Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 193 of 193)
|
Originally Posted By MongooseKY: How does one join FPCAF? Their website has a donation link but nothing about membership. This seems more like the NRA-ILA, which also has no direct membership option that I'm aware of. Are FPC members automatically a member of/affiliated with FPCAF? CCRKBA is more straightforward - they have a join link on their website. Originally Posted By MongooseKY: Originally Posted By st33ve0: You need to be in FPCAF, legally discrete from FPC. Jensen v ATF plaintiff orgs: FPC Action Foundation (Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation) Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) CCRKBA is more straightforward - they have a join link on their website. Attached File |
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" - Robert Novak
|
Originally Posted By Toasted: "Gangster weapons" eh. Aren't they creative. "Assault weapons" are so 90s. Need a zoot suit special edition suppressor.  Gangster Weapons LMAO!!! Gangsters of the 1920's were very well dressed! Star Trek TOS Back to the 20's |
|
Originally Posted By bmarshall1: 'In theory' places like Capitol Armory could send you an SBR in the mail like they do silencers. They were both considered firearms, and needed a form 4. Why shouldn't we get SBRs through the mail? Originally Posted By bmarshall1: 'In theory' places like Capitol Armory could send you an SBR in the mail like they do silencers. They were both considered firearms, and needed a form 4. Why shouldn't we get SBRs through the mail? (4)for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sure - if you're in the NFRTR already, it's probably not moving the needle much. You're already on the registry, you've already been through the system, whatever. Sort of like an inverse of after the first felony the rest are free, I guess. Maybe do one for the sheer novelty, definitely be happy for the group I'm getting to in a second here, but otherwise, meh. Meanwhile, I never thought I'd own a suppressor. Nothing against people who followed the process, but I refuse to submit to their bullshit tax scheme and I was perfectly willing to just do without because of it. This injunction has offered the one and only lawful method for me to buy and use a suppressor, and beyond that, it's an opportunity to put my money where my mouth is and take some kind of personal action in support of my rights instead of just paying my membership and occasionally leaving a voicemail at a congressional office that nobody will ever give a shit about. Thankfully Sarasota isn't terribly far, but I'd drive across the state and back for the chance to be part of that. When you thought you'd go your whole life without a suppressor because of some idiotic Jim Crow tax scheme, a day's worth of effort really doesn't seem like much. ETA: All you Form 1/4 folks, whatever your thoughts are on the utility of 4473 cans, please try and get your suppressed stuff out and visible as much as you can as a way to normalize them to the gun-owning public and maybe get a few conversations going to boot. Even if it's somewhere like a public indoor range where you need ear pro regardless, let's all do what we can to try and normalize them and spread the word about the injunction. Anything and everything that boosts the number of people with suppressors/SBR/SBS or at least break the perception that they're some kind of rare mysterious scary things is a benefit at this point. When I took possession of my first cans and SBRs, it was like being a minor celebrity every time I was at a range. It's been at least 10 years since anyone has even seemed to notice. |
"I do believe that some gun laws are needed and yes, I am a Republican" ~ tc556guy - NRA Member
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
3928
EE: 100% (57)
UT, USA
|
Originally Posted By DPeacher: When I took possession of my first cans and SBRs, it was like being a minor celebrity every time I was at a range. It's been at least 10 years since anyone has even seemed to notice. My favorite thing since getting a suppressor was seeing the smile on my dads face after dumping a mag of 150 GR Syntechs from a Suppressed APC9. I just had a form 1 approved on an SBR. Until they change the interstate transit restrictions on SBRs I will continue to file Form 1s  .
|
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: Honestly I wish I could get rid of most of mine now just so my wife or daughter doesn’t have to fool with them all when I’m no longer here. That day will come. I went crazy buying in the 90s! Main reason I stayed away from any NFA stuff. I have been selling mine off, I don't shoot much any more, and I'm too old to be a hard charger, and deer hunting is too expensive to have fun, after license, and renting a place to hunt. |
World ain't what it seems, is it Gunny?
