In the case that the NFA is ruled unconstitutional in the upcoming months, what companies should I be watching like a hawk for cheap fun switches for Glock and ARs? I bet PSA already has the files and is waiting for the instant they can plug them into a CNC machine.
lmao
lol.
lmfao
roflcopter
>captcha: GAYS8
jajajajaja
widespread handheld automatic weapons are less then 109 years old so they aren't traditional and the nfa is fine. same with suppressors unfortunately.
suppressors are a safety device tbh
while i agree the average moron shouldn't be derping around with f/a SHALL NOT etc
>i agree the average moron shouldn't be derping around with f/a
I'd honestly settle for the Hughe's being struck down for that reason. Full-auto is an easy way for some dumbass to spray the firing line at the range trying to one-hand a Draco.
i'm more worried about ease of access making massacres worse, the book should be open for collectors and enthusiasts but f/a should probably still be something harder to obtain in a modern context of constant mass killings. as it is there's nothing stopping people from buying low shelf lowers and surplus parts for the most part it's just not something we need to see. difficult territory balancing constitutional rights and reason
full auto is not the difference maker in a massacre, i would wager that for most of these morons they would kill less people if they had a fun switch
i can easily see mass shooter being caught up in the moment and really mag dumping a small number of people instead of putting one to four rounds in each person
in either case, it’s a paper shield, because any moron can bend a coat hanger into the right shape, or 3d print an dias.
or do what they do for massacres in other countries: make a homemade bomb, which is trivial, or drive a truck into a crowd, or any number of other ways to kill a lot of people
muh mass shootings as an argument is not well thought through
>in either case, it’s a paper shield, because any moron can bend a coat hanger into the right shape, or 3d print an dias.
this is true but we don't see this is more my point.
we don’t see it because if you think about it for thirty seconds you will realize it’s not important for the goal of shooting a bunch of unarmed people
you deserve to be sprayed at the firing line by the one handing Black person because you didnt buy/find your own land to shoot on.
Simple. Don't let full auto guns into your range without taking your ranges full auto safety course(paid of course because you're probably also a boomer fudd who probably who bans tula and wolf ammo due to it's armor penetrating abilities). Of course when proven to be trusted with full auto, just like with normal semi-auto's, moronic people exist and will do moronic things.
my range banned full auto because rarts kept coming in with them and blasting all the target holders to pieces. they even cut down the 20 yard line.
The NFA is unconstitutional.
It doesn't need a ruling.
In fact why are you allowing irrelevant far away traitors and bureaucrats tell you how to interpret something as clear as the constitution?
The tradition of the second amendment is if the government can have it you can have it. End of story. Shall not be infringed.
>In fact why are you allowing irrelevant far away traitors and bureaucrats tell you how to interpret something as clear as the constitution?
Right! And besides, when you put that yellow fringe around the flag, you're in a maritime court and they put $60 million under your REAL HUMAN NAME and you deserve that money
>t. didn’t read bruen, caetano, mcdonald, or heller
2A extends prima fascia to all bearable arms. there is no widespread history of banning the ownership or sale of any class of bearable weapons, and there is no widespread history of weapons registration. Hughes amendment very clearly does not stand up to Bruen test, NFA registration at minimum does not stand up to new bruen test
also i’ll add that it’s on shaky grounds from a taxing perspective from the sibelius test, as they described punitive and therefore unconstitutional taxation.
Sure doesn't sound like what Kavanaugh and other justices said anon. You guys sound like wishful thinking, don't think SCOTUS has any appetite to legalize machine guns.
>The NFA is unconstitutional.
>It doesn't need a ruling.
Actually it does homosexual, you don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to follow and then claim to be a Constitutionalist.
>In fact why are you allowing irrelevant far away traitors and bureaucrats tell you how to interpret something as clear as the constitution?
