Posted: 1/28/2010 9:15:55 AM EDT
| http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/colorado-south-dakota-firearms-freedom-act-introduced/ |
| Hard to say. I'll definitely get in touch with my rep about this. It would really open up the NFA market if this legislation would supercede NFA laws/taxes. Think, if Magpul started manufacturing silencers, SBR ACRs, etc in house, end users would be exempt from paying $200 in stamps for passing GO. That is, if I'm reading this legislation correctly... |
| Let me get this straight: This act, if passed, would nulilfy any federal laws applicable to firearms if they are made in the state and stay inside the state? Like you don't need to pass a NICS check first? I really don't see that as happening. Not needing a tax stamp and sherrif's signature would be sweet, though. |
|
Quoted:
Let me get this straight: This act, if passed, would nulilfy any federal laws applicable to firearms if they are made in the state and stay inside the state? Like you don't need to pass a NICS check first? I really don't see that as happening. Not needing a tax stamp and sherrif's signature would be sweet, though. Since even by the states laws, a NFA items but be registered, the state would need to approve/create such on a local level before you where allowed to posses such in that state. So even if passed, there would still need to be state based registrations instituted afterwards before you could posses such. |
|
I spoke to my rep the other day during a Scott Mcinnis rally and he was one of the co-sponsors. I wanted to ask Acott what he thought about it, but he was pretty swamped.
Next time I'm around Scott ( My wife might begin working for him on his campaign ), I'll make it a point to see what he thinks about it. I do think it has a chance of passing, and also think we might have some good results come November. We will see... TGC |
|
Quoted:
best case it passes and the BATF looks at it like the DEA looks a medical marjuana?????? When BATFE works for a president who, as a senator, told John Lott to his face "I don't think people should have guns," I'm not holding my breath for a sensible use of discretion. |
|
Quoted:
Hard to say. I'll definitely get in touch with my rep about this. It would really open up the NFA market if this legislation would supercede NFA laws/taxes. Think, if Magpul started manufacturing silencers, SBR ACRs, etc in house, end users would be exempt from paying $200 in stamps for passing GO. That is, if I'm reading this legislation correctly... Couldn't find the text of the bill in the link. But if it's anything like Montana's bill, NFA is specifically NOT covered. Only non-machinegun/destructive devices are covered. ETA: Found this on the Senate site: "(3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO: (a) A FIREARM THAT CANNOT BE CARRIED AND USED BY ONE PERSON; (b) A FIREARM THAT HAS A BORE DIAMETER GREATER THAN ONE-AND-ONE-HALF INCHES AND THAT USES SMOKELESS POWDER, RATHER THAN BLACK POWDER, AS A PROPELLANT; (c) AMMUNITION WITH A PROJECTILE THAT EXPLODES USING AN EXPLOSION OF CHEMICAL ENERGY AFTER THE PROJECTILE LEAVES THE FIREARM; OR (d) A FIREARM, OTHER THAN A SHOTGUN, THAT DISCHARGES TWO OR MORE PROJECTILES WITH ONE ACTIVATION OF THE TRIGGER OR OTHER FIRING DEVICE." NFA not applicable to this bill (although it does leave out shotguns that fire two or more projectiles. Is this just referring to the shot from a normal round, or more than one round?). |