| Ever since it became legal to shoulder braced pistols, no one gives a second look at SBRs at the range. Many don’t notice the difference between a real stock and a very similar brace, and even if they do, they usually don’t care. It’s effectively the same to most people. Suppressor ownership has exploded over the past few years with first wait time dropping, and then the $0 tax stamp, so seeing cans at the range has already become more commonplace. No one is going to know whether your can or SBR is a freedom can/SBR or one that’s on the registry, unless you make it a point to tell everyone around you, which will just turn a lot of people off because they think you’re just bragging. |
|
Originally Posted By EDL: Why not? At this point, it looks like DOJ is on our side to some extent for once. They just filed an amicus brief (along with 39 others) for the AR-15 cases. Literally the second time in history the DOJ has ever sided with plaintiffs in a gun control case (the first was last year). They should appeal and they should go into the 5th District shrugging their shoulders and fall on their sword. Then, when they lose, they could petition SCOTUS and get it in front of them and then there's a real chance that the NFA, or at least these four categories, could be removed from it for everyone, period. That would also clear the way for the gray area states without having to slog it through their courts since the NFA would no longer exist for those items. If they don't, then the injunction just stays in place until something else happens to change it. All I am saying is that I think it's foolish to draw conclusions based on the DOJ not filing on day one. People are saying things like "with every passing day, more and more 3D printed cans are out on the street and that makes the DOJ's case more and more unlikely to prevail because they're getting out there." What I am saying is that a court can't alter its ruling solely based on one party taking time that they were legally given. In other words, if a court says you have 60 days to file an appeal and then the court's ruling becomes "well, I hear what you're saying, and if you had filed your appeal on day 1 it would have been different, but now that you're filing on day 59, it's a different story" - can you see how that presents a problem? I hope they don't file an appeal. I really do. And we can move on with our lives. And I really think this is going to result in a positive 2A ruling. That said, I feel it is unwise for people to think that because the DOJ might be dragging their feet that it strengthens our case. The moment the injunction went live, 3D printers everywhere fired up. The damage is done. And the plausible deniability window grows, absolutely. But I don't think the number of 3D printed suppressors on day 1 versus day 60 is going to be influential in whatever the final outcome is. Does the ATF have a dumpster fire on their hands if the ruling is reversed? Absolutely! But it was a dumpster fire on 8/7 at 0001 hours, the difference is how big the dumpster fire is. I doubt a judge or SCOTUS would alter their ruling based solely on how hard the dumpster fire is to contain. And we all know damn well the 3 liberal justices are going to vote how they feel, regardless. |
|
Originally Posted By Paulie771: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/86616/FPCAF_Membership_png-3829714.JPG For anyone else looking - https://www.fpcactionfoundation.org/news/fpc-action-foundation-statement-on-nfa-victory |
01010111 | 57 | 127 | LXXXVII
|
Originally Posted By MongooseKY: Good info - thank you for that. A little more digging and I found the source. For anyone else looking - https://www.fpcactionfoundation.org/news/fpc-action-foundation-statement-on-nfa-victory I know they want more money every year….but I wish they would say anyone that donated at least $10 was a “member” forever. |
Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.
~John Adams
~John Adams
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: Ever since it became legal to shoulder braced pistols, no one gives a second look at SBRs at the range. Many don’t notice the difference between a real stock and a very similar brace, and even if they do, they usually don’t care. It’s effectively the same to most people. Suppressor ownership has exploded over the past few years with first wait time dropping, and then the $0 tax stamp, so seeing cans at the range has already become more commonplace. No one is going to know whether your can or SBR is a freedom can/SBR or one that’s on the registry, unless you make it a point to tell everyone around you, which will just turn a lot of people off because they think you’re just bragging. I still think there's some room to work with, seeing as "more commonplace" in my AO means going from "one guy shooting suppressed every 5 or 6 trips" to "I'm shooting suppressed and hell yeah someone else is too". I mostly agree on the SBR/S but I keep trying to include them alongside cand mostly so nobody derails anything by complaining about being left out  Mostly, I just want to provide an opportunity for people to have the experience of seeing them in public use to chip away at the mystery and rarity. I've had random people come bother me about my regular guns, so if they come bother me about my ridiculous looking suppressed mag-fed tactical lever action that's the most stupidly quiet gun they've ever seen, I'll smile and give a 30-second elevator pitch about how they can get in on the fun. It's not bragging to emphasize how cheap and easy it is and focus 100% on how they can do it too! |
|
Originally Posted By dcs12345: I know they want more money every year….but I wish they would say anyone that donated at least $10 was a “member” forever. According to the info posted by Wiley Rain, the injunction coverage is transactional, which is to say that it only matters that you were a member of GOA / FPCAA / etc. at the time of the transfer or making of the title II firearm. You don't have to maintain membership to maintain lawful possession. Just keep documentation of the date of transfer / making and your membership in a plaintiff class at that moment in time. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By CZRider: Isn't PLCAA supposed to cover that kind of frivolous stuff or does that only cover manufacturers? Originally Posted By CZRider: Originally Posted By bigbore: A recent question was raised regarding civil liability. In this case the judge is not saying the challenged law is illegal, he's saying it can't be enforced. As a business owner I have the option to sell a customer a suppressor on a Form 4, OR skip that process and illegally sell it to him on just a 4473 without fear of federal prosecution. If that guy uses a gun with that suppressor attached to kill his neighbor, how could it play out in a civil wrongful death lawsuit that I illegally sold him the suppressor? Isn't PLCAA supposed to cover that kind of frivolous stuff or does that only cover manufacturers? PLCAA only covers FFL's if they comply with the law. The law hasn't been struck down so no I don't think PLCAA would cover the dealer. I also wonder if the FFL's liability insurance would cover civil suits for those transfers. |
Heller II - Challenging DC's bans on semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, and its onerous and expensive handgun registration process. http://www.HellerFoundation.org/
|
Originally Posted By dcs12345: I know they want more money every year….but I wish they would say anyone that donated at least $10 was a “member” forever. Why? They use the money to get wins like this. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to spend what a box of .22 costs each year to help them out? |
World ain't what it seems, is it Gunny?
