|
Originally Posted By ttushooter: how has congress refused the tax to be paid? You still pay that $200 on transferables if you mean the hughes amendment, i dont see how this ruling changes any of that. Originally Posted By ttushooter: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: True, but does Congress have the power to tax if it refuses to allow the tax to be paid? how has congress refused the tax to be paid? You still pay that $200 on transferables if you mean the hughes amendment, i dont see how this ruling changes any of that. This ruling is different than the Hughes Amendment, but it could add supporting legal logic to challenging it in the future. MGs are legal if you pay the $200 tax. Congress says you cannot pay the tax if you make one today. If the power is rooted in taxation, and they refuse to let you pay the tax, how is it taxation? The "but you can still transfer old ones" thing isn't relevant at all, time didn't stop in 1986. |
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: In Michigan a suppressor or SBR is legal ONLY if you have 'a license issued by the ATF'. So if registration isn't available we're screwed. How many other states are in a similar situation? If you like your draconian NFA, you can keep your draconian NFA. |
|
Originally Posted By JAD: The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... Not my problem, they can fix their fucked up states: legislatively or judicially |
Member
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
14261
EE: 100% (30)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: I do. But if approvals disappear nothing is going to happen overnight. An MI is pretty much a blue state. I gotcha. Still have to take wins when you can. There will be no "get rid of all gun laws" bill passed. You slowly chip away at it. There has been a lot of momentum the last couple years. You can't argue against less federal regulation just because it might not help you right now. It's good for the country. |
|
Originally Posted By Glocked: Wonder if this explains them just approving all my pending applications. A big batch of form 1s on a trust approved in 3 days. Weird, I just had 6 pending eForm4 Trusts approved. Three more still pending. |
"Life is Hard, its Harder if You're Stupid" - John Wayne
|
Read the excerpt of the Courts Final Judgement below. Does that mean this judgement would apply to anyone in another state that purchases something, a sticker, a P-Mags, or any other product from Silencer Shop? Not sure what the title of this document is: https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/177118845368-1.pdf Final Judgement: https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/137-FInal-Judgment.pdf Attached File |
TechGal26 - "I'm not sure if this is a joke or if you are stupid"
Sturmgewehr-58 - “That's why I have a VPN. I set my location to Israel and I get to view any degeneracy.”
Sturmgewehr-58 - “That's why I have a VPN. I set my location to Israel and I get to view any degeneracy.”
|
Originally Posted By JAD: The kind that could (eventually) end up screwing over residents of states that have state level prohibitions with exceptions for those registered under the NFA.... Why should states without restrictive laws suffer and not regain liberty because other states have oppressive laws ? |
|
Originally Posted By ffemt596: If nothing is ever codified, yes. Originally Posted By ffemt596: Originally Posted By Curmudgeon762: Am I the only one thinking they will just reinstate a tax? If nothing is ever codified, yes. How? Once SBRs, SBSs, and silencers are removed from the NFA they won’t be able to add the tax back through the budget reconciliation process. They’d have to craft completely new legislation to tax them again. |
|
Originally Posted By Skopsko07734: Does that mean this judgement would apply to anyone in another state that purchases something, a sticker, a P-Mags, or any other product from Silencer Shop? I would assume that the term "customer" only applies in this case when referring to someone who receives an SBR, SBS or silencer, not anything else. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: I agree there are differences in the issues, but the Hughes Amendment still has a "how can you demand a tax then refuse to let it be paid?" problem. Your view of it only holds up is we pretend post-86 MGs somehow don't exist. Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By mechanical: The same logic should directly apply to machineguns. Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from Not really. It's a completely separate issue. With the $0 items, there's a heavy and egregious registration and penalty scheme "justified" by a tax, and the tax is no longer collected in any form. That's a situation that's comically unconstitutional without even invoking the 2A. With MGs, there's still a tax being collected. Hughes limited eligibility to existing items pre-'86, but those items are still transferred with taxes paid on a near-daily basis. Hughes is very much unconstitutional on 2A grounds, but I'm not sure it can be argued as unconstitutional without invoking the 2A, and there's also the issue of getting courts and bureaucrats to take up the MG cause to drive that home. I agree there are differences in the issues, but the Hughes Amendment still has a "how can you demand a tax then refuse to let it be paid?" problem. Your view of it only holds up is we pretend post-86 MGs somehow don't exist. Outside of the 2A space, there are other examples of things that cannot be taxed/registered, but that penalties apply to using them without taxes/registration. Think about something like certain cars in CA. It may not be 100% apples to apples, but there are similar mechanisms in play. Car A can be registered. Car B cannot due to whatever regulation. If you drive either car on the road without registration, you pay a fine. Nobody challenges the state on refusing registration on car B. The MG NFA situation is kind of like that. Taxes are being paid, but only some MGs are eligible. As a casual, I think this is only really unconstitutional in light of the 2A. If we were talking about cars or lawn mowers or whatever, I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional. With SBRs, SBSs, and cans, there are no taxes being paid at all, by anybody, under any circumstances. "Do your onerous $0 tax registration or spend a decade in PMITA prison" is blatantly unconstitutional even without considering 2A rights. |
"Sometimes, the grass is greener because it's on a septic system."
