GOA funds challenge to NFA with SCOTUS

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
14,437
Reaction score
4,549
Points
268
Location
Texas
No word if SCOTUS will hear the case, but there is always a chance...


https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of...o-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/
 
.

There's 2 other aspects of those laws passed & upheld by the SCOTUS of the 30's that piss me off & that's #1 that the justices were told by the govt. that machine guns were not in common use by the military, therefore the militia didn't "need" them either. While the main battle rifle was switching from a bolt action to a semi-auto & so full auto was not the standard issue battle rifle, full auto (mainly crew served weapons) was in fairly common use and had been since WWI, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say that it doesn't apply to crew served weapons, in fact cannons were the main thing the Brit's hoped to capture when they went poking around Lexington & Concorde back in 1775. Certainly since the mid 1950's full auto has been standard issue to those in the military whether it was the M-14, M-16, or M-4. So that alone should mean we are allowed to own them.

The 2nd is that in the U.S. Vs. Miller case, Miller died before it got heard by the SCOTUS & his lawyer didn't bother to show up & of course the NRA supported the law as it has supported every law banning full auto. So the show was over before it even started as far as getting a legitimate defense of our 2A rights.

I don't know what will happen now, if Darth Bader Ginsburg shows up, I think it's 5-4 against the second amendment. If she doesn't show, it's probably 4-4, which means the lower court rulings stand. I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

It's also funny that just days before congress was getting ready to bring up the hearing protection act bill that would remove or at least ease restrictions on silencers, a democrat shoots into a crowd in Vegas with what were allegedly AR's equipped with bump stocks, which most people I've known that had them & most I've talked to on the net don't work that great, but this guys worked flawlessly for an hour or more? Also they sounded to me & many vets I've spoken to, just like an M249 SAW, which is full auto & can be fed either via belt or magazine. Then they were all too busy talking about banning bump stocks to pass the hearing protection act. Of course when bump stock ban didn't get passed, good ol' gun grabby trump just decided to ban them all by himself. :doodoo:

.
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…