Man shoots wife and pets, blames NRA

You are entitled to your misinformed OPINION but it does not alter the FACTUAL REALITY that both UBC and Firearm Registries are CONSTITUTIONAL!

 

None of which alters the factual reality that such matters and the legality of their existence are entirely contingent upon the taxation element of the law in question. If that two hundred dollar tax on the transfer of certain firearms were to be eliminated, the law would no longer be constitutional. That is the sole reason that fee exists, as it serves no other point.

 

Regurgitating your misinformed opinion still has no impact whatsoever on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of UBC and firearms registries.

 

Then demonstrate precisely what the purpose of the two hundred dollar tax serves.

 

That is YOUR asinine STRAWMAN that I have no obligation whatsoever to waste my time addressing!

 

Then do not speak of the national firearms act demonstrating that so-called "universal" background checks and registration are supposedly constitutional for all firearm purchases, when there is no precedent holding such to be the case. The only reason such is regarded as constitutional for fully-automatic firearms, is because the legislation was presented as taxation collection, and only on an extremely limited subset of firearms, rather than all firearms.

As such it is the obligation on the part of yourself to demonstrate the validity of the claim being presented on the part of yourself.

 

WRONG as always!

The PRECEDENT is that the NFA is already part of the Law of the Land which means that it is DEEMED to be CONSTITUTIONAL until challenged and ruled otherwise by the SCOTUS!

Since the NFA INCLUDES both INTRUSIVE background checks AND a firearms REGISTRY that means that they too are DEEMED to be Constitutional.

That is HOW the system WORKS here in America!

I have no obligation to "prove" something that is part of the Law of the Land!

The ONUS is entirely on YOU to prove that it isn't Constitutional!

You can't, as always!

 

Presumptively lawful, as per the words of the Heller ruling itself.

Only with regard to a specific and limited subset of firearms and related devices. Not with regard to all firearms regardless of type or configuration.

Except for the fact that it does not.

It is not necessary on the part of myself to prove the national firearms act is unconstitutional, as such was never the claim. The only necessity is to explain the controls applied to fully-automatic firearms, and only for the purpose of taxation, do not and cannot automatically extend to all firearms in existence. If it could indeed be done as is being claimed on the part of yourself, it would have been done by now. But such has not been done, meaning such cannot be done, as it would never pass constitutional muster, due to amounting to a taxation on the legal exercising of a constitutional right.

 

Semantic tap dancing worthy of Humpty Dumpty in order to cover the embarrassment of having no actual subject matter knowledge duly noted FTR.

 

Then why has it not been done? Why are the firearm-related restrictions found within the national firearms act, not currently present for the purchase of any and all types of firearms currently on the open market? Why has no effort been made to extend them to such?