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
|
Originally Posted By SturmgeschutzIII: I gotcha. Still have to take wins when you can. There will be no "get rid of all gun laws" bill passed. You slowly chip away at it. There has been a lot of momentum the last couple years. You can't argue against less federal regulation just because it might not help you right now. It's good for the country. And slowly chipping away at it has less and less appeal to me as each birthday comes and goes. 
|
Member
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
14262
EE: 100% (30)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By MK3110: How? Once SBRs, SBSs, and silencers are removed from the NFA they won’t be able to add the tax back through the budget reconciliation process. They’d have to craft completely new legislation to tax them again. Even if that’s the case (and I will assume you are knowledgeable here), I will put nothing past bureaucrats and elected officials. But I certainly hope this is what it appears! |
“That’s not how it works. You buy more tools and power than you need and as you fuck everything up you gain the knowledge to become a better carpenter.”
Tveddy
Tveddy
|
Originally Posted By ffemt596: If nothing is ever codified, yes. Originally Posted By ffemt596: Originally Posted By Curmudgeon762: Am I the only one thinking they will just reinstate a tax? If nothing is ever codified, yes. An executive branch agency is just going to invent a tax without statutory basis? lol ok |
Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - Adm James Stockdale
|
Originally Posted By wyopatr: Why should states without restrictive laws suffer and not regain liberty because other states have oppressive laws ? We're making the point that it is bad for people in some states. And if registration was optional, it would be good for us because the probability that the offending MI law would be changed is pretty much zero. |
|
Originally Posted By laxman09: Weird, I just had 6 pending eForm4 Trusts approved. Three more still pending. Originally Posted By laxman09: Originally Posted By Glocked: Wonder if this explains them just approving all my pending applications. A big batch of form 1s on a trust approved in 3 days. Weird, I just had 6 pending eForm4 Trusts approved. Three more still pending. Hope you hear something soon. I got another big batch of Form 1 trust approvals yesterday that were around 30 days. |
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, the world needs pole dancers too. ~Observer
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Outside of the 2A space, there are other examples of things that cannot be taxed/registered, but that penalties apply to using them without taxes/registration. Think about something like certain cars in CA. It may not be 100% apples to apples, but there are similar mechanisms in play. Car A can be registered. Car B cannot due to whatever regulation. If you drive either car on the road without registration, you pay a fine. Nobody challenges the state on refusing registration on car B. The MG NFA situation is kind of like that. Taxes are being paid, but only some MGs are eligible. As a casual, I think this is only really unconstitutional in light of the 2A. If we were talking about cars or lawn mowers or whatever, I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional. With SBRs, SBSs, and cans, there are no taxes being paid at all, by anybody, under any circumstances. "Do your onerous $0 tax registration or spend a decade in PMITA prison" is blatantly unconstitutional even without considering 2A rights. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By mechanical: The same logic should directly apply to machineguns. Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from Not really. It's a completely separate issue. With the $0 items, there's a heavy and egregious registration and penalty scheme "justified" by a tax, and the tax is no longer collected in any form. That's a situation that's comically unconstitutional without even invoking the 2A. With MGs, there's still a tax being collected. Hughes limited eligibility to existing items pre-'86, but those items are still transferred with taxes paid on a near-daily basis. Hughes is very much unconstitutional on 2A grounds, but I'm not sure it can be argued as unconstitutional without invoking the 2A, and there's also the issue of getting courts and bureaucrats to take up the MG cause to drive that home. I agree there are differences in the issues, but the Hughes Amendment still has a "how can you demand a tax then refuse to let it be paid?" problem. Your view of it only holds up is we pretend post-86 MGs somehow don't exist. Outside of the 2A space, there are other examples of things that cannot be taxed/registered, but that penalties apply to using them without taxes/registration. Think about something like certain cars in CA. It may not be 100% apples to apples, but there are similar mechanisms in play. Car A can be registered. Car B cannot due to whatever regulation. If you drive either car on the road without registration, you pay a fine. Nobody challenges the state on refusing registration on car B. The MG NFA situation is kind of like that. Taxes are being paid, but only some MGs are eligible. As a casual, I think this is only really unconstitutional in light of the 2A. If we were talking about cars or lawn mowers or whatever, I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional. With SBRs, SBSs, and cans, there are no taxes being paid at all, by anybody, under any circumstances. "Do your onerous $0 tax registration or spend a decade in PMITA prison" is blatantly unconstitutional even without considering 2A rights. If the Hughes Amendment had been part of the original National Firearms Act, would the National Firearms Act have been a valid power of taxation? If the answer is no, why does an arbitrary period of time change that? |
