Feinstein's Take on a "New" AWB

[FJ540]

What if we all just keep on doing what we're doing?

Do they really have enough jail cells for 5 million more of us? Would a jury convict?

I'm not volunteering to be a test case, but maybe it's time to challenge the legality of such restrictions. Since the object is not the cause of the outcome, why not force the SCOTUS to hear an NFA challenge? They've affirmed the citizen's right to self defense - lets take it further.

[goett047]

What if we all just keep on doing what we're doing?

Do they really have enough jail cells for 5 million more of us? Would a jury convict?

I'm not volunteering to be a test case, but maybe it's time to challenge the legality of such restrictions. Since the object is not the cause of the outcome, why not force the SCOTUS to hear an NFA challenge? They've affirmed the citizen's right to self defense - lets take it further.

This

[xd ED]

How does the SCOTUS get forced to hear a case?

[FJ540]

You'd need to get a non-affirming decision in a lower federal court. IIRC

So basically someone would need to sue the fed for discrimination on a NFA item with the 2A as their basis for evidence. Come to think of it, we might be able to use the same approach for suppressors.

Not a lawyer: but that's my guess on what it would take/how it could be done.

Basically, the NFA is a tax on allowed items which is no different than "poll taxes" where rights are denied via financial barriers. Poll taxes are illegal, thus NFA taxes should also be illegal.

[jshuberg]

Basically, the NFA is a tax on allowed items which is no different than "poll taxes" where rights are denied via financial barriers. Poll taxes are illegal, thus NFA taxes should also be illegal.

NFA transfer taxes and poll taxes are completely different animals. We pay taxes on "allowed items" all the time. Pretty much on everything actually.

Poll taxes were applied to an entitlement, or a service the government was mandated to provide to the people. Specifically establishing an election system, setting up and staffing election workers. This and that the taxes were designed to be a barrier to entry for the poor and black.

While we have a 2A right to keep and bear arms, there is no entitlement involved that the NFA is taxing. The government is not required to provide you an NFA weapon as your only option for exercising your 2A rights, and then taxing it. Combine this with the recent Obamacare ruling that not only can you be taxed on your activities, you can be taxed on your inactivities, I would be very surprised if NFA taxes were found unconstitutional.

The keeping of the registry, requiring written permission to cross state lines, and the 1986 machine gun ban may be something the court would find as overreaching, but congress has broad and almost unlimited power to tax.

This needs to be shutdown in the legislature. Let a Supreme Court challenge be made from a state with an AWB already on the books. If this legislation passes, we're screwed. Magazine capacity may not be a 2A issue, so the court likely wouldn't be a help to us there.

.....well, maybe. If the court determined that the arms that are protected extend to all small arms that an infantryman carries into battle, as was the original intent, an argument could be made for 30 round mags as they are standard military equipment. So far the court has only spoke to arms for the purpose of hunting and self defense. The notion of arms for the defense of state and country being protected hasn't yet been determined. This would likely take decades.