The National Firearms Act in Court
BY Herschel Smith
1 hour, 33 minutes ago
As you probably know, our friend Stephen Stamboulieh on behalf of the GOA, along with a number of others, have challenged the NFA in court based on the lack of fee associated with suppressors and SBRs. Of note, the real failure here was by John Cornyn and John Thune for allowing the senate parliamentarian to dictate the terms of legislation (partly because Cornyn is a gun controller, as is Thune).
Here is Stephen’s brief. Here is the DOJ response.
Twice the DOJ argues that the NFA is in place primarily to regulate “weapons of war.” To which we may respond, “But the second amendment is in place specifically to protect weapons of war, and it came first.”
As always, Mark Smith is rather Pollyanna about the whole thing and believes that the DOJ is arguing for the NFA because they want this to go to the SCOTUS at which point they will argue with the plaintiffs that the NFA is now unconstitutional as it pertains to suppressors and SBRs because of the change in the tax code.
I think Mark is dead wrong about this, but you should make up your own mind about his claims.
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment