Erebus
Member
Any plant that yields more than 10 tomatos should be banned.
And those cheap, easily concealable cherry tomatos, don't get me started on those.
And those cheap, easily concealable cherry tomatos, don't get me started on those.
A fun comeback when anti's bring up the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter GuyWithQuestions
- Start date
- Status
Sam Adams
Member
C'mon, someone tell me why the NFA restrictions on full autos is still valid when Title 18, Section 922(o) forbids any additions to the full auto registry (and, thus, forbids the collection of the $200.00 tax for doing so)? It seems to me that this is a gimme - so I must be missing something. I can't be the first person in the last 21 years to think of this.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Title 18, Section 922(o)
Without looking it up, I will presume this is the change to the
US Code brought about by the Hughes Amendment.
Between 1934 and 1986, about 128,000 machineguns were
registered under the National Firearms Act registry, with little
or no crime use of NFA registered guns--only one murder (by
a police officer who obviously had access to other firearms).
Some people called the machinegun registry a successful
control law. So what did the antis do when they had the
opening? They tacked the Hughes Amendment onto the
Firearms Owners Protection Act as a "poison pill"--banned
future NFA MG registrations 19 May 1986.
Title 18, Section 922(o) is a monument to the fact that
antis do not want "control"--they want bans. To the
prohibitionist mentality reasonable legislation is prohibition.
The most restrictive registration program was not enough--
the Hughes Amendment turned it into a defacto ban.
Without looking it up, I will presume this is the change to the
US Code brought about by the Hughes Amendment.
Between 1934 and 1986, about 128,000 machineguns were
registered under the National Firearms Act registry, with little
or no crime use of NFA registered guns--only one murder (by
a police officer who obviously had access to other firearms).
Some people called the machinegun registry a successful
control law. So what did the antis do when they had the
opening? They tacked the Hughes Amendment onto the
Firearms Owners Protection Act as a "poison pill"--banned
future NFA MG registrations 19 May 1986.
Title 18, Section 922(o) is a monument to the fact that
antis do not want "control"--they want bans. To the
prohibitionist mentality reasonable legislation is prohibition.
The most restrictive registration program was not enough--
the Hughes Amendment turned it into a defacto ban.
Steve499
Member
I'm still wondering when SCOTUS ruled the 2nd amendment only applied to the national guard.
Steve
Steve
Seminole
Member
Marko,
Very well put!
Very well put!
Davo
Member
Who invented Carrot Jam? History's greatest monster, thats who...
Sam Adams
Member
Exactly my point - because of 922(o), the NFA is no longer a law that has revenue raising as its main intent. CLEARLY the refusal to accept revenue demonstrates that the point of the NFA is prohibition, pure and simple.
Again, for any 2A legal beagles, does this give rise to a credible challenge to the NFA?
- Status