Because they can squash us like wienerroaches? Kind of how law works child. Also lol! Internet tufguiz like you spout shit like this but then never actually post your oil filter kits that you didn't f1.
it sounds exactly what they said in the decision, youre reading into the dicta that just means “you don’t have to immediately change all laws before courts get around to analyzing and applying this test to them”.
That’s literally just how the court works
Anon we're all reading tea leaves on what exactly SCOTUS will ultimately decide. As of right now, they have made no ruling on the NFA, and there are plenty of ways they can go. The standard they applied isn't actually legally clear and it's brand new, they didn't just use something like Strict Scrutiny which we'd have lots of caselaw to reason with.
Also the NFA is absolutely definitely severable, so one part failing doesn't mean the whole thing fails. They could reverse Miller completely and tear down the entire thing, but they could also easily just take out parts while allowing the rest. They could decide SBRs and Suppressors are arbitrary and capricious, they could decide only the tax part is a problem, they could say everything is fine but the wait time is unconstitutionally long and arbitrary. By the time the case gets to them, the composition could have changed. 70s is in no way old but a bunch of the justices aren't spring chickens either. People have accidents or bad luck too. A case 2-3 years from now could have a different court composition and they could just flat out decide another way. Stare decis has been massively weakened this term.
So yeah everyone claiming the NFA will be just struck down any day now, I just don't believe it. I'd love to see it at least massively reformed but I'm not holding my breath.
the standard is crystal clear, the government must affirmatively prove their regulation is within the historical tradition of firearms law from the time of the founding
we’re weapons considered particularly dangerous (which is what the nfa contemplates) dealt with by a taxation and registration scheme? was the sale of those weapons ever banned to ordinary people?
the answer to both questions is no.
the only portion of the nfa that maybe survives the very clear test is the tax itself, but as i mentioned that’s on separate shaky ground because of the test they put forth in sebelius for what is a punitive tax. there are criminal penalties associated with it that are not administered by the irs
Even the tax should be thrown out. I can't believe people forget that you can't tax a right.
most of these people wouldn't know a right from a privilege.
What does this mean? There are historical precedents for “taxing a right,” as another anon noted the 24th Amendment implies the ability to “tax a right.” Further, there are all sorts of similar or analogous examples of “taxing a right” e.g. having to pay a fee to demonstrate on public property, etc etc
For the record I’m against virtually all gun control, but some of you guys aren’t exactly a beacon of knowledge
>Also lol! Internet tufguiz like you spout shit like this but then never actually post your oil filter kits that you didn't f1.
Sure thing officer, would you like my name and address too so you don't have to bother ringing up the PrepHole police line?
Thaaaaaaaaaaank youuuuuuuuuuuu
Go frick yourself, fedboi.
The restriction of access to firearms has no standing from when the 2nd amendment was drafted.
I'm sure every manufacturer would crank them out as fast as they could, everyone should buy as many as they can as fast as they can too. We want trying to get that genie back in the bottle to be impossible.
WELL
REGULATED
no regulations would mean it wasnt well regulated, the more there are the better. gun nuts need to comply with ALL rules and regulations per the second amendment. it feels good to comply. complying is good citizen.
Regulation was a reference to the people, not to laws. You were a well regulated person if you were not crazy. The militia was practically all men, and
>The people
Was everyone.
You can seethe and cope, but these homies were issuing letters of marquis for privately owned cannon armed ships to go frick up opponents commerce.
Additionally there is no moral argument why any implement of violence is better controlled by the government than by any individual. They all fall flat to the reality that they drone strike kids all the time.
>but these homies were issuing letters of marquis for privately owned cannon armed ships to go frick up opponents commerce.
Anon that doesn't support your point, that's literally an example of government having the complete discretionary power to allow a private citizen to do something or not. Zero 2A protection, if you simply went out and attacked stuff without a valid letter of marque you were pirate and subject to immediate hanging.
