Here's a related link. https://americanhandgunner.com/disc...ndgunner.com/discover/never-type-while-angry/
Last edited:
From what I understand, 4473 and out the door!But the registration requirements didn't go away?. Just the tax.
Justice Kennedy says "hold my beer..."Have you seen anybody successfully challenge California's ban on rifles with pistol grips, flash hiders, and/or bayonet mounts?
Incorrect....Under the "bill" just signed, they will not be purchasable on a 4473. They are still considered an NFA item which means Form 1, fingerprints, etc...Just no $200 tax.From what I understand, 4473 and out the door!
The bill takes the tax on short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns and silencers to $0. So you would be able to add a stock to a pistol via a Form 1 without paying the "making tax."As I am not a lawyer, why can we not include folding stocks as an "add on" to this review of ATF tax reductions? I have several "pistols" that would benefit my shooting if they had side folding or under folding stocks?
In a non NFA world, the definition of the ideal brush gun looks exactly like what you don't think you wantI don't really care ... I have no use or no need for one ....\
If they was passing them out for free , I wouldn't bother standing in line ... I just have no use for one and I been shooting for 65 years now ...
Gary
You’ll be able to with this new legislation, I believe. Just form 1 an SBR for the pistol, and add a stock. NFA paperwork isn’t burdensome, and approval times are very short compared to the year+ that they used to be.As I am not a lawyer, why can we not include folding stocks as an "add on" to this review of ATF tax reductions? I have several "pistols" that would benefit my shooting if they had side folding or under folding stocks?
Oops! WCCPHD beat me to it.You’ll be able to with this new legislation, I believe. Just form 1 an SBR for the pistol, and add a stock. NFA paperwork isn’t burdensome, and approval times are very short compared to the year+ that they used to be.
It’s not perfect, but it isn’t particularly onerous, either
Surely, you jest!In a real, normal court that would be overruled & thrown out. It does nothing to alter the one-pull-one-shot process for us heathens. A decent lawyer would win that, as long as the judge was impartial.
What did you say, I couldn't hear you, my hearing has gone bad from shooting all these years.I don't really care ... I have no use or no need for one ....\
If they was passing them out for free , I wouldn't bother standing in line ... I just have no use for one and I been shooting for 65 years now ...
Gary
Pic of Beaker is funny.In a non NFA world, the definition of the ideal brush gun looks exactly like what you don't think you want
Suppressors are NOT considered firearms already. This has already been litigated in the courts, so no, there's no "double edged sword."I've read a few pundits that say this could be a double edged sword. If suppressors are taken off the NFA list then they are no longer considered firearms and therefore not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Potentially, states could ban them.
They always had that option. They can put it back at $200, or they can go crazy with it by going $5000. With the make up of the court in modern times and with Heller, McDonald, Bruen, I don't believe it will stand in court. With the tax gone and millions more owning SBRs, SBS, "other-weapons," etc., that may also bring them under the umbrella of "in common use." The removal of the tax may also get the aforementioned taken off the NFA at least for a few years.In a conversation today…..if they removed the tax why cant an anti gun admin bring it back someday in another Bill….say $5,000