If they aren’t guns then they have no need to regulate them at all.
If they are guns, which is how they’re regulated now, then their argument doesn’t hold water.
they are indeed guns, who wrote this? If they aren't "firearms" legally speaking, then why do I need to not only fill out a 4473 plus sign and pay for a stamp?
That's entirely OP's point. ATF is trying to weasel out of this by saying that Suppressors aren't guns, while still maintaining their jurisdiction over them. ATF can't have it both ways.
>So shouldn’t the ATF also police all car mufflers and any other sound dampening equipment?
There is nothing that would give the feds a bigger boner than making everybody pay $200 in additional taxes for vehicle registration and transfer
Silencers are firearms per NFA, and silencer is defined as >Muffler or silencer. Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable
firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in
assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in
such assembly or fabrication
A 3 judge panel from the 10th Circuit finds that a silencer is excluded from "arms" under Heller and the Second Amendment.
United States v. Cox - Holding silencer does not merit Second Amendment protection because it is an accessory rather than a bearable arm
Cite: United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2018)
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-cox-2003
Lmao
Lol even
There's no text history or tradition of banning arms or elements nor excessories of arms within the history or tradition of the United States.
According to the ATF's main claim from the Anti Injunction Act “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in
any court by any person, whether or not such person is a person against whom such tax was assessed.”
basically, the bullshit tax was written into law so you can eat shit with no recourse about it
Texas wants a declaratory judgment stating the $200 tax doesn't have to be paid for suppressors. But the AIA prohibits this. A
plaintiff has to pay the tax first then attempt to obtain a refund before taking ATF to court over the NFA tax's constitutionality.
the federal government has spent the last century stacking frick you after frick you into written law. there is nothing anyone can do about it as a citizen with a legitimate grievance.
Going after the tax is pointless. The BoR doesn't prevent taxation. Even thought the First Amendment exists, books and newspapers can be taxed. Even a broad reading of the 2a would allow reasonable taxation.
If you're engaged in the business of selling books, yeah. The government can't impose a tax on your ability to write a book in your own home. Imagine if you had to tell the government what the book was going to be before you wrote it, then you could only start writing after submitting an application, paying $200 and waiting for approval. It is BS.
>umm no sweaty you can't sue over this because it's not a gun >oh btw you still need a tax stamp for it as if it was a gun and we get to control it however we want because it's basically a gun LOL
A more cancerous organization has never existed.
>also we give guns to the cartels in mexico just to track their usage >oh and we'll trick you into committing a crime under our jurisdiction so we can murder your family or burn your home to the ground. maybe both idk lol
>oh and we'll trick you into committing a crime under our jurisdiction so we can murder your family or burn your home to the ground. maybe both idk lol
wat
if the military considers them worth being standard issue due to reduced hearing damage and improved team communication, would that not add them in as part of 'well regulated'?
If they aren’t guns then they have no need to regulate them at all.
If they are guns, which is how they’re regulated now, then their argument doesn’t hold water.
they are indeed guns, who wrote this? If they aren't "firearms" legally speaking, then why do I need to not only fill out a 4473 plus sign and pay for a stamp?
That's entirely OP's point. ATF is trying to weasel out of this by saying that Suppressors aren't guns, while still maintaining their jurisdiction over them. ATF can't have it both ways.
Imagine waking up every morning and realizing your a worthless oxygen stealing thief who also happens to be an ATF agent.
So shouldn’t the ATF also police all car mufflers and any other sound dampening equipment?
>So shouldn’t the ATF also police all car mufflers and any other sound dampening equipment?
There is nothing that would give the feds a bigger boner than making everybody pay $200 in additional taxes for vehicle registration and transfer
Silencers are firearms per NFA, and silencer is defined as
>Muffler or silencer. Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable
firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in
assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in
such assembly or fabrication
A 3 judge panel from the 10th Circuit finds that a silencer is excluded from "arms" under Heller and the Second Amendment.
United States v. Cox - Holding silencer does not merit Second Amendment protection because it is an accessory rather than a bearable arm
Cite: United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2018)
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-cox-2003
Lmao
Lol even
There's no text history or tradition of banning arms or elements nor excessories of arms within the history or tradition of the United States.
I hate the gayTF and I hate "judges"
Be careful with this.
Why do you think there are no water colled guns?
According to the ATF's main claim from the Anti Injunction Act “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in
any court by any person, whether or not such person is a person against whom such tax was assessed.”
basically, the bullshit tax was written into law so you can eat shit with no recourse about it
Texas wants a declaratory judgment stating the $200 tax doesn't have to be paid for suppressors. But the AIA prohibits this. A
plaintiff has to pay the tax first then attempt to obtain a refund before taking ATF to court over the NFA tax's constitutionality.
the federal government has spent the last century stacking frick you after frick you into written law. there is nothing anyone can do about it as a citizen with a legitimate grievance.
Going after the tax is pointless. The BoR doesn't prevent taxation. Even thought the First Amendment exists, books and newspapers can be taxed. Even a broad reading of the 2a would allow reasonable taxation.
Except the court has ruled that taxes on constitutional rights as a barrier to access that right are unconstitutional.
Cool when are we getting ballot taxes so only the rich can vote
We already do that, it's called 'not making Election Day a federal holiday'.
If you're engaged in the business of selling books, yeah. The government can't impose a tax on your ability to write a book in your own home. Imagine if you had to tell the government what the book was going to be before you wrote it, then you could only start writing after submitting an application, paying $200 and waiting for approval. It is BS.
>umm no sweaty you can't sue over this because it's not a gun
>oh btw you still need a tax stamp for it as if it was a gun and we get to control it however we want because it's basically a gun LOL
A more cancerous organization has never existed.
>also we give guns to the cartels in mexico just to track their usage
>oh and we'll trick you into committing a crime under our jurisdiction so we can murder your family or burn your home to the ground. maybe both idk lol
>oh and we'll trick you into committing a crime under our jurisdiction so we can murder your family or burn your home to the ground. maybe both idk lol
wat
Ruby Ridge, Waco
Bro, they're not "bearable arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment. They're just firearms.
>When your oil filter becomes an illegal firearm because you bought a thread adapter
I hate the ATF
if the military considers them worth being standard issue due to reduced hearing damage and improved team communication, would that not add them in as part of 'well regulated'?
but suppressors are firearms as defined by the 1934 national firearms act and the 1968 gun control act
shhh don't tell the OP that.
Tatted up stoner dude is going to federal prison btw.
They're easy to obtain in Europe.