>Additionally there is no moral argument why any implement of violence is better controlled by the government than by any individual. They all fall flat to the reality that they drone strike kids all the time.
lol do you actually believe such a stupid fricking statement? I love the 2A but jesus.
>By hiring private citizens to use their previously owned weapons to attack enemies of the state it proves that you shouldn't own full autos
Pro NFA shills are infinitely pathetic.
>hiring
You stupid fricking Black person don't talk about history when you have literally never read it beyond fevered conspiracy sites. Letters of marque (privateers) was a for profit private venture, not a mercenary thing. Usually it'd be a group of investors banding together for a ship, captain and crew, not something privately owned, like a bunch of merchants who wanted to be defended from enemies. You needed government permission but then you generally made any real profit based on the loot you captured.
You needed it to USE them anon. And they didn't see any need to restrict that because such an insanely expensive crazy thing was utterly out of the reach of effectively anyone. Also
>battleship
lol! US didn't even have those at all, we had heavy frigates and regular frigates and they were all USN. Private fighting vessels were much smaller and lighter.
>you needed government permission to use your weapons on other people
so you didn’t need government permission to purchase or own them, is what you’re saying. which is the nfa
My boy they could use those cannons and ships. The letters were a license to KILL, to MURDER, to DESTROY the people the government allowed you too. They were allowed to DEFEND themselves if fired upon by other vessels. Why are you playing these semantics?
Because he has nothing else to stand on.
>Anon that doesn't support your point, that's literally an example of government having the complete discretionary power to allow a private citizen to do something or not. Zero 2A protection, if you simply went out and attacked stuff without a valid letter of marque you were pirate and subject to immediate hanging.
but you didn't have to have a letter of marque to own a battleship or its cannons moron
Can't believe nu-r*ddit/k/ is dumb enough to fall for this kinda bait. Pack it up, boards gone.
That's not what that means.
Well regulated means we'll armed, and proficient.
Fricktard revisionist
>2
SHALL NOT arguments and appeals to legality are horseshit. The constitution and the laws around it are not inviolate and are meant to be changed and adapted on purpose.
The real argument is not if it's 2a applicable, it's if changes do anything for anyone and have public will behind it.
>the constituion isn’t inviolate
so amend it homosexual
I like it currently
Why wouldn't it? It's meant to be altered. Why do you think it was amended in the first place to outlaw the practice?
Does that include the amendment prohibiting slavery?
The 13th amendment specifically lays out conditions under which slavery is not unconstitutional so
2A is based and you’re cringe. have a nice day homosexual
I could see the argument being that it's not necessary.
The argument for the NFA was certain weapons were "too dangerous" to just be sold to anyone, and certain weapons needed a background check, the $200 was in part to pay for old school background checks, and the tax stamp was proof it had occurred.
Well thanks to the 1994 crime bill, all firearm purchases require a background check, making the NFA superfluous.
You could also argue that the NFA is illegal because it leveys a "Tax" on something protected by the constitution.
You also have previous legal rulings, such as SCOTUS saying SBS could be regulated under the NFA, only because they weren't I common use in the military.
By that logic anything in common use for the military should be allowed, which in modern times is SBSs, SBRs, AOWs, supressors, FA, and DDs
$200 in 1934 is the equivalent of $4000 today. It was meant so that the feds could say "see, we're not banning it, you just need a ridiculous amount of money to prove you're safe." Keep in mind that this really stems from the feds wanting charges to use on gangsters when they couldn't get real charges.
Actual moron alert
imagine thinking this logic applies to practical reality
lol imbecile
The supreme court is too cucked to mess with the NFA they're too busy slightly slapping states on the wrist (because that's what a conservative court HAS to do) and cucking every republican state with an incoming flood of non whites in about 20 years
Black person they already fricked with the nfa, they know it exists, they explicitly said in bruen the federal government has to analogize to the time of the founding. what historical gun law analogizes the nfa? there is none
the government has to prove their regulation is within the scope of late 18th century gun law. it’s not. the court knew that when they wrote the decision.