|
Originally Posted By lorazepam: Why? They use the money to get wins like this. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to spend what a box of .22 costs each year to help them out? I just made mine a $10 monthly recurring amount when I did mine. Cheap insurance that's used for a good cause. |
Glock Certified Armorer
I'll keep my weapons,my freedom, and my money!! You can keep the CHANGE!
I'll keep my weapons,my freedom, and my money!! You can keep the CHANGE!
|
Just noticed Cabelas is selling suppressors https://www.cabelas.com/c/suppressors Attached File |
PROUD AMMOSEXUAL
Founding father Tench Coxe
“Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American."
Founding father Tench Coxe
“Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American."
|
Perhaps related: has anyone else been mysteriously signed up to GOA without applying or sending a donation? In late August, I got a “welcome to membership” email. At first figured it was an ad, trying to get me to sign up. Then the emails kept coming, thanking me for membership. Dunno where they would have gotten my email from in the first place, so I figure maybe I was getting someone else’s emails / someone typo’d a similar email address to mine. Then I got an email with my name. Dunno, maybe one of the companies I consult for got me and all their employees a membership without telling me. But when I try to log in to the member’s page at GOA with the email they send me stuff at… “username/email not found”.   |
|
Originally Posted By Bubbles: I also wonder if the FFL's liability insurance would cover civil suits for those transfers. I emailed my insurance guy yesterday, I should know tomorrow. I highly doubt it's covered. Insurance companies love to deny claims, and when it involves an illegal transfer it seems obvious. My insurance is through lockton Affinity, the largest insurer of FFLs. Odds are high after they answer me they'll be sending a memo to all their clients as well. If that happens, every FFL insured by them will probably stop 4473 suppressor sales. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?
Joined:
Feb 2011
Posts:
16674
EE: 100% (22)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By craig24680: Just noticed Cabelas is selling suppressors https://www.cabelas.com/c/suppressors https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80967/Screenshot_20260920_132357_jpg-3830134.JPG Fine print at the bottom says it's fulfilled by Silencer Central. Sounds like Bass Pro is just facilitating the sale. |
|
Originally Posted By M41A: Fine print at the bottom says it's fulfilled by Silencer Central. Sounds like Bass Pro is just facilitating the sale. |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: PSA does the same. The actual sale goes through Capital Armory. Originally Posted By ODA_564: Originally Posted By M41A: Fine print at the bottom says it's fulfilled by Silencer Central. Sounds like Bass Pro is just facilitating the sale. The Capitol Armory home delivery process is easy, smooth, & relatively fast. But it’s on a Form 4, which are getting approved in days. The 7 day CLEO hold is the long pole in the tent. Any suppressor company that isn’t using their service is likely missing sales. Buying cans through CA is too fucking easy, lol. |
|
Originally Posted By KalmanPhilter: The Capitol Armory home delivery process is easy, smooth, & relatively fast. But it's on a Form 4, which are getting approved in days. The 7 day CLEO hold is the long pole in the tent. Any suppressor company that isn't using their service is likely missing sales. Buying cans through CA is too fucking easy, lol. Attached File Yeah, CA is super simple and easy. I've been on the cusp of pulling the trigger on another one thru CA. All that's made me wait so far is that I'd rather buy it as part of the 4473 new fun, but FFLs around here aren't doing that. |
_______________________________________________________
*** NRA Endowment Life Member *** VCDL Member *** TN Squire ***
*** NRA Endowment Life Member *** VCDL Member *** TN Squire ***
|
Well, Fuck. I gotta go back on what I said, and back to Form 4s. I spoke to the customers who already took possession and all are cool with filling out a Form 4 for their suppressors. With my background I should have thought of this first, but I got caught up in the excitement. Civil liability coverage only responds as normal when the insured is following the law. Transferring a $0 tax suppressor without a Form 4 is breaking the law. Sure, you cant be punished for it but any lawyer will tell you the NFA laws are still in place. Criminally you have nothing to worry about if you are a dealer or buyer of a suppressor without a Form 4 regarding the transfer. The manufacturers transferring suppressors on form 3s to their dealers, that they are encouraging to sell on 4473s have nothing to worry about either. The FFLs selling those suppressors are fucked if any of those suppressors are used in a way which results in harm or death. Scenario - FFL sells a suppressor to a guy on a 4473, no form 4. That guy sells it to his neighbor who puts it on the pistol he uses to kill his girlfriend. The Lawyers from the Brady bunch reach out to the estate of the dead bitch and find out where the gun and silencer came from. When they see the silencer was illegally sold by the FFL, that FFL is a named defendant in the wrongful death lawsuit. The FFL turns it over to their insurance who denies coverage because the suppressor was sold illegally. The FFL is now personally responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and a possible judgment they can never afford. The PLCAA isn't going to apply to an illegal sale. Until the actual law changes, or insurance companies specifically tell FFL it's ok to break this law to make a sale that they are insured - - any dealer selling on a 4473 is insane. