-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
ATF at the behest of the White House attempt to ban all private firearm transactions
- Thread starter Dressed to Kill
- Start date
That number is sus, though with only 6 states (plus W.DC) having their own "firearms registration", it's probably only off by an order of magnitude.
OTOH, BATFE reports something north of 3.6 million registered NFA "firearms" (including ~2.7M suppressors and ~741K machine guns).
namedpipes
NES Member
That's so cute. They really think people will stop.
June4th
NES Member
What they're doing, is using every bit of administrative power to make gun ownership as unpleasant and inconvenient as possible. While an outright ban cannot survive legal challenges, they make it difficult for you to buy, sell, trade and practice. Look at the great length this poor Aussie fellow has gone through to keep his guns and practice shooting, including building an underground private range, and still he got busted. Shame on the news reporters that while they couldn't assail the gunowner's character, so they went on on a rant about 'what if his guns get stolen by the bad guys'...
View: https://twitter.com/HumansNoContext/status/1749779352336658686?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1749779352336658686%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
View: https://twitter.com/HumansNoContext/status/1749779352336658686?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1749779352336658686%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
rogersmithiii
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,914
- Likes
- 4,191
The Internet will tell the government what you have, and what your views on anything happen to be. If the Gestapo had the Internet back then, there would be no Jews left.Is it my eyes or is wiki claiming almost 400 million unregistered guns?
If it’s true they warms my heart#1
Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
- Juvenal
Whutmeworry
NES Member
Judging from how easy it was for them to terrify 99.5% of the U.S. population into compliance during the Covid scamdemic, I'm not so sure.
Whutmeworry
NES Member
4 years later and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has been held accountable for the Covid tyranny that has been responsible for the death, crippling, destruction and disruption of, really, the entire human race at on level or another. Think about that....
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,269
- Likes
- 33,193
Chevron Deference! FTW!
I could be wrong, but such an order would not even get to the Chevron Deference defense. It would be unconstitutional as the authority for such a rule would have to have originally come from congress. Congress does not have the power to regulate non-interstate trade.
Ever wonder why you have to go through a FFL when you sell across borders but don't when you sell within the state? Put simply, when the Brady bill was being written congress still understood what its limitations were. They knew that attempting to force all sales through federal control wouldn't hold up. Sell across state lines and it is interstate commerce, an action congress was give explicit control over. If the sale never crosses state lines, congress has no authority.
Yes, there are some ways such an expansion could be argued but with US Supreme Court rulings as recent as the Affordable Care Act, the courts have indicated that trying to bend the commerce clause to be overly broad won't be tolerated. If you add in the long look the courts are having at Chevron Deference abuses, this wouldn't last long at all.
Ever wonder why you have to go through a FFL when you sell across borders but don't when you sell within the state? Put simply, when the Brady bill was being written congress still understood what its limitations were. They knew that attempting to force all sales through federal control wouldn't hold up. Sell across state lines and it is interstate commerce, an action congress was give explicit control over. If the sale never crosses state lines, congress has no authority.
Yes, there are some ways such an expansion could be argued but with US Supreme Court rulings as recent as the Affordable Care Act, the courts have indicated that trying to bend the commerce clause to be overly broad won't be tolerated. If you add in the long look the courts are having at Chevron Deference abuses, this wouldn't last long at all.
KBCraig
NES Member
They have since 1942, which is why lots of purely intrastate commerce is illegal.
Congress did pass an, infuriatingly, bipartisan bill a couple years ago or so that redefined what it meant to be “in the business” or selling firearms. It really broadened it and this is what the ATF would base their rule around if they are making a new rule.
And sadly, Congress regulates a metric shit ton of intrastate trade. The courts continue to allow it. The commerce clause is massively abused and the courts don’t care. There have also been people charged with federal gun crimes in states that passed laws saying that certain federal gun laws did not apply to guns/silencers made and kept in state. Their cases, to the best of my knowledge, have not been successfully appealed on the grounds you say.
ATF said “f*** your intrastate trade” and did what they always do. The courts didn’t care.
That'll work once or twice. Then, well, I'm glad I retired before they tried to tell me to do such a thing.
I think the dummy filled with tannerite becomes a legitimate option.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
I'm still waiting for the stroke of genius from one of you as to what we're going to do to FIX this.
Unfortunately I don't think this has ever applied "because guns".
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 23,993
- Likes
- 30,150
Would this apply under chevron though?
This seems like its right up the atf's charter
Now obviously I'm not saying its constitutional and if anything it seems like it could wipe the interstate commerce act out as far as guns and even (boner pending) kick that back to the states entirely
Not sure how the atf honestly has any constitutional grounds to have included firearms or explosves
I guess i can see them being an arm of treasury on taxing alcohol...
Varmint
NES Member
Don’t they have to also ban boating?
Amazing how all these libs follow the Obama cry of "if Australia can do it why cant the US" and then ignore the fact that Australians have no bill of rights in their constitution and the ONLY rights afforded them by their constitution are :
1. The state or commonwealth shall not impose any religion on them
2. The state shall not subject them to any "disability or discrimination" UNLESS it is a commonwealth wide law that impacts everybody equally.
3. The commonwealth will protect them from invasion
(Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Chapter V)
I highly recommend that all liberals whining for US citizens to follow the laws of the commonwealth of Australia be forced to watch the NETFLIX Documentary "ONEFOUR :Against All Odds" and watch heavily tattooed (and ARMED) white police officers smashing down doors of people of color and dragging them off to jail for the offense of "voicing views detrimental to the government" in their music videos. (Yes you will see the Police Commissioner explaining that this is legal).