No shit they know it exists they're not going to do anything about it. If they were on your side they would have judged all gun control unconstitutional and made all states constitutional carry
Lawyer (and 2A fan here). Recall the stuff in the opinion about weapons being widespread or common. This builds on some dicta from Heller, and it also relates to some rules that were around which regulated exotic weapons (cross-bows, Bowie knives) at time of founding and shortly thereafter, as well as at common law. Heller, recall, was a handgun case.
The squishes will likely weasel out of MGs and other NFA items on the grounds that (a) they're extremely uncommon and not widespread (b) they're not infrequently "crew served" in some cases and thus not necessarily "bearable."
Problem with this "widespread use" test is that it interacts with laws and regulations. MGs, like MSRs, might be widespread, but for the impact of NFA and the 1986 MG amendment. I think they'll weasel out of this one way or the other.
I will say as a matter of practical politics and frankly public safety, I'm not sure there should not be some additional hoops to jump through for MGs. They're exceedingly dangerous in the wrong hands; imagine a spree killer with a belt fed. Anyway, that is a separate questions from constitutionality, but as a general matter if MGs made legal under 2A, expect some kind of MG amendment with some other crap we don't like sailing through the process.
> They're exceedingly dangerous in the wrong hands
I agree, but I don’t think spree killers would be the biggest issue. I’d be more worried about some company selling super compact machine pistols because MUH CONCEALED CARRY and then morons buying them because they’re morons, then not being able to control them causing some innocent bystander to be brained.
>Lawyer (and 2A fan here)
OH SO YOU'RE ONE OF US THEN, GREAT!
teheeeeeenigggerkillyourself
Not gonna happen.
Politicians have shown they will completely ignore SCOTUS.
These same politicians appoint the DAs in their state, and the judges are elected in those lefty states.
The AG is appointed by the president, who told the ATF to write new laws and Definitions, which already violates the constitution.
>In the case that the NFA is ruled unconstitutional
Bitch, please. For all his pretentions that he was an Originalist and a Textualist, Scalia went out of his way in the drafting of the Heller opinion to explain how it was totally acceptable to regulate horribly dangerous things like machine guns and concealed carry.
NFA won't be ruled unconstitutional. The Hughes Amendment might be, since it is essentially a fake way to ban machine guns -- "you're required to pay the tax, but we aren't required to accept it! Catch-22, sucker!!!!"
Delusional vloggers and barftards BTFO, sadly.
Heller is null and void to this new ruling BECAUSE of the new framework for dictating. I can't believe I have been saying this since the ruling was put down. Heller means NOTHING and was meant to be a skinny bone thrown the way of the conservatives so they wouldn't hang every politician
>thrown the way of the conservatives so they wouldn't hang every politician
as if they could even
Just keep pushing then, ok? 🙂
we will sweetie
>Heller is null and void to this new ruling
You don't understand in the slightest how the common law system works, you idiot. If Heller were voided, then that would mean the 2A was no longer even recognized as an individual right. That would nuke McDonald and Bruen both.
For an example of how to overturn a binding precedent, you need look no further than the Dobbs decision, handed down in the same week. "Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey
are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the
people and their elected representatives."
See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
This ridiculous new test that Thomas put out was already discussed in Heller, but Kennedy refused to sign on to it so it was merely in one of the concurring opinions. Breyer's proposed two-step test was in his dissent and is what all the moronic lower courts were flocking to to try to nullify Heller.
What Thomas's opinion in Bruen means is that lower courts can no longer pretend that Breyer's two-part test can be used to keep all of the new gun control laws they propose. But Scalia's blathering in Heller is still valid dicta that they can use to say "well, Scalia thought machine guns were icky, therefore it's ok to keep them banned." Similarly, Kavanaugh's blathering about all the things states are allowed to regulate as part of the CCW permitting process means that states will continue to be able to get away with ridiculous training classes and insurance requirements and other shit.