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By craig24680: Just noticed Cabelas is selling suppressors https://www.cabelas.com/c/suppressors https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80967/Screenshot_20260920_132357_jpg-3830134.JPG I went to an academy and they had a case of suppressors too. Bunch of signs saying you still had to do an F4 |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: Civil liability coverage only responds as normal when the insured is following the law. Transferring a $0 tax suppressor without a Form 4 is breaking the law. Sure, you cant be punished for it but any lawyer will tell you the NFA laws are still in place. SNIP The PLCAA isn't going to apply to an illegal sale. Until the actual law changes, or insurance companies specifically tell FFL it's ok to break this law to make a sale that they are insured - - any dealer selling on a 4473 is insane. I know you've been sued before, but this seems like a non-issue and you may have an illogical interpretation of it. Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. A counter example to prove my point: A NICS background check is required for all transfers from an FFL to a non-licensed buyer. In most states, a valid CCW is an exemption the the NICS check. The FFL is not breaking the law by not completing a NICS check. The transaction is exempt from that law and it is not applicable to their situation. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases of statutes and laws that are not applicable to certain people or certain situations. The Form 4 registration requirement is not applicable to those within the plaintiff group. It is not an illegal transfer and there's no reason that an insurance company should deny a claim based on that. That being said, you can be sued for pretty much anything at any time. |
|
Scottsdale Gun Club is doing 4473 suppressors for GOA members. Bought a Spectre 9 last week, went in the next day to pick it up and waited 45 minutes while they looked for it because supposedly there were 3 separate locations where it could have been and apparently it took that long to look in those 3 places and find my can. But whatever I got my can in the end so I'm happy. 
|
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: I know you've been sued before, but this seems like a non-issue and you may have an illogical interpretation of it. Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. A counter example to prove my point: A NICS background check is required for all transfers from an FFL to a non-licensed buyer. In most states, a valid CCW is an exemption the the NICS check. The FFL is not breaking the law by not completing a NICS check. The transaction is exempt from that law and it is not applicable to their situation. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases of statues and laws that are not applicable to certain people or certain situations. The Form 4 registration requirement is not applicable to those within the plaintiff group. It is not an illegal transfer and there's no reason that an insurance company should deny a claim based on that. That being said, you can be sued for pretty much anything at any time. To say that 4473 suppressor sales to members of the plantiff group are "illegal sales" seems a bit retarded. Like, pants on head retarded. |
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: I know you've been sued before, but this seems like a non-issue and you may have an illogical interpretation of it. Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. A counter example to prove my point: A NICS background check is required for all transfers from an FFL to a non-licensed buyer. In most states, a valid CCW is an exemption the the NICS check. The FFL is not breaking the law by not completing a NICS check. The transaction is exempt from that law and it is not applicable to their situation. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases of statues and laws that are not applicable to certain people or certain situations. The Form 4 registration requirement is not applicable to those within the plaintiff group. It is not an illegal transfer and there's no reason that an insurance company should deny a claim based on that. That being said, you can be sued for pretty much anything at any time. Originally Posted By graysonp: Originally Posted By bigbore: Civil liability coverage only responds as normal when the insured is following the law. Transferring a $0 tax suppressor without a Form 4 is breaking the law. Sure, you cant be punished for it but any lawyer will tell you the NFA laws are still in place. SNIP The PLCAA isn't going to apply to an illegal sale. Until the actual law changes, or insurance companies specifically tell FFL it's ok to break this law to make a sale that they are insured - - any dealer selling on a 4473 is insane. I know you've been sued before, but this seems like a non-issue and you may have an illogical interpretation of it. Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. A counter example to prove my point: A NICS background check is required for all transfers from an FFL to a non-licensed buyer. In most states, a valid CCW is an exemption the the NICS check. The FFL is not breaking the law by not completing a NICS check. The transaction is exempt from that law and it is not applicable to their situation. There are probably hundreds or thousands of cases of statues and laws that are not applicable to certain people or certain situations. The Form 4 registration requirement is not applicable to those within the plaintiff group. It is not an illegal transfer and there's no reason that an insurance company should deny a claim based on that. That being said, you can be sued for pretty much anything at any time. As you say you are going to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get to any conclusions and there are plenty of them that will file a suit simply in the hopes of a quick settlement. |
