Judge rules that major portions of the National Firearms Act are unconstitutional

Pretty sure that was kinda the plan.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS will do the same thing they did with Obamacare after the mandate/tax was eliminated (and the 5th Circuit declared it unconstitutional).

Shall not be infringed but shall be taxed heavily, thus resulting in a type of infringement.

So I no longer have to hide my rifle with the suppressor on it?

quote:

---

Explain please. How is getting rid of a tax unconstitutional regardless if a suppressor is legal or not.

I am sure I don't understand. It sound like, suppressors are restricted so they must have a tax on them. So it is illegal tell sell something unless there is a special tax on it.

Please clarify for me.

---

The government has historically argued in court that the NFA is legally a tax scheme, not a regulatory scheme, in order to escape 2A scrutiny. The NFA is the law that prescribed a $200 tax and registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, etc.

By removing the $200 tax via reconciliation, Republicans effectively kneecapped the ability of the government to argue its constitutionality as a tax scheme. Because how can something be a tax scheme and not a regulatory scheme if it collects $0 in taxes while functionally providing a ton of administrative hurdles?

It's really a very simple ruling, the NFA tax was set to $0 by congress and signed into law. The tax was the underpinning foundation of the NFA, a tax that generates no revenue cannot be justified and the powers that allowed the NFA to be enacted in the first place requires tax revenue. No tax revenue, no NFA.

quote:

---

Explain please. How is getting rid of a tax unconstitutional regardless if a suppressor is legal or not.

I am sure I don't understand. It sound like, suppressors are restricted so they must have a tax on them. So it is illegal tell sell something unless there is a special tax on it.

Please clarify for me.

---

I haven't read this in detail, but I think I have an idea (and I hope I'm right)...

The legal justifications for the NFA stuff were always tax-based. Because you had to pay a tax for a suppressor, SBR, etc, they could get away with requiring additional steps (registration and deeper background checks etc) than a "standard" firearm would need. That was always the sticking point in prior challenges.

Now that the "tax" is $0, that isn't the case. So I'm guessing under purely legal and constitutional merits, you can not justify requiring registration of a SBR, and any challenge would lead to that conclusion.

quote:

---

By removing the $200 tax via reconciliation, Republicans effectively kneecapped the ability of the government to argue its constitutionality as a tax scheme. Because how can something be a tax scheme and not a regulatory scheme if it collects $0 in taxes while functionally providing a ton of administrative hurdles?

---

I have no idea but you should ask Chief Justice Roberts because that is basically what he did with the ACA back in 2012.

quote:

---

Good explanation. Can you elaborate on real world impacts for citizens?

---

If you are not a covered plaintiff (i.e. a member of FPC, GOA, et. al.) this means nothing to you right now. This decision will likely be challenged up to the 5th circuit, where I expect it will be upheld (with 5th circuit being arguably the most pro-2A circuit of all). After that, a challenge by the ATF or other party could send it to SCOTUS. There could also be another circuit court ruling contravening this, which could then provide impetus for SCOTUS to take it up.

I think ultimately the NFA will be largely struck down in the next 5 years. This case opens the door for all those pieces to fall into place.

So, for most people, nothing will change in the meantime. But if and when the NFA is struck down in large part, you'll be able to go into a store, pay, and walk out with a suppressor. And put a stock on an 11" rifle instead of a "pistol brace".

quote:

---

So if you're a gun loving republican, are we happy, or pissed?

---

This is very good news.

Also, I'm not an attorney so I need to do some digging on exactly who/what is entitled to injunctive relief here. Importantly for this board, the State of Louisiana joined the lawsuit, so I'm not sure what that means for LA residents who aren't members of the organizational and industry plaintiff set.

The only thing that was keeping me from getting a can was being put on a registry. It's about damn time.