Source: t. my law degree, and yes, I actually have one from a T1 law school, and one of the more conservative ones at that (my Con Law prof clerked for White back in the day).
Oh, and just to be clear, I was the one you were replying to
with your fricking stupid word salad of a post
.
so what, nothing changes because they still et to frick over the common man with bureaucratic red tape
>Byron White
>arch-conservative
Well, you take what you can get I suppose. At least he didn’t subscribe to substantive due process
The Heller opinion strongly suggests that the SBS and machine gun ban is Constitutional, via Miller:
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
....
We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
the current scotus has expressed a willingness to not abide by the tiers of scrutiny I think that fact means that diverging from heller in this regard is possible or even likely
you can’t just read heller and pretend they didn’t just decide bruen.
what is the late 1700s historical analog to the nfa? if there is none, it can’t stand the bruen test
There's no new test in Bruen. Bruen is an application of the test the Court promulgated in Heller. From Bruen:
>(3) The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today
requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are
consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.
malarkey, everyone with eyes saw there was no test made explicit in Heller, that’s why the lower courts all adopted a tiered scrutiny approach. now there is an explicit test. court compares to Heller bc they implicitly used the same sort of analysis, not bc they made the test explicit there
>not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
>for lawful purposes
Is recreational shooting not a lawful purpose?
Also, read the chilly Kavanaugh/Roberts concurrence in Bruen.
>Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a “variety” of gun regulations.
>Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that
limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
They are not going to vote for Cletus and Tyrone to get M240s.
Tyrone already has dem Glock switches tho.
theyre right, the historical analogs do allow for restrictions on the CARRY in CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES of dangerous and unusual weapons. That doesn't imply anything about the ownership. Large groups of men carrying their militia weapons in some states could be charged with rioting because of that combination of circumstances, e.g. the famous case out of PA.
why do you think we needed an amendment (24th) for poll taxes if the constitution by itself doesnt allow rights to be taxed?
i dont want the supreme court to overturn gay marriage because my sister is a lesbian but if they let me buy a silenced, full auto MAC-10 i may compromise on gay marriage
There’s no such thing as gay marriage anyway, it’s debatable whether even lesbians are
>There’s no such thing as gay marriage anyway
wat
Marriage is primarily a relationship before God and family of a man and a woman, sometimes certified and regulated by the State for the purposes of ensuring the continuance of the State (ie children). Any attempt to certify masturbatory relationships between sexual perverts as marriage is a farce.
Also lesbians generally don’t exist in the sense that we’re commanded to accept: self identified “lesbians” have higher rates of teen pregnancy than heterosexuals
>Marriage is primarily a relationship before God
oh i see, a fake PrepHole christian is trying to tell me what god thinks.
Cradle Catholic bud. Anyway, I’m sure we can agree that gun control is bad
> i blindly adopted the first religion that i was exposed to
> this makes me superior
good one, friend.
I came to my religion the way most do, but I practice it now because I wholly believe it. As an aside, it’s strange to suggest that one is less virtuous for adhering to the traditions of his family and forebears. “And how can one die better” and all that
So true my fellow free thinker, far better to independently arrive at the consensus of the monoculture
Imagine falling for the lies of the Demiurge.
Personally I want a calico with a big honking suppressor on it and collapsing stock
I be more happy over suppressors being able to purchased without mumbo jumbo paperwork and cuck tax.
Creality
>what companies should I be watching like a hawk for cheap fun switches for Glock and ARs?
>Creality
Based. I don't know why OP would want to buy these things when he could churn them out at home on a 3D printer without anyone knowing. A SwiftLink takes like 20 minutes to print, so you can make one when you know the BLM/Antifa rioters are already on the way.
I think I could print like, 80 swift links at once on my printer. That's what I would do as soon as it got overturned. Then keep doing that until I ran out of filament and hand them out to everyone. You can probably get 200 a spool.
