testtest

House Committee ‘Betrayal’ On Suppressor Deregulation Legislation Draws Criticism

Once an NFA item always an NFA item. The gov't has ever taken any off the list. The feds are always going to want to know who owns what and has strict rules on tranfers. Some folks argue that since you pay a tax to the gov't to own it this may make it more difficult to go back later and say you can't own it. If you don't have to pay the tax I'm afraid the gov't could declare them contraband much like they've tried to do with brace pistols and binary or forced-reset triggers. After all, the gov't never cares what you paid for something should they decide you shouldn't have it.
 
Recusant said:
Once an NFA item always an NFA item. The gov't has ever taken any off the list. The feds are always going to want to know who owns what and has strict rules on tranfers. Some folks argue that since you pay a tax to the gov't to own it this may make it more difficult to go back later and say you can't own it. If you don't have to pay the tax I'm afraid the gov't could declare them contraband much like they've tried to do with brace pistols and binary or forced-reset triggers. After all, the gov't never cares what you paid for something should they decide you shouldn't have it.
Click to expand...
Yes Sir
 
My own Congressman, David Kustoff, was one of those who just wanted to reduce the tax, but keep NFA. We all felt betrayed because he's always been a staunch 2A defender. However, it only took a couple of days and several thousand e-mails and phone calls from highly pissed constituents to make him see the light. He has come to Jesus and now fully supports total deregulation of suppressors. 😁
 
Posted on X from the NRA-

GrivvZGXMAAL1ew.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top