Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:06:11 AM EDT
We put into the appropriations bill that funds the BATFE a disclaimer saying no federal funds can be used to enforce the provisions of the NFA of 1968.

Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:08:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
We put into the appropriations bill that funds the BATFE a disclaimer saying no federal funds can be used to enforce the provisions of the NFA of 1968.





You mean 1986?

(and the answer is no, they'd still try to enforce it, with funds from their 'general fund', assuming they have one)
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:08:20 AM EDT
NFA of 1968?
You mean the GCA of 1968?
Or the NFA of 1934?
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:09:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:10:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Better yet is to get the right court to throw out the provisions of the 1968 GCA.


+1
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:11:11 AM EDT
I want a machine gun for cheap as much as the next guy, but there will be no simple solution for it, and I do not have the answer.
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:13:24 AM EDT
They passed a provision making it illegal to use Federal funds to enforce DC's lock up your guns disassembled law.

Therefore the DC Metro Police cannot enforce it.

Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:14:35 AM EDT
The NFA was suspended by SCOTUS in 1968.

It was later changed and incorporated into the GCA of 1968, hence the term 'NFA of 1968'.

Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:18:05 AM EDT
If you mean NFA, it would be interpreted by F-Troop as a prohibition on spending money on background checks and tax-stamp issuance, and used by them to kill all NFA weapons transactions.

The prohibition on possession of untaxed NFA weapons would still be on the books and would be enforced.

If you mean GCA '68, they'd do that same thing: stop issuing mfgr licenses, 4473s, et c. et c., but move against weapons & transactions violative of the prohibitionist elements of the law.
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:18:47 AM EDT
Would be easier to get rid of the 86ban first then go after the NFA as a whole.
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:21:17 AM EDT
How can it be enforced if NO FEDERAL FUNDS can be used to enforce any provisions?

Tell me does BATFE get their money from the sale of doughnuts?

Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:28:47 AM EDT
Yes, you could stop them from doing their entire job with a bill like that. Though it would also include no more sign offs for toys. Also, what is going to stop local cops from arresting you?
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:30:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2005 9:32:00 AM EDT by CRC]
My local cops don't give a rats rear end.

And I wouldn't need tax stamps, signoffs ect because the BATFE couldn't come after me

Next time you see your local police crusing around on 'tax stamp' duty you tell me.


No money= no enforcement.

Link Posted: 10/7/2005 9:36:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
How can it be enforced if NO FEDERAL FUNDS can be used to enforce any provisions?



Personally, I would rather not walk around guilty of a felony and have to keep hoping that there would be never be money to arrest me.... Appropriations bills only last a year, right...?

Not a good solution, IMHO.
Top Top