Recusant
Hellcat
I wonder if this is harbinger of a ruling yet to come on binary triggers like the Rare Breed? The court agreed that the "ban is a reasonable interpretation of a federal law prohibiting machine gun possession."
Supreme court rejects challenge to ban bump stocks
- Thread starter Recusant
- Start date
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Note how the writer states that the NRA is aligned with Republicans 
Recusant
Hellcat
Or is it the other way around? It's hard to tell who backs who in today's political climate.Note how the writer states that the NRA is aligned with Republicans
Talyn
SAINT
While they have ruled previously (1939), the SOCUTUS should realize that the NFA, GCA, etc. are all un-Constitutional under the 10th Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people).
The NFA was a direct response to gang violence, this act imposed criminal, regulatory and tax requirements on weapons favored by gangsters: machine guns, silencers and sawed-off shotguns.
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about the configuration of firearms. Therefore, only the states can impose regulatory requirements on firearm types and ownership.
The Commerce Clause has been used as a back-door approach to regulate firearms nation-wide through the NFA and since. In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case United States v. Miller, ruling that through the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress could regulate the interstate selling of a short barrel shotgun.
The NFA was a direct response to gang violence, this act imposed criminal, regulatory and tax requirements on weapons favored by gangsters: machine guns, silencers and sawed-off shotguns.
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about the configuration of firearms. Therefore, only the states can impose regulatory requirements on firearm types and ownership.
The Commerce Clause has been used as a back-door approach to regulate firearms nation-wide through the NFA and since. In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case United States v. Miller, ruling that through the National Firearms Act of 1934, Congress could regulate the interstate selling of a short barrel shotgun.
Last edited:
Funwithfuel
Custom
I guess Jerry Miculek better form 1 his hand before the AFT comes to confiscate it. Since we're not looking at the mechanics as written in law but the "rate of fire" as perceived by others. I believe that the Supreme Court dropped the ball on this one. They really could have shown the alphabet gangsters where their role lies.
Pitdogg2
Professional
Agree.
Funwithfuel
Custom
Agreed, they just got the ok to run roughshod on our rights. I imagine rarebreeds lawsuit will be rendered null as well as all the copies. Next year or maybe even in the same breadth, binaries. I mean where does it stop?
Still think I'm crying, "the sky is falling?" Yeah, you know who you are.
Attachments
Funwithfuel
Custom
I'm just making a point here. In case anybody missed updated rules on when an 80% becomes a receiver, an 80% and a jig equal a receiver. Even if no fire control pocket has been relieved or trigger pin bores have been drilled. Yes. Intent. That's what we're back to. But hey, its only paranoia till it's proven, they really were out to get you.
Attachments
Keystone19250
SAINT
Agree.