10th Cir finds NFA requiring the registration of certain guns, is constitutional

[mergatroid]

Suppose the NFA is amended to impose a tax of $5.00 per bullet for any round that can be fired in a modern firearm. While I agree that this case does not "stand for the proposition that something that violates the 2d Amendment is constitutional," what I am saying is that a court can easily use this case, and some of the cases cited therein, to make the argument that because it it a tax, and the constitution specifically gives congress the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," (Art 1, Section 8) that it is constitutional irrespective of a burden on the exercise of our 2A rights.
You and I may agree that is completely wrong, but the door is certainly open to that if there are 5 progressives on the Supreme Court.

What do you think?

.
Maybe this has already been covered, but I have a hard time thinking you could divorce ammo from the "arm" as you suggest.

 

[HoughMade]

.
Maybe this has already been covered, but I have a hard time thinking you could divorce ammo from the "arm" as you suggest.

I agree.

 

[T.Lex]

I think that's an issue SCOTUS will have to take up in the next few years.

 

[HoughMade]

I think that's an issue SCOTUS will have to take up in the next few years.

Hopefully sooner rather than later:

"You say Kava, I say Naugh!"

"Kava!"

-"Naugh!"

"Kava!"

-"Naugh!"

...And don't get jealous, Justice Thomas, you're still my favs.

 

[T.Lex]

Can we hear the Corvette story again?

 

[HoughMade]

Can we hear the Corvette story again?

Oh, no one wants to hear that old story again....

....I'll tell it after i get back from a deposition.

 

[worddoer]

Interesting to me was the statement that silencers are entirely viewed as an accessory, not an actual “arm”, and therefore fall outside of the purview of the second amendment.

I find that concerning. Is this the justification for the bump stock ban? What about magazines and ammunition? Are they also "accessories" that are not worthy of 2nd amendment protections?

I could see this train of thought being used to ban or limit all the things that you need to use a firearm. That would make all the guns out there really expensive paperweights.

 

[HoughMade]

Can we hear the Corvette story again?

Stop begging.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ugh-confirmation-hearings-72.html#post7661489

 

[Jmiyake]

It wasn't unexpected at all. there are so many federal court vacancies currently it is kind of nuts. Judicial Vacancies | United States Courts

It will be interesting to watch given the political climate whether the hearing protection act pipe dream will come to fruition and if the republicans are able to maintain maybe we will see the courts begin to get filled with young conservative judges

 

[GIJEW]

I don't think it stands for the proposition that something that violates the 2d Amendment is constitutional because you call it a tax. They found that the 2d Amendment is not violated by restricting "silencers" because they are not constitutional "arms" and SBRs do not fit the Heller definition of the kind of arms that cannot be prohibited. Since neither, in their view, have 2d Amendment protection, then if they are subject to regulation, then they can be taxed even if the tax is a backdoor ban.

It seems to me that the "...in common use" part of the the Heller decision regarding what guns can be prohibited, is just bad law.
In common use, when? If gov't and the left had their way, our RKBA would be fossilized at whatever pre-ban level the gov't condescended to allow us, and how does that not go against "...shall not be infringed"? The primary reason that the 2A is in the BOR is to prevent tyranny. Giving gov't the authority to prohibit the public from having guns suitable for that purpose, flies in the face of the founders intent. It's one thing for gov't to regulate guns to "protect" us from ourselves, but regulation isn't prohibition.

 

[HoughMade]

It seems to me that the "...in common use" part of the the Heller decision regarding what guns can be prohibited, is just bad law...

I agree.