re: It is a great day for the Republic

quote:

---

Was talking to a guy at Scheels in Iowa City just yesterday. He never mentioned what your link says. He is the one who told me that I could fill out the paperwork to get my tax money refunded. Starting to think that dude was full of shite or that I was wishcasting too much....

---

The state level need to have them registered is a big downer, for many of us, I agree.
I don't want to say that your associate was full of it, don't know him. But you should let him know that Iowa still requires the registration at state level. And he wants to avoid taking anything into Illinois, as they have a total ban.
It's a step forward. Now we need to push hard at the state officials in office, especially if they are up for re-election.

quote:

---

What do you think will happen to the 2nd amendment once Thomas and the other conservatives retire? Surely a political genius such as yourself can figure that out, let me guess “we’ll line up in the streets” lol sure you will. But hey keep celebrating those “wins” while the national government lurches to the left

---

It takes more than the USSC to get rid of an Amendment there Mr Political Genius.....

Will also add; by that time, I will be in a country where firing a weapon without a suppressor is considered "very rude". Hopefully this country will get there one day, but we have too many geniuses here who think supressed firearms sound just like they do in movies.

quote:

---

The state level need to have them registered is a big downer, for many of us, I agree.
I don't want to say that your associate was full of it, don't know him. But you should let him know that Iowa still requires the registration at state level. And he wants to avoid taking anything into Illinois, as they have a total ban.
It's a step forward. Now we need to push hard at the state officials in office, especially if they are up 

---

I may be wrong, but the way I read your link is this way:

Iowa is a "tied state" meaning SBRs and suppressors are legal only if registered with the ATF. This would mean I would still have to fill out the Form 1 to replace the brace with a stock on my 300blk pistol and pay the "processing fee" of $200.

Am I reading that wrong?

quote:

---

may be wrong, but the way I read your link is this way:

Iowa is a "tied state" meaning SBRs and suppressors are legal only if registered with the ATF. This would mean I would still have to fill out the Form 1 to replace the brace with a stock on my 300blk pistol and pay the "processing fee" of $200.

Am I reading that wrong?

---

Ok, I'm not trying to dodge your question. It's a really good question. Very pertinent too, since I'm sure quite a few of us will be ditching the brace and converting to SBR.
I would talk to your local FFLs on this one. They know your local state laws.
If the fee is under state law, it still applies. If it's a fee that was covered under Trump's Big Beautiful Bill then the ATF is no longer charging them. But I think that's only the $200 fee on the tax stamp. Which I believe is what you're referencing.

My recommendation. Sit on this for a few days til after the holidays. (You know the gov... Business days only) (Since FFLs get their info from gov, which may be closed this monday.)
Most FFLs will not answer, until they know concretely from ATF, because selling under misinformation could land them in prison.


https://www.fflsearch.net/blog/2026-nfa-tax-stamp-changes-what-ffls-and-gun-owners-need-to-know

You can’t seriously be claiming that the SC wouldn’t be capable of ruling that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals? It has ruled on it in the last 20 years. It’s why you can’t be taken seriously as an actual conservative

quote:

---

let me guess “we’ll line up in the streets” lol sure you will.

---

I think you're wrong about that for reasons I will post in a minute, but let's say you're right. Let's say that no matter how egregious the tyranny is, the citizenry will not stand up against it.

Then the 2nd Amendment is moot anyway. We don't have the 2nd for hunting or plinking, or even personal protection. It's for opposing government tyranny when necessary. If we refuse to do so, then it doesn't matter what happens to it.

But I think you're wrong that people wouldn't react, because the court deciding that the 2nd doesn't apply to citizens means nothing unless the government is willing to confiscate the guns.

And that's when it would get real.

quote:

---

Sorry you are only a 1 policy voter. I can actually support both closing the border, reducing the debt, 2A , and other policies. If candidates only support 1 of those policies, then they are to narrow focused and will not get my vote.

---

Help me understand who you are voting for who will do this

quote:

---

You can’t seriously be claiming that the SC wouldn’t be capable of ruling that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals? It has ruled on it in the last 20 years. 

---

Yes, and ruled in it's favor, even with more "progressive" judges. Courts follow what is called precedent my man. There is plenty precedent on the books.

quote:

---

It’s why you can’t be taken seriously as an actual conservative

---

Really? You don't say.

quote:

---

Then the 2nd Amendment is moot anyway. We don't have the 2nd for hunting or plinking, or even personal protection. It's for opposing government tyranny when necessary. If we refuse to do so, then it doesn't matter what happens to it.

---

More true than anyone wishes to admit...