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: No one has said this would be a bad change overall and registration should continue for everyone. We're making the point that it is bad for people in some states. And if registration was optional, it would be good for us because the probability that the offending MI law would be changed is pretty much zero. Last year when it was debated there was those who were against it because of the effects of their state law. Glad you aren't saying that. Yes it would be unfortunate for Michigan. |
|
Originally Posted By 1Andy2: An executive branch agency is just going to invent a tax without statutory basis? lol ok Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By ffemt596: Originally Posted By Curmudgeon762: Am I the only one thinking they will just reinstate a tax? If nothing is ever codified, yes. An executive branch agency is just going to invent a tax without statutory basis? lol ok The laws and regulations which the ATF and DOJ are now enjoined from enforcing against the plaintiffs in this case are still part of US Code & the CFR. They just can't be enforced. Presumably if the taxes were raised to a non-zero amount then they could be enforced again. |
Joined:
Jun 2023
Posts:
4911
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Here in Georgia we won't be able to buy any of that unless we change our laws. We tried the last session but if failed, fucking RINOs. Since they are no longer regulated by the NFA, then you have registered them “in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act” (4) Possession of a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer by a person who is authorized to possess the same because he has registered the sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act, 68A Stat. 725 (26 U.S.C. Sections 5841-5862); and *I’m not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. |
|
Originally Posted By Skopsko07734: Read the excerpt of the Courts Final Judgement below. Does that mean this judgement would apply to anyone in another state that purchases something, a sticker, a P-Mags, or any other product from Silencer Shop? Not sure what the title of this document is: https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/177118845368-1.pdf Final Judgement: https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/137-FInal-Judgment.pdf https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/93395/SJDFSHD_png-3806521.JPG Fuck yeah, I got both my cans through them! |
|
Originally Posted By Mike_314: No one has said this would be a bad change overall and registration should continue for everyone. We're making the point that it is bad for people in some states. And if registration was optional, it would be good for us because the probability that the offending MI law would be changed is pretty much zero. It isn't "bad." Back up and look at the ruling. It does not make registration completely unavailable. The Supreme Court frowns on universal injunctions. This ruling is limited to the plaintiffs and their customers. So if you are purchasing an SBR or a gun muffler from somebody other than one of the plaintiffs, it still must be registered. Likewise, if you live in Georgia, like me, and you purchase from Palmetto State Armory, a plaintiff, then undoubtedly they will still sell it to you with a serial number and registration. They are not going to give up on the entire market of folks like me who live behind enemy lines. They will want to make those sales. Essentially, nothing has changed in Georgia as a result of this ruling. That is not "bad of people in some states." Life just goes on as normal. |
|
AI explanation of what's happening. This confirms it — this is now genuine, verified breaking news. The Final Judgment (Document 137, entered today, August 5, 2026) is the ruling the ASA email was referencing. Here's what it actually says: **The ruling** Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in both Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the consolidated Jensen v. ATF on their enumerated-powers claims — the Article I argument that the NFA's registration scheme can't survive now that Congress zeroed out the tax it was built on. Notably, the plaintiffs' separate Second Amendment claims were dismissed without prejudice as abandoned — so this win rests entirely on the taxing-power/enumerated-powers theory, not on a Second Amendment ruling. **What's actually enjoined** The court permanently enjoined ATF, DOJ, and named officials from enforcing specific NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms — a defined list of statutory and regulatory sections covering registration (§§ 5841, 5822, 5812), transfer restrictions (§ 5861(b)–(f)), and the corresponding ATF regulations (27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62, 479.84). For the Jensen plaintiffs specifically, two additional provisions (§ 5842(b) and § 5861(i)) were enjoined. **Important limits people should know** - The injunction does not extend to the NFA's regulation of "any other weapon" (AOWs) for the Jensen plaintiffs. So AOWs weren't fully covered by this win. - The injunction only runs in favor of the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers — both current and future. That's a broad class given GOA alone has 2+ million members, but it's not automatically a nationwide, universal injunction covering every American. - Machine guns and destructive devices aren't touched — those still carry the $200 tax and full NFA regime. - The Court stayed its own judgment for seven days from entry to let the government seek relief at the appellate level, and directed the Clerk to close the case. So as of today, enforcement isn't immediately blocked — DOJ has a one-week window to seek a stay pending appeal (which, given the pattern in related cases, is very likely to happen). If the Fifth Circuit grants a stay, the status quo could continue during the appeal. **Bottom line:** This is a real, significant district-court win for the plaintiffs on the core "zero tax kills the taxing-power justification" theory — but it's narrower than "NFA is dead": it's Article I-based rather than Second Amendment-based, excludes AOWs for the Jensen plaintiffs, applies to a defined universe of plaintiffs/members, and has a built-in week-long stay to let the government appeal. Given DOJ's posture in the related Brown and Comeaux litigation, an appeal to the Fifth Circuit is close to certain. |
