Semi Autos to be an NFA item.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • LP1

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 8, 2010
    1,825
    48
    Friday Town
    Impeached by the house and removed by the senate.

    No grounds for it. High crimes? Seriously?

    The level of denial among some folks about a legitimately elected president is truly frightening, not to mention the basic lack of knowledge about how our government works.
     

    windellmc

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jan 5, 2011
    545
    18
    Greenwood
    In Miller the argument the SCOTUS used to uphold the regulation of SBS's was that they were not a legitimate military weapon protected by the 2A.

    I believe there is more to it than that but it stands to reason that with our military using every type of NFA item on a regular basis and now that the 2A has been expanded to include personal defense in public it is only a matter of time before any regulation regarding the inability to possess and carry arms will be struck down.

    The NFA is specifically designed to do so, not just to tax the populace and the ATF readily admits it on its website.

    What I read actually happened in Miller was the SCOTUS asked Miller to provide evidence the gun in question had military value. The military had used SBS in WWI I believe and probably WWII. Miller was murdered before it could go back to the SCOTUS though and the other guy involved decided to not push the case. That all seems pretty fishy if you think about it. It seems like the SCOTUS was going to rule that all military weapons were protected under the 2nd (which was the founders' intent) if the case had continued. Makes you wonder about the circumstances of Miller's murder...
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,608
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    What I read actually happened in Miller was the SCOTUS asked Miller to provide evidence the gun in question had military value. The military had used SBS in WWI I believe and probably WWII. Miller was murdered before it could go back to the SCOTUS though and the other guy involved decided to not push the case. That all seems pretty fishy if you think about it. It seems like the SCOTUS was going to rule that all military weapons were protected under the 2nd (which was the founders' intent) if the case had continued. Makes you wonder about the circumstances of Miller's murder...

    I forgot about Miller being murdered but I thought they still finished the decision.
     

    Bunnykid68

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Mar 2, 2010
    23,515
    83
    Cave of Caerbannog
    Seems like a "reasonable" next step. It's not infringing upon your right, it is merely adding a "tax" for revenue creating reasons. If it is their intention to do so it should pass with no problems. Well, with as much problems as the original NFA had in becoming law anyway.

    I doubt any "galvanizing" will occur. People will complain then everyone who has guns will rush to get them registered under some kind of grandfather clause like they did when the NFA became law.

    Technically, rights are not allowed to be taxed
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,608
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    What I read actually happened in Miller was the SCOTUS asked Miller to provide evidence the gun in question had military value. The military had used SBS in WWI I believe and probably WWII. Miller was murdered before it could go back to the SCOTUS though and the other guy involved decided to not push the case. That all seems pretty fishy if you think about it. It seems like the SCOTUS was going to rule that all military weapons were protected under the 2nd (which was the founders' intent) if the case had continued. Makes you wonder about the circumstances of Miller's murder...

    United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Very interesting indeed. The defense never even had a chance and you are correct, the military had used SBS in combat prior to Miller.
     

    Titanium_Frost

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Feb 6, 2011
    7,608
    83
    Southwestern Indiana
    Technically, rights are not allowed to be taxed

    Please cite your source. Parade permits, speech permits, designated protest areas, IRS fees for setting up a nonprofit religious group, firearm carry permits, I can go on.

    As far as I know, there is no real limit imposed on Congress to tax except that the people can elect new leaders the next term.
     
    Top Bottom