Is there anyone going to challenge the NFAs??

imported post

Mike wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

Ok, are you guys talking about challenging the NFA in it's entirety, or just taking on 922(o)? Taking on NFA entirely is much more difficult than taking on just 922(o) (which is a ban on civilian possession of select fire weapons made after May 19th, 1986), and even then, taking on 922(o) is a very tough proposition.

We have 4 SCOTUS justices for certain who would be for taking out 922(o).

Click to expand...

Huh? You think 4 justices are going to agree to let machine guns proliferate in the United States over the objection of Congress? Really? We don't even have an established right to carry in public with a license, let alone the right to possess an unusal weapon lik a machine gun.

Litigation is path dependent - go for the easiest low hanging fruit first - this must occur over years, even decades. Each case is a stepping stone. reach to high at first, and the ledge will break off, blocking your path forever.

Do people on this board really not understand this??

Click to expand...

Yes, we do! Just having an 'academic' discussion. The low-hanging fruit is quite abundant and more urgent.

imported post

What I am saying is that the NFA in its entirety is wholly unconstitutional! the 2,14,and 10th amendments basically stress that!!! So does anyone know if there is an organization out there somewhere or someone who is challenging or is trying to challenge this infringement on our rights?!

imported post

sandbandit0331 wrote:

What I am saying is that the NFA in its entirety is wholly unconstitutional! the 2,14,and 10th amendments basically stress that!!! So does anyone know if there is an organization out there somewhere or someone who is challenging or is trying to challenge this infringement on our rights?!

Click to expand...

There was a group (1934 something), not sure if they are still around, site is down, but here is an article on them...Stephen Halbrookchallenged the LEO sign off and lost, can't find the case (even on his site) but look around its out there.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=1817

imported post

sandbandit0331 wrote:

IS there any organization out the that will reach down and grab hold and challenge the national firearms acts and finally restore our full right to bear arms?! Also does anyone think there is a snow balls chance in hell of winning?

Click to expand...

Sandbandit,

I've felt for a while that we on the "pro" side need to unite and figure out what our "end game" is; to essentially come up with an overarching goal or list of goals.

The anti side, no matter how much they claim to be in favor of "sensible gun laws" basically has one goal: universal disarmament of non-military and non-police. (And I'm sure that there are some super-extreme wackos among those who want cops and soldiers to lay down their arms, too.)

There's a saying, "begin with the end in mind." And for the most part I haven't seen too much of that. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that I haven't perceived it.

What I'm sure that I have seen is mostly defensive thinking - battling different new rules and restrictions as they are rolled out at the state, municipal and federal level.
I think our side does yeoman work in rolling back that crap as it appears, but it's a withering assault, and we need to go on the offensive - aggressively looking to repeal onerous rules and laws.

I live in New York State, one of the few that requires a permit to simply *own* a handgun (concealed carry requires a whole additional licensing process, which is very much "may issue"). I don't see the NRA, NYSRPA, etc. doing anything to repeal this madness.

The antis know what they want and can articulate it, even when they dress it up in the cloak of moderation.

imported post

Overtaxed wrote:

The antis know what they want and can articulate it, even when they dress it up in the cloak of moderation.

Click to expand...

Their job is a little easier though. The legislation they want doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be scientifically sound or morally justified. They just run off of emotional arguments that they can get support for by either using mass hysteria or calling the pro-firearm people gun nuts and extremists.

imported post

It's a lot like open carrying was until recently. It's a cause waiting to be taken on.

With something like 80 million gun owners in this country, it should be an easy problem to fix. The problem is apathy and laziness. I'll be the among the first to get behind a major effort to restore our rights, whether they be open carrying, abolishing the NFA, or any other effort to enforce the constitution.

But as of yet way too few people have ever been willing to come together and challenge the unconstitutional NFA, GCA, and 922 (o). It's an odd thing, given the easy spread of information on the web these days. Millions of people should be writing and calling their reps weekly about it, and protests over these piece of shit laws should happen frequently. But if you bring that up people usually just say something like"nah, it won't do any good, I don't wanna waste my time."

imported post

Mike wrote:

Gray Peterson wrote:

Ok, are you guys talking about challenging the NFA in it's entirety, or just taking on 922(o)? Taking on NFA entirely is much more difficult than taking on just 922(o) (which is a ban on civilian possession of select fire weapons made after May 19th, 1986), and even then, taking on 922(o) is a very tough proposition.

We have 4 SCOTUS justices for certain who would be for taking out 922(o).

Click to expand...

Huh? You think 4 justices are going to agree to let machine guns proliferate in the United States over the objection of Congress? Really? We don't even have an established right to carry in public with a license, let alone the right to possess an unusal weapon lik a machine gun.

Litigation is path dependent - go for the easiest low hanging fruit first - this must occur over years, even decades. Each case is a stepping stone. reach to high at first, and the ledge will break off, blocking your path forever.

Do people on this board really not understand this??

Click to expand...

I do understand this, and if you had read the rest of my posting, you'd know that I am in full agreement with your statement. Again, 4 Supreme Court justices means a minority, which means we still don't win.