonald decision. This doesn't imply that a different outcome will be reached, it's just correct practice to include *potentially* relevant recent supreme court decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2010 6:20:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Just curious why you'd leave NFA alone if it's provably unconstitutional, and solves all of the problems above? Among other issues are that many states have laws which restrict NFA "type" devices except that states will exempt items with proof of required FEDERAL NFA paperwork. In simpler terms - The state can charge you with possession of an unregistered device under STATE law since under the 10th that is also a states right. SO - In some cases, the NFA registry and its forms are your get out of jail card. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2010 6:25:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Just curious why you'd leave NFA alone if it's provably unconstitutional, and solves all of the problems above? We're willing to compromise. We won't rip the rug out from under them if they show a willingness to repeal the obviously UnConstitutional bans. We know and they know that paid registration is on the chopping block. If they are willing to undo the bans, we'll let them have the NFA. We can always take it out later if they start acting like a bunch of asshats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2010 8:24:25 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Just curious why you'd leave NFA alone if it's provably unconstitutional, and solves all of the problems above? We're willing to compromise. We won't rip the rug out from under them if they show a willingness to repeal the obviously UnConstitutional bans. We know and they know that paid registration is on the chopping block. If they are willing to undo the bans, we'll let them have the NFA. We can always take it out later if they start acting like a bunch of asshats. Yeah, good point. "If you stop raping me, I'll let you leave the tip in". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2010 11:19:09 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let's take it one step at a time so you'll understand. In the McDonald case, SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment as, not a Civil Right but a Fundamental Right. This is critical. Now, let's look at history. On more than one occasion, SCOTUS has flat out said that a tax or a fee may not be applied to the exercise of an enumerated Fundamental Right. The most glaring of these decisions was when poll taxes were struck down as UnConstitutional. This leads us to our current situation. The NFA was created specifically as a TAX. The NFRTR is a database designed specifically as an engine to track the taxation of the firearms that meet the qualifications of the NFA. Given that the measure was passed not as a gun control measure even though that was what it was, it is in it's essence, nothing more than a tax. With the McDonald Decision, the taxation of this Fundamental Right is now UnConstitutional. To be anything otherwise will open the door for a revisit to poll taxes. Show me a single Democrat or Republican that wants that? There will be a challange of the NFA based on this and other things in the near future. Our goal is to eliminate the Hughes Amendment. Without the NFA, the Hughes Amendment is 100% unenforceable. If the NFA is struck down, the door is opened to strike down three other laws that the Libtards don't want touched. So, they willingly repeal the Hughes Amendment and we won't go after the NFA. Understand now? Just curious why you'd leave NFA alone if it's provably unconstitutional, and solves all of the problems above? We're willing to compromise. We won't rip the rug out from under them if they show a willingness to repeal the obviously UnConstitutional bans. We know and they know that paid registration is on the chopping block. If they are willing to undo the bans, we'll let them have the NFA. We can always take it out later if they start acting like a bunch of asshats. Repealing any part of the NFA is a very tall order. There's nothing *wrong* with the NFA, and it's hard to convince people of the evils of something which does more good than harm. Inflation has for all intents and purposes eliminated the NFA tax already. It was 15 times larger when it was enacted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2010 7:06:56 AM EDT
[#25]
The NFA will be very difficult to dismantle, there is too much case law which supports it and it would be much more likely that a direct challange would result in further solidification of precedent, and may have broad reaching implications on some other areas as well.
