GOA files petition for Cert in SCOTUS against NFA

https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of...sI0XtH8qFS1lPl2wfCaFFLV5otcft4uNl680Z3Nb7udCs


The link above has a link to the petition itself.

The petition attacks the NFA on two separate prongs: 1) improper use of taxation power. Essentially that its not a tax at all and that its most onerous and burdensome pieces have **** all to do with taxation. This includes an argument that the "tax" is simply a lie and it is not in fact a measure with its primary motivation to generate revenue; and 2) that suppressors are 2a protected IE that the 2a protects pieces of firearms not simply whole firearms and that therefore the tax imposes an unconstitutional burden on a constitutional right.

Thoughts all?

 

1: Duh. Any tax laid with the intent to limit the exercise of a right violates the Constitution; the $200 tax laid in 1934 is exactly that.
2: Not so sure. Silencers are parts, and while magazines and ammunition are parts, they are essential to the operation of a firearm. Silencers, not so much.

Note that the $200 tax laid in 1934 is about $3800 today.

 

1) This would be the first case since 37 to try that argument. Its an obvious argument but one stayed far away from by certain organizations which shall not be named.
2) All you're telling me is that if you make them integral to the barrel I'm good to go for sure and arguably good to go even now.
3) There is also the state's right component (Kansas law protected literally exactly what he was doing. )
4) Most encouraging for this case is the sympathetic petitioner. Combat vet, medical discharge partially for hearing loss, buying an item protected under state law to mitigate that disability.

 

If that $200 - let alone $3800 in 2018 dollars - were laid on abortions, my point would be screamed loud enough to be heard on the moon.

The barrel is essential to the operation of the firearm, the silencer is not.

I really don't see the silencer argument going very far.

 

They haven't even retouched the tax.. Its still just $200.00. That's one of the main thrusts of the "its not a revenue generating mechanism" prong. As you state $200 in the 30's was a **** ton of money to spend on top of buying the gun, or even at all.
Now though its not so much. Taxes are retouched so they generate revenue, but this one was never intended to generate revenue so of course it hasn't been retouched.

If the suppressor is integrated into the barrel of the firearm your argument goes away. Not to mention that by that logic they can ban stocks and grips so you have to awkwardly cradle the receiver and barrel to fire because a stock is not essential to the operation of the arm.

Its a suppressor Elmer, not a silencer. It doesn't silence gun shots, it muffles them slightly so they don't damage your hearing. Even low cal suppressed is loud.

 

A suppressor, Elmer, is not necessary for the basic function of a firearm.
Thus, unlike barrels, trigger, stocks, magazines, ammunition, etc, it will be hard to argue they are protected by the 2nd.
If you ban barrels, you render firearms unusable; if you ban suppressors, not so much.

 

Sounds like you need to update yourself on what's possible and in the market Mr. Fudd, o wisest and mightiest of hunters.

https://www.suppressedweaponsystems.com/products/ar-15-uppers/

"Unlike traditional thread-on suppressors, the barrel and suppressor are one and the same in our integral suppressed barrels. "

Barrel = required to operate firearm.
Suppressor = integrated inextricably into the barrel itself designed for the particular weapon.
QED The integrally suppressed barrel is a required component to the operation of the firearm.


Also: I note your full dodge on the whole "by that logic they can ban stocks and grips" bit. No answer on that bud? Grip nor stock are required to touch off the arm. They just help with ergonomics, with ease of use. Just like the suppressor.

 

Let's try an exercise: You read the petition and then let's talk about the case, ok?

 

Nothing here addresses, much less negates what I said.
If you ban barrels, you render firearms unusable; if you ban suppressors, not so much.
Let me know when you can show how suppressors are integral to the function of a firearm.

 

According to the ATF itself, a silencer or suppressor is a firearm in regards to the NFA 1934. See "definitions" on the Form 4.

 

Should the USSC take this appeal, it will rule that silencers are not protected by the 2nd for the reasons I have stated.
You may bookmark this post and congratulate me when the ruling comes down.

 

Even if such is the case, it does not mean such is a legitimate reason for suppressors to be regulated by the national firearms act.

 

Did you not see the link to an integrally suppressed weapon, the barrel of which is itself a suppressor?

O... you cut it out of the quote like the rather dashing and brave individual you obviously are.

 

Dont confuse the Fudd.

 

We'd have to wonder why they're restricted by NFA at all. ATF registers them as a firearm, and they're certainly in common use for lawful purposes, with over 1 million of them if lawful hands. They aren't destructive. They do less for making a weapon more effective than a red dot sight or scope. They're sold over the counter in more than one European country.

All I can think of is bureaucratic inertia, Hollywood and low information voters.

Edit: and of course the apparent willingness of the ATF to flip flop on their long held definitions.

 

Insulting your opponent never helps.

 

Get real dude -- you don't like my application of current law to the issue at hand? I'll survive.

 

Of course - but the fact is, they are. Sadly, legislation to change this died in congress.

 

Which would explain the GOA action.

 

You mean the existing law that classifies suppressors as firearms? That existing law?

Or do you mean when you consistently feigned being obtuse to the fact that suppressors exist which are actually also the barrel of the weapon? As in not attached to the barrel but constituting the barrel itself?

 

You refuse to understand my point. I will let you.
When you can demonstrate that firearms requires a suppressor to function effectively, let me know.

 

It does, but it's a fools errand - while the NFA34 is faulty for any number of reasons; the argument against the tax is solid, but the argument that the 2nd protects suppressors is not.

 

A weapon with an integrated suppressor, a single example of many which I linked you and you have consistently avoided addressing since it kills your argument, whose barrel is LITERALLY the suppressor qualifies.
You're welcome Elmer. Carry on.

 

Except the court doesn't need to get to the 2a issues, it can rule on solely the tax issue. And likely will since one of the Ocare cases would have to be overturned if they say the tax issue is a non-issue.
I don't think Robert's and the libs are liable to do that, do you?

 

... which is not necessary for the function of the firearm, and thus not protected by the 2nd as such parts are.