|
Originally Posted By BlackheartActual: To say that 4473 suppressor sales to members of the plantiff group are "illegal sales" seems a bit retarded. Like, pants on head retarded. Insurance companies don't look at stuff like this as anyone here would so if your insurance company says no, you'd be a fool to contradict that. ETA: I certainly don't agree with the statement that selling them is breaking any law. You might lie in a grey area currently but it's not one that would put you in any criminal liability, i.e. you aren't breaking the law. You're just operating in an area where the clear guidelines have yet to be established. |
|
Originally Posted By BlackheartActual: To say that 4473 suppressor sales to members of the plantiff group are "illegal sales" seems a bit retarded. Like, pants on head retarded. The judge barred enforcement of the law on the $0 tax items. The Judge did not change the law. The law is still in place. taking possession of any NFA firearms without a form 4 is an illegal transfer. If you read something different in the motion, please tell me what page and I'll ask my attorney for clarification. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: The judge barred enforcement of the law on the $0 tax items. The Judge did not change the law. The law is still in place. taking possession of any NFA firearms without a form 4 is an illegal transfer. If you read something different in the motion, please tell me what page and I'll ask my attorney for clarification. Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By BlackheartActual: To say that 4473 suppressor sales to members of the plantiff group are "illegal sales" seems a bit retarded. Like, pants on head retarded. The judge barred enforcement of the law on the $0 tax items. The Judge did not change the law. The law is still in place. taking possession of any NFA firearms without a form 4 is an illegal transfer. If you read something different in the motion, please tell me what page and I'll ask my attorney for clarification. The law has been enjoined on behalf of the plaintiffs so it's currently no longer in effect for them so there is no legal mechanism to stop said transfers, i.e. not illegal. |
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. Originally Posted By graysonp: Transferring a suppressor without a form 4 is not illegal for parties of the plaintiff group. The law does not apply to them. It's not that they're breaking the law and the ATF/DOJ is just refusing to prosecute. It's that a judge has ruled it is not illegal for them. That is not what the judge said. Accordingly, and as further detailed in the Final Judgment, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United States Department of Justice, Todd Blanche in his official capacity, Robert Cekada in his official capacity, their divisions, bureaus, agents, officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with them, including their successors in office, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future. The provisions/NFA laws are still there. The judge did not say the NFA law was illegal, he just said the government can't enforce it. That is how lawyers and my insurance company - The largest insurer of FFLs reads it. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: The law has been enjoined on behalf of the plaintiffs so it's currently no longer in effect for them so there is no legal mechanism to stop said transfers, i.e. not illegal. The law has not been enjoined, only the untaxed firearms. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: That is not what the judge said. The provisions/NFA laws are still there. The judge did not say the NFA law was illegal, he just said the government can't enforce it. That is how lawyers and my insurance company - The largest insurer of FFLs reads it. How can something be illegal if the law no longer applies? The criminality is gone, civil liability is another likely much more convoluted conversation and if I had to guess this is their half assed cop out saying they don't want to deal with the issue till this is settled imo. |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: The law has not been enjoined, only the untaxed firearms. Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: The law has been enjoined on behalf of the plaintiffs so it's currently no longer in effect for them so there is no legal mechanism to stop said transfers, i.e. not illegal. The law has not been enjoined, only the untaxed firearms. Yes it has, any provisions of the NFA referring to untaxed firearms has been enjoined if you are plaintiff meaning the gov't can no longer restrict them in the way it had been before the suit if you are in the plaintiff group. The enjoinment is about the law not the objects they're referring to. Since they are still considered firearms those are the only restrictions that remain in place. |