You might be able to argue that the $200 is a prohibitive/discriminatory 'poll tax' and get it reduced, but as many have pointed out, the brunt of it effect has already been nullified by inflation. There are a lot of easier challenges which could be brought if they could be funded (86 ban is one of the easiest actually, since it has already been found to invalidate the mg portion of the 34 Nfa in both the 7th and the 10th circuits. With a properly structured and properly funded challenge we could make it go away rather easily and gain some very good precedent in the process. If you know anyone who is willing to pony up the initial 60k or so to get the ball rolling let me know, I know some lawyers who would love to take it on. There are some easily attacked portions of the 68 GCA which can also be made to go away (sporting purposes, etc) It might be worth it just to start up one of those 'pledge online' things to see if we can get 60k rounded up (those sites that don't bill you untill the full amount is reached or it doesn't charge you)... It would take a lot of $20 pledges to get there but I think it might be do-able. Hmmm something to ponder while we wait I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2010 10:51:07 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
The NFA will be very difficult to dismantle, there is too much case law which supports it and it would be much more likely that a direct challange would result in further solidification of precedent, and may have broad reaching implications on some other areas as well. You might be able to argue that the $200 is a prohibitive/discriminatory 'poll tax' and get it reduced, but as many have pointed out, the brunt of it effect has already been nullified by inflation. There are a lot of easier challenges which could be brought if they could be funded (86 ban is one of the easiest actually, since it has already been found to invalidate the mg portion of the 34 Nfa in both the 7th and the 10th circuits. With a properly structured and properly funded challenge we could make it go away rather easily and gain some very good precedent in the process. If you know anyone who is willing to pony up the initial 60k or so to get the ball rolling let me know, I know some lawyers who would love to take it on. There are some easily attacked portions of the 68 GCA which can also be made to go away (sporting purposes, etc) It might be worth it just to start up one of those 'pledge online' things to see if we can get 60k rounded up (those sites that don't bill you untill the full amount is reached or it doesn't charge you)... It would take a lot of $20 pledges to get there but I think it might be do-able. Hmmm something to ponder while we wait I guess. what's the 60k initial money for? i can file a lawsuit right now for <$500 w/ the complaint and process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2010 11:36:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The NFA will be very difficult to dismantle, there is too much case law which supports it and it would be much more likely that a direct challange would result in further solidification of precedent, and may have broad reaching implications on some other areas as well. You might be able to argue that the $200 is a prohibitive/discriminatory 'poll tax' and get it reduced, but as many have pointed out, the brunt of it effect has already been nullified by inflation. There are a lot of easier challenges which could be brought if they could be funded (86 ban is one of the easiest actually, since it has already been found to invalidate the mg portion of the 34 Nfa in both the 7th and the 10th circuits. With a properly structured and properly funded challenge we could make it go away rather easily and gain some very good precedent in the process. If you know anyone who is willing to pony up the initial 60k or so to get the ball rolling let me know, I know some lawyers who would love to take it on. There are some easily attacked portions of the 68 GCA which can also be made to go away (sporting purposes, etc) It might be worth it just to start up one of those 'pledge online' things to see if we can get 60k rounded up (those sites that don't bill you untill the full amount is reached or it doesn't charge you)... It would take a lot of $20 pledges to get there but I think it might be do-able. Hmmm something to ponder while we wait I guess. what's the 60k initial money for? i can file a lawsuit right now for <$500 w/ the complaint and process. Prob the lawyer retainer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2010 12:35:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The NFA will be very difficult to dismantle, there is too much case law which supports it and it would be much more likely that a direct challange would result in further solidification of precedent, and may have broad reaching implications on some other areas as well. You might be able to argue that the $200 is a prohibitive/discriminatory 'poll tax' and get it reduced, but as many have pointed out, the brunt of it effect has already been nullified by inflation. There are a lot of easier challenges which could be brought if they could be funded (86 ban is one of the easiest actually, since it has already been found to invalidate the mg portion of the 34 Nfa in both the 7th and the 10th circuits. With a properly structured and properly funded challenge we could make it go away rather easily and gain some very good precedent in the process. If you know anyone who is willing to pony up the initial 60k or so to get the ball rolling let me know, I know some lawyers who would love to take it on. There are some easily attacked portions of the 68 GCA which can also be made to go away (sporting purposes, etc) It might be worth it just to start up one of those 'pledge online' things to see if we can get 60k rounded up (those sites that don't bill you untill the full amount is reached or it doesn't charge you)... It would take a lot of $20 pledges to get there but I think it might be do-able. Hmmm something to ponder while we wait I guess. what's the 60k initial money for? i can file a lawsuit right now for <$500 w/ the complaint and process. Prob the lawyer retainer. there are some things i would do pro bono. this being one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2010 2:10:18 PM EDT
[#29]
60k would be a conservative estimate of the costs involved with creating a legal entity to use to gain standing and having it licensed in a carefully selected location (a corporation with an 07ffl/02sot would have the best standing when challenging the 86 ban on the grounds that it mandated the payment of a tax that was prohibited from being collected)
