![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/Gunny-Lock-Load.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
This is something that the Democrats went nuts over. This isn\u2019t surprising since they\u2019re the ones who who pushed the NFA into existence<\/a>. One aspect of the NFA was a $200 tax on SBR\u2019s and Suppressors. Back when the NFA became law, the $200 tax was a major amount of money. Today, it really isn\u2019t that much, especially when a rifle or pistol can cost thousands of dollars and suppressors can run over $1000.<\/p>\n When this was signed into law by FDR, it was challenged and ended up at the Supreme Court. As I understand it, one of the cases upheld the NFA because it was a tax. If it hadn\u2019t been for the tax, then it would be unconstitutional. (I don\u2019t know the case where this was said) Of course the whole NFA is unconstitutional and was created to keep people from the means to remove the government by force if this ever became necessary. (Which it did in Athens, Tennessee <\/a>in 1946)<\/p>\n The original measure in the BBB removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA. The idea was that since the BBB was a money bill, and the NFA requires a $200 tax stamp, then it\u2019s covered and no problem. However, there was a problem. That problem was Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate Parliamentarian. This unelected person, who\u2019s position isn\u2019t constitutionally mandated, and only came into existence in 1935 decided that removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA had nothing to do with money and ordered it removed from the bill.<\/p>\n Needless to say, this set off the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment community. There were calls to Senate majority leader John Thune to fire her. It appears that she was one of Cocaine Mitch McConnell\u2019s Deep State Uniparty operatives and McConnell, who is on his way out, is doing everything he can to sabotage President Trump and his administration.<\/p>\n In it\u2019s place was a backup plan. This was originally proposed by an idiot Republican and basically zero\u2019d out the $200 tax. He was roundly denounced for not understanding what the people wanted. However, this was put in and was passed in both houses. 90 days after President Trump signs the BBB into law, the $200 tax is repealed.<\/p>\n This has opened up a door to once again get the NFA, or at least a major section of it declared unconstitutional. At least one of the gun organizations, (Probably all of them in the next few weeks), has decided that the time is right to go after the registration of suppressors and SBR\u2019s. Here is a press release from the Gun Owners of America<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n GOA to File \u201cOne Big Beautiful Lawsuit\u201d Against NFA Registry as \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d Heads to President\u2019s Desk.<\/b><\/p>\n Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), alongside our allies Palmetto State Armory (PSA), the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), Silencer Shop (SS), and B & T USA (B&T), are announcing that we will file a federal lawsuit to dismantle the remaining provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) after the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d is signed into law by President Trump and goes into effect. <\/b><\/p>\n A few things. First, I am not a member of the Gun Owners of America. I do know that they are a major organization and have been doing more to defend the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment then the National Rifle Association, at least until recently. Part of the NRA\u2019s problems was the old management. One of the few things that the corrupt Attorney General of New York did was force him and his cabal out and allow new management to come in. I don\u2019t think Letitia James grasps what that might actually accomplish down the road.<\/p>\n Second, I recognize the names of most of the co-plaintiffs. If they win the case, and frankly they should, it will open up the market to people who otherwise wouldn\u2019t consider buying a Short Barrel Rifle or a Suppressor. Not because they didn\u2019t want one, but because they didn\u2019t want to deal with all the hassles. (Count me in that list)<\/p>\n GOA\u2019s team in Washington had been working behind the scenes with Congress since the November 2024 election to fully repeal the NFA, but congressional Republicans allowed an unelected bureaucrat to block the GOA-backed provision. Instead, the House and Senate settled for reducing the NFA\u2019s $200 excise tax to $0 on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons or AOWs\u2014teeing up GOA\u2019s legal challenge. <\/b><\/p>\n That bit about settling for the tax repeal isn\u2019t entirely accurate. As I mentioned before, it was the Senate Parliamentarian who ordered the SBR and Short acts removed from the bill. The tax repeal was always considered Plan B.<\/p>\n GOA\u2019s \u201cOne Big Beautiful Lawsuit\u201d will ask the courts to strike down the NFA\u2019s absurd new $0 tax and registration scheme for certain suppressors and firearms with short barrels.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Cool! Now could you explain your reasoning on this?<\/p>\n In the 1930\u2019s, the Supreme Court only narrowly upheld the NFA solely as a tax statute\u2014not as a firearms regulatory law. In\u00a0<\/b>Sonzinsky v. United States<\/b><\/em>\u00a0(1937), the Court ruled the NFA was permissible under Congress\u2019s taxing power. But once the tax is reduced to $0, the constitutional justification for the law collapses. <\/b><\/p>\n Well, that explains it. You\u2019re going to use the Court\u2019s own words against them. That works for me. I just hope we can get this done a lot faster then the usual bizillion years and we can keep that idiot Roberts from dodging his responsibilities…again. Come to think if it, you could use Robert\u2019s own words against him when that gutless tool upheald Obamacare, claiming it was a tax.<\/p>\n GOA has also long argued that the NFA\u2019s registration mandates violate the Second Amendment and are an unconstitutional overreach of federal power. With the tax mechanism gutted and reduced to an unworkable state by Congress, GOA\u2019s forthcoming legal challenge will aim to strike down what remains of this obsolete and abusive law.<\/b><\/p>\n I am one of those who agrees that the entire NFA, along with other federal gun control acts such as those dealing with machineguns is unconstitutional. However, I understand that we must take baby steps. The next item on the agenda is President Trump signing the BBB into law. (This was done on July 4th<\/sup>) Then 90 days later it takes effect and the tax stamps are history.<\/p>\n Now I don\u2019t know how the legal thing works. Do the plaintiffs have to wait the full 90 days to file suit or can they file right after President Trump signs the bill? I\u2019ll let the legal people deal with that. I do know that I would love to see a nation wide Temporary Restraining Order issued, but that won\u2019t happen now. District Courts have been told that they can only issue them for their districts, no further. (Not that the Obama or Biden judges are paying any attention to that ruling) However if you have different plaintiffs filing in different districts? You might get that TRO and\/or injunction, just the hard way.<\/p>\n Once it gets to SCOTUS, assuming that Roberts doesn\u2019t waffle yet again, then it should be a slam dunk to declare the NFA as it pertains to these items as unconstitutional. The way to make everyone whole again under the law? All records destroyed. I know that is something that will require serious oversight of the ATF. They have a long history of doing things they aren\u2019t supposed to. This isn\u2019t exactly what I wanted, but it is a start.<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Good day all. The \u201cInfamous\u201d Big Beautiful Bill has cleared the Congress and is sitting on President Trump\u2019s desk. It\u2019s not the same bill that was first proposed in the House of course. One element that was in the House … Continue reading <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n