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: The laws and regulations which the ATF and DOJ are now enjoined from enforcing against the plaintiffs in this case are still part of US Code & the CFR. They just can't be enforced. Presumably if the taxes were raised to a non-zero amount then they could be enforced again. Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By ffemt596: Originally Posted By Curmudgeon762: Am I the only one thinking they will just reinstate a tax? If nothing is ever codified, yes. An executive branch agency is just going to invent a tax without statutory basis? lol ok The laws and regulations which the ATF and DOJ are now enjoined from enforcing against the plaintiffs in this case are still part of US Code & the CFR. They just can't be enforced. Presumably if the taxes were raised to a non-zero amount then they could be enforced again. They were set to $0 by a law made by congress. Only congress can raise it above $0 |
Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - Adm James Stockdale
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Joined:
Jul 2008
Posts:
46107
EE: 100% (212)
TN, USA
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: When we got the $0 tax pushed through Congress, there was a TON of bitching about it here. Not good enough, the Ds can change it back and make it worse, etc. What wasn't appreciated was that it was more or less like capturing a little island called Tinian. The average guy has never heard of it and can't find it on a map, but it turns out Tinian might have been very important. Now the airfield is operational, and a new kind of bomber just flew its first sortie to the enemy homeland. I like the cut of your jib |
Panem et Circenses
I have also learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions, and not upon our circumstances.
Kites rise highest against the wind, not with it. - Churchill
I have also learned from experience that the greater part of our happiness or misery depends upon our dispositions, and not upon our circumstances.
Kites rise highest against the wind, not with it. - Churchill
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: The laws and regulations which the ATF and DOJ are now enjoined from enforcing against the plaintiffs in this case are still part of US Code & the CFR. They just can't be enforced. Presumably if the taxes were raised to a non-zero amount then they could be enforced again. Say they bring back the tax in a couple years. How would you be able to prove that someone didn’t make that sbr,sbs, can during that period? |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: This ruling is different than the Hughes Amendment, but it could add supporting legal logic to challenging it in the future. MGs are legal if you pay the $200 tax. Congress says you cannot pay the tax if you make one today. If the power is rooted in taxation, and they refuse to let you pay the tax, how is it taxation? The "but you can still transfer old ones" thing isn't relevant at all, time didn't stop in 1986. An interesting thought experiment. The court says the refusal to accept the tax means the manufacturing of MG's is legal with out a tax stamp, same premise as this case. But the transfer tax of existing MGs is still legal under congress's ability to collect taxes as it is still there. How fast does congress act to do away with hughes, so they can tax and regulate the manufacture of a new MG? |
"I am gonna laugh my ass off looking out the air vent of the box car watching some of you shot in the head in a ditch when you finally realize it's time to resist." stolen from RR_broccoli
|
Originally Posted By CleverNickname: The laws and regulations which the ATF and DOJ are now enjoined from enforcing against the plaintiffs in this case are still part of US Code & the CFR. They just can't be enforced. Presumably if the taxes were raised to a non-zero amount then they could be enforced again. That's how I'm understanding it as well. Is there a way they could make this more permanent(within the next 2 years)? |
|
Originally Posted By Lexustech48: If you like your draconian NFA, you can keep your draconian NFA. Yup, good chance that we could be fucked here in Colorado as well. But that doesn't take away from what is happening here. Every little battle won in this war is a benefit to all of us. Federal guns laws will continue to crumble, state gun laws will continue to crumble. Stop bitching and keep fighting! |
|