Copy costs, travel costs, and filing fees would eat up a very large portion of the remainder, particularly since we would be looking at a couple of appeals before we even made it to petitioning for cert. I can itemize it further and would if it were to be seriously undertaken. 60k is a round figure estimate, With attorny fees waved entierly it could be less but costs would still be significant, in my hypothetical challenge I had anticipated a large portion of the prep work being handled free (I know a good number of law students/law junkies who would love to help research/draft it) but I had figured on having to pay for the lawyers court time and some prep time If your serious about taking this on I'd love to toss around some ideas with you on the phone. Pm me your phone number and when is a good time to call. I apologize if I am using the incorrect terms, I am still recovering from my final final exams (fingers crossed) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2011 2:48:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
60k would be a conservative estimate of the costs involved with creating a legal entity to use to gain standing and having it licensed in a carefully selected location (a corporation with an 07ffl/02sot would have the best standing when challenging the 86 ban on the grounds that it mandated the payment of a tax that was prohibited from being collected) Copy costs, travel costs, and filing fees would eat up a very large portion of the remainder, particularly since we would be looking at a couple of appeals before we even made it to petitioning for cert. I can itemize it further and would if it were to be seriously undertaken. 60k is a round figure estimate, With attorny fees waved entierly it could be less but costs would still be significant, in my hypothetical challenge I had anticipated a large portion of the prep work being handled free (I know a good number of law students/law junkies who would love to help research/draft it) but I had figured on having to pay for the lawyers court time and some prep time If your serious about taking this on I'd love to toss around some ideas with you on the phone. Pm me your phone number and when is a good time to call. I apologize if I am using the incorrect terms, I am still recovering from my final final exams (fingers crossed) I wouldn't trust myself to do it alone. there are ways to tee it up with existing sot's and even individuals that are prohibited via an outright ban of owning post 86 mg's. it may even be something that we would hit in different districts to get a good split (of course, some districts would side with us, and some with the others setting it up for a sup.ct. showdown) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2011 7:37:52 AM EDT
[#31]
Any updates?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/3/2011 7:44:23 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Any updates? Not much, still waiting on the footage. This is just the first Monday after the Holliday, so we likely have a bit more of a delay ahead of us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2011 9:34:46 AM EDT
[#33]
bump this bitch!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2011 6:57:13 PM EDT
[#34]
Since it was(?) on the house floor, does that mean it WAS NOT a committee?
I had thought that it was a judiciary committee meeting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2011 7:20:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Since it was(?) on the house floor, does that mean it WAS NOT a committee? I had thought that it was a judiciary committee meeting. Nope. Committee votes don't become law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 6:29:11 PM EDT
[#36]
So....question for industry types.....IF Hughes was overturned how long would it take to get product in the stores??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 6:56:00 PM EDT
[#37]
I can convert a standard AK in about 1 hour or so..
Hardest part for me is slotting the rail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 7:10:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
So....question for industry types.....IF Hughes was overturned how long would it take to get product in the stores?? Seems like KelTec takes about 4-5 months from launch to it showing up in northern AR. I'm guessing... a few weeks, tops? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 7:40:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Well...except for, say, 1933 and back? My great grandfather bought his first gun at the age of ten for $56 in cash. The year was 1908. He walked into a local village store, said he liked the lever gun on display, and bought it, along with 75 rounds of ammo (stockpiling rounds is family history for me ).That's a pricey lever action. According to the inflation calculator, $56 in 1908 is close to $1320 today. All from a 10 year old?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 7:54:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
60k would be a conservative estimate of the costs involved with creating a legal entity to use to gain standing and having it licensed in a carefully selected location (a corporation with an 07ffl/02sot would have the best standing when challenging the 86 ban on the grounds that it mandated the payment of a tax that was prohibited from being collected) Copy costs, travel costs, and filing fees would eat up a very large portion of the remainder, particularly since we would be looking at a couple of appeals before we even made it to petitioning for cert. I can itemize it further and would if it were to be seriously undertaken. 60k is a round figure estimate, With attorny fees waved entierly it could be less but costs would still be significant, in my hypothetical challenge I had anticipated a large portion of the prep work being handled free (I know a good number of law students/law junkies who would love to help research/draft it) but I had figured on having to pay for the lawyers court time and some prep time If your serious about taking this on I'd love to toss around some ideas with you on the phone. Pm me your phone number and when is a good time to call. I apologize if I am using the incorrect terms, I am still recovering from my final final exams (fingers crossed) An 02 SOT does not have to pay the tax. I would think a private citizen would have better standing than an 07/02 ... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 7:57:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
So....question for industry types.....IF Hughes was overturned how long would it take to get product in the stores?? That day for small AR makers, |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 8:35:00 PM EDT
[#42]
I would imagine smaller companies would also sell just the auto sears.
