User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:08:11 AM EDT
[#1]
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) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:08:20 AM EDT
[#2]
NFA of 1968?
You mean the GCA of 1968? Or the NFA of 1934? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:09:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Better yet is to get the right court to throw out the provisions of the 1968 GCA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:10:10 AM EDT
[#4]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:11:11 AM EDT
[#5]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:13:24 AM EDT
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:14:35 AM EDT
[#7]
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'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:18:05 AM EDT
[#8]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:18:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Would be easier to get rid of the 86ban first then go after the NFA as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:21:17 AM EDT
[#10]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:28:47 AM EDT
[#11]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:30:19 AM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2005 9:36:22 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
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.