God bless you
Even if all the judges in the supreme court honestly believed the NFA was unconstitutional, they would not overturn it. America is just too degenerate to be Able to handle real freedoms. You are not a yeoman farmer you are a tax cattle grain slave. The zogbot standing army makes "civilian" ownership or responsibility of military virutes a dangerous liability to the state. There is literally zero reason for any government institution to help foster military capabilities or virtues in the us population and most high ranking government officials probably know that America will become more unstable in the next few decades, but that's your problem, not theirs.
I need new ideas besides glock switches and bumpfire triggers. Oh, did those get banned? Haha well I have a couple.
the government isnt going to rule the NFA unconstitutional, they get gibs from it
ammo starts at $5 a round for rifle calibers
do u guys think they will get away with banning the pistol braces in december?
the NFA will not be ruled unconstitutional in the upcoming months, upcoming years, or upcoming centuries. it is a tax, and congress has the explicit constitutional power to levy taxes.
>inb4 you can't tax speech or voting
doesn't matter, it's more likely that the USSC would resolve this contradiction by allowing poll and press taxes, since both were fairly common in the era when the constitution and BoR were written.
If the tax was applied at point of sale WITHOUT registration or wait maybe, but the registration is wildly unconstitutional.
>ban
When the government is required to deliver a stamp to prove payment of the tax, and fails to do so, then arrests people for failing to pay the tax, it becomes a de facto ban.
if you want a cheap giggle switch you can't afford full send. Ammo is not cheap anon
>full auto
😀
>full auto psa
D:
>In the case that the NFA is ruled unconstitutional in the upcoming months
lmao, there's a better chance of complete societal breakdown than them giving up the NFA.
If NFA got repealed tomorrow, would the price of an extant functioning machinegun go up or down? What kind of money could be made speculating on NFA repeal?
Down in all cases save for perhaps incredibly rare historic items that might be unchanged.
If you're a current manufacturer of firearms that are easily made as machineguns with small changes (for example ARs) then you could probably make quite a bit of money selling full auto ARs when noone else can keep them in stock if you made sure to have a metric frickton of M16 FCGs, auto capable bolts, and M16 pocket cut receivers on hand to be ready to churn them out when the demand for those parts soars.
If you're a regular person the only way I can see to MAKE money on the repeal of the NFA is to sell lightning links to suckers or convert your own AR and sell it to someone less knowledgeable during the initial surge in demand before select fire becomes the norm at no premium over semi only after things settle down.
Down, mostly. But there’s also be a sudden glut of pre-86’s on the market when all of the boomers who bought tons of lightning links and Mac-10/11s as an investment up and mill themselves.
Likely nothing you can speculate off of, the money to be made would be fulfilling the demand of all the cool stuff people couldn't own before.
Historical MGs in collectible condition would only suffer a modest drop in price -- they aren't making any new ones.
Historical MGs in shooter condition would drop more, as new-production guns can compete in that market.
Most "M16" lowers (those converted from commercial semi-auto lowers; factory M16 lowers would fall in one of the prior categories), autosears, etc. would drop most dramatically, as would "budget" guns like MACs.
Some post-86 guns would likely rise in price as they get bought up by collectors who don't maintain an SOT, specifically ones that are not in current production and have significant historical interest. But speculating in these is complicated by the need to maintain an SOT, and because you can only acquire most of them (without a letter) as SOTs happen to go out of business.
>In the case that the NFA is ruled unconstitutional in the upcoming months
expect another Vegas style glowBlack person op any time now
Sadly this.
Probably this. The guns that'll drop the most will be auto AR lowers as people just make swift/lightning links instead or get DIAS kits if they are feeling spendy. I suspect that lowers with the right internal spacing for the drop-in stuff would jump in price, but millions of those already exist.
Glock switches would become nearly free.