Just go all the way, repeal the NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2011 11:57:10 PM EDT
[#43]
Assuming this tale is even true, how does anyone expect it will have any bearing on anything?
The bill was voted on, containing the amendment. It was passed and signed by the president into law. Period, full stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2011 12:33:40 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Assuming this tale is even true, how does anyone expect it will have any bearing on anything? The bill was voted on, containing the amendment. It was passed and signed by the president into law. Period, full stop. If the law is declared unconsitutional is unenforceable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2011 12:40:39 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Assuming this tale is even true, how does anyone expect it will have any bearing on anything? The bill was voted on, containing the amendment. It was passed and signed by the president into law. Period, full stop. If the law is declared unconsitutional is unenforceable. But what possible bearing does this have on whether the law is unconstitutional? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2011 6:00:40 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Assuming this tale is even true, how does anyone expect it will have any bearing on anything? The bill was voted on, containing the amendment. It was passed and signed by the president into law. Period, full stop. A lot of people are skipping over the many pages in this thread. You are correct. It is the law, and this video would not open constitutional issues. To me, it is about showing the corruption of sitting members, using rules in an inexcusable way to pass laws without the proper debate and votes. Remember, some of these folks are still in Congress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2011 10:23:42 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Assuming this tale is even true, how does anyone expect it will have any bearing on anything? The bill was voted on, containing the amendment. It was passed and signed by the president into law. Period, full stop. A lot of people are skipping over the many pages in this thread. You are correct. It is the law, and this video would not open constitutional issues. To me, it is about showing the corruption of sitting members, using rules in an inexcusable way to pass laws without the proper debate and votes. Remember, some of these folks are still in Congress. The law was debated and voted on with that amendment included, was it not? I think you have a pretty rude awakening in store if you think the mean old men in the Congress operate any way but ruthlessly, or ever have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2011 10:25:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Assuming this tale is even true, how does anyone expect it will have any bearing on anything? The bill was voted on, containing the amendment. It was passed and signed by the president into law. Period, full stop. A lot of people are skipping over the many pages in this thread. You are correct. It is the law, and this video would not open constitutional issues. To me, it is about showing the corruption of sitting members, using rules in an inexcusable way to pass laws without the proper debate and votes. Remember, some of these folks are still in Congress. The law was debated and voted on with that amendment included, was it not? I think you have a pretty rude awakening in store if you think the mean old men in the Congress operate any way but ruthlessly, or ever have. My point is that they cheated and several of these bastards are still in office. Evidence of this behavior, whether it is the norm or not should have light shined on it. I applaud the OP for his efforts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2011 10:37:10 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Assuming this tale is even true, how does anyone expect it will have any bearing on anything? The bill was voted on, containing the amendment. It was passed and signed by the president into law. Period, full stop. A lot of people are skipping over the many pages in this thread. You are correct. It is the law, and this video would not open constitutional issues. To me, it is about showing the corruption of sitting members, using rules in an inexcusable way to pass laws without the proper debate and votes. Remember, some of these folks are still in Congress. The law was debated and voted on with that amendment included, was it not? I think you have a pretty rude awakening in store if you think the mean old men in the Congress operate any way but ruthlessly, or ever have. My point is that they cheated and several of these bastards are still in office. Evidence of this behavior, whether it is the norm or not should have light shined on it. I applaud the OP for his efforts. They supposedly cheated, and I would wager that this isn't the first or only time, or that it included all the congressional cheaters. At the end of the day, who cares? There's no good way for this to play in the public eye. Are you familiar with the morons who believe that taxes are illegal because the 16th amendment was "not ratified?" That's the type they would put on the idiot box for people to see, pontificating about how "the government" did it again, with the end result being that the lunatics can't buy machine guns at walmart. The 86 machine gun ban is probably unconstitutional because it is a ban masquerading as a tax. That's an avenue of attack that could probably win. Not some crazy story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2011 11:10:48 AM EDT
[#50]
I'm kind of playing catch-up here, but...
What if we posted a firemission to have as many Arfcommers write their congressmen? Let them know this is an important issue for us and we would like to see a bill introduced restoring some of the original meaning to the 2nd amendment. It might be a little too soon, it probably won't pass (Although we have recent court decisions on our side), but it will raise some awareness if they actually do what their constituents ask! What about any advertisement or commercials to raise and persuade public opinion? Now is our chance! We have a majority in the House, a 47/53 minority in the Senate. If we don't try to do something now, what are you going to do if/when Obama is re-elected in 2012? What do we have to lose? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
