VIDEO Washington Gun Law: The Beginning of the End of the National Firearms Act

[Hacker]

R/T: 11:47

In the Post-Bruen World, is there any historical analogue that would justify the existence of the National Firearms Act? Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the case of Paxton v. Dettlebach, a challenge to defend Texas Gov't Code 2.052(a), which stated that Texans who built, owned and possessed suppressors inside the State of Texas, would not have to comply with the National Firearms Act. Problem is that ATF flipped out and now we have ourselved a lawsuit. After dismissing the plaintiffs claims the trial court's order is now being appealed by the State of Texas and 3 other plaintiffs in the 5th Circuit. But this argument represents much more than some obscure Texas suppressor law. This is the roadmap for how the NFA can be taken apart in the Post-Bruen World. So, arm yourself with education today. Read the Brief Here. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/...

 

[ShadowMan]

The NFA IS TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL......PERIOD!!

 

[desertvet2]

Americans shall never be dis allowed the possession and use of firearms.

 

[mistaken1]

Are not most if not all of the federal firearms laws based on regulating interstate commerce?
I know I should ask a lawyer but I thought why not throw that out here.

 

[Lone_Hawk]

Are not most if not all of the federal firearms laws based on regulating interstate commerce?
I know I should ask a lawyer but I thought why not throw that out here.

You are correct.

 

[day late]

Americans shall never be dis allowed the possession and use of firearms.

You are right. But that won't stop the left from trying to disarm everyone. To which I say;

MOLON LAVEH!!!

 

[Wildweasel]

You are right. But that won't stop the left from trying to disarm everyone. To which I say;

MOLON LAVEH!!!

Red states will be gun owner-friendly. Blue states will try to regulated ownership of even a picture of a gun into a felony.

 

[Elza]

I would like to know just how many crimes are committed utilizing a suppressor. The numbers have to be minuscule.

If this actually goes through the next step is SBR's and SBS's. We have hand guns that are chambered for rifle calibers and for shotshells and have had for many years. What's the difference?

ETA: I failed to clarify that I am refering to the use of illegal suppressors. Oops!

 

[Mark D]

I would like to know just how many crimes are committed utilizing a suppressor. The numbers have to be minuscule.

If this actually goes through the next step is SBR's and SBS's. We have hand guns that are chambered for rifle calibers and for shotshells and have had for many years. What's the difference?

I guess I can't speak for ALL suppressor owners, but I'll say that the amount of paperwork and $$$ you need to fork over (and fingerprinting + background check) in order to buy a suppressor is PROHIBITIVE; I can't imagine that anybody who jumps through all those hoops is gonna go on a rampage with one.

 

[Elza]

I guess I can't speak for ALL suppressor owners, but I'll say that the amount of paperwork and $$$ you need to fork over (and fingerprinting + background check) in order to buy a suppressor is PROHIBITIVE; I can't imagine that anybody who jumps through all those hoops is gonna go on a rampage with one.

Very true. The same with full auto. I should have clarified that I was refering to illegal supressors.

 

[Mark D]

Very true. The same with full auto. I should have clarified that I was referring to illegal suppressors.

I tend to think the MSM (and the Democrats) would be positively breathless if they had the opportunity to report on a crime that involved a suppressor; it would likely dominate the news cycle for days.

The silence is deafening.

 

[ArisenCarcass]

I've been watching this one, as it is an anti-NFA bellwether.

The great part about this case is that NFA and GCA classify silencers/suppressors as firearms legally.
The ATF is arguing that they are actually not firearms, only firearms accessories and can be regulated and infringed upon as such.
So, the ATF is arguing a position counter to the law that they are supposed to enforce.

Remember that the NFA is far more of an infringement today, as the standard issue rifle for "tip-of-the-spear" guys is a full auto SBR with a supressor.........a 3x NFA item.

I honestly wish that the NFA tax stamp would be challenged as an onerous and capricious tax.
$200 isn't that much today, but it was 20x the price of a "gun muffler" from 1934 and 4x more than a Thompson SMG from a Sears catalog.
Mind you, the median yearly income in 1934 was $1419.
NFA 1934 was passed as a classist attempt to disarm the populace of the most effective weapons of the day.
Who could spend 1/7th of their yearly income on a tax for a weapon, and additionally buy the weapon?


Now that the ATF has effectively closed the Form 1 suppressor creation, this case matters even more.
Apparently the ATF says that you must know what you are going to turn into an NFA item, and they want specifics and pictures to Form 1 it.......but ATF also says that if you have a kit or pieces that you want to turn into a suppressor, that you are guilty of constructive possession.
Anything to go after law-abiding gun owners that ask permission and believe in the system, rather than the G-switched gangbangers that would kill them in Ciraq (and the little Chiraqs that are popping up all over the country).
This is similar to the auto-key card case that just got a guilty verdict (for selling the picture of an out of spec, unusable lighting link that was laser etched on a metal business card).

 

[ShadowMan]

 

[ShadowMan]