Originally Posted By MK3110: Since they are no longer regulated by the NFA, then you have registered them “in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act” (4) Possession of a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer by a person who is authorized to possess the same because he has registered the sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act, 68A Stat. 725 (26 U.S.C. Sections 5841-5862); and *I’m not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Originally Posted By MK3110: Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Here in Georgia we won't be able to buy any of that unless we change our laws. We tried the last session but if failed, fucking RINOs. Since they are no longer regulated by the NFA, then you have registered them “in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act” (4) Possession of a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer by a person who is authorized to possess the same because he has registered the sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer in accordance with the dictates of the National Firearms Act, 68A Stat. 725 (26 U.S.C. Sections 5841-5862); and *I’m not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. It's an affirmative defense to have them registered, and is the only option to possess them legally, hence the attempted law change. |
|
In a perfect world, the ATF would not challenge the ruling. 1. Destroy all previous tax stamp records. 2. Have a downloadable PDF that allows for “self” stamp for free. Meaning buy a suppressor- download the form and boom. You just self served an ATF stamp in which the ATF keeps no record. BUT it is a federal ATF “approval” that would be recognized by they states because its a federal form based on the honor system just like no voter ID. |
|
Originally Posted By 1Andy2: They were set to $0 by a law made by congress. Only congress can raise it above $0 Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: Originally Posted By ffemt596: Originally Posted By Curmudgeon762: Am I the only one thinking they will just reinstate a tax? If nothing is ever codified, yes. An executive branch agency is just going to invent a tax without statutory basis? lol ok The laws and regulations which the ATF and DOJ are now enjoined from enforcing against the plaintiffs in this case are still part of US Code & the CFR. They just can't be enforced. Presumably if the taxes were raised to a non-zero amount then they could be enforced again. They were set to $0 by a law made by congress. Only congress can raise it above $0 I never said anyone other than Congress would be doing this theoretical tax raising. |
|
Originally Posted By Skopsko07734: Read the excerpt of the Courts Final Judgement below. Does that mean this judgement would apply to anyone in another state that purchases something, a sticker, a P-Mags, or any other product from Silencer Shop? Not sure what the title of this document is: https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/177118845368-1.pdf Final Judgement: https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/137-FInal-Judgment.pdf https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/93395/SJDFSHD_png-3806521.JPG |
"During the second 100 days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first 100 days." -Barack Obama, May 9 2009
|
Originally Posted By evilyoda: In a perfect world, the ATF would not challenge the ruling. 1. Destroy all previous tax stamp records. 2. Have a downloadable PDF that allows for “self” stamp for free. Meaning buy a suppressor- download the form and boom. You just self served an ATF stamp in which the ATF keeps no record. BUT it is a federal ATF “approval” that would be recognized by they states because its a federal form based on the honor system just like no voter ID. If I am not mistaken, we want this appealed, so that SCOTUS can potentially make it apply nationwide, not to this specific case. |
|
Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: It isn't "bad." Back up and look at the ruling. It does not make registration completely unavailable. The Supreme Court frowns on universal injunctions. This ruling is limited to the plaintiffs and their customers. So if you are purchasing an SBR or a gun muffler from somebody other than one of the plaintiffs, it still must be registered. Likewise, if you live in Georgia, like me, and you purchase from Palmetto State Armory, a plaintiff, then undoubtedly they will still sell it to you with a serial number and registration. They are not going to give up on the entire market of folks like me who live behind enemy lines. They will want to make those sales. Essentially, nothing has changed in Georgia as a result of this ruling. That is not "bad of people in some states." Life just goes on as normal. Originally Posted By Malum-Prohibitum: Originally Posted By Mike_314: No one has said this would be a bad change overall and registration should continue for everyone. We're making the point that it is bad for people in some states. And if registration was optional, it would be good for us because the probability that the offending MI law would be changed is pretty much zero. It isn't "bad." Back up and look at the ruling. It does not make registration completely unavailable. The Supreme Court frowns on universal injunctions. This ruling is limited to the plaintiffs and their customers. So if you are purchasing an SBR or a gun muffler from somebody other than one of the plaintiffs, it still must be registered. Likewise, if you live in Georgia, like me, and you purchase from Palmetto State Armory, a plaintiff, then undoubtedly they will still sell it to you with a serial number and registration. They are not going to give up on the entire market of folks like me who live behind enemy lines. They will want to make those sales. Essentially, nothing has changed in Georgia as a result of this ruling. That is not "bad of people in some states." Life just goes on as normal. Ultimately, it'll be up to how the ATF reacts to this ruling if it stands. It won't stay applied only to the defendants if that happens, it will become law, so long as the tax remains zero. If they no longer process registration of these items, we won't have any way to legally purchase them. |