NFA Weapons Requirment, Why?


New member
The NFA has been challenged - and some laws were changed as a result of Miller vs US 1939. But we are still stuck with a majority of the original "stuff."

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2]

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


At best I see about 3 or 4 NFA reforms being possible at this time.
1- Getting rid of the local LE sign off to obtain an NFA item, in favor of a NICS check. Remember that at the time NFA was writen we did not have anything close to NICS.
2- Reducing the shotgun barrel length requirement to 14". This is a commanly used length from LE agentcies and personal protective teams. This change would reduce the paperwork load for both LE agentcies and for the ATF as well.
3- Reclassifying Sound supressors as AOW, thus reducing the transfer tax to $5 instead of $200.
4- Changing the definition of handgun to allow for a .600 Linebaugh or 28ga. revolver. Currently both are defined as a destructive device due to a bore diameter over 1/2 inch.

These reforms are I admit rather minor, but incrementalism can be an effective strategy. Getting one of these reforms passed would be a victory IMHO.
I find it hilarious how armchair attorneys make statements like this like they have insider information and connections to make it happen. Lolz

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Latest member