I have a dumb question. *Really* dumb. Here is the text of Section 3 of the proposed amendment to HR 5005: Does the "provide national security services" in the amendment to HR5005 have to be explicit or can it be implied? That is, does there have to be a "The Federal Government hereby contracts Company X to provide national security services from this date to that date"? Because if not... (cracks knuckles) States contract with private businesses to run things like the DMV. The federal government contracts with the USPS (a private corporation) to provide postal service. Local municipalities contract out maintenance duties. Could states (or municipalities) engage a private corporation to provide national security services in the event of a disaster or potential disaster? This would certainly enhance national security. What if those services consisted solely of providing training, purchasing, and maintenance of firearms to eligible members of the community, who were given a salary of, say, $1/year and subject to range qualification every year? And given that those corporations are explicitly contracted by the state or local governments under an *implicit* contract from the federal government - under the proposed amendment to HR5005, they are exempt from the 1934 NFA and the 1986 ban. Therefore, under the amended HR5005, they are allowed to purchase military hardware for their "employees" - who are in reality just citizens who have volunteered for service - and of course, those "employees" must keep their weapons at home. All it takes is one municipality to form a citizen's militia armed with NFA weapons under the amended HR5005. Of course, the ATF will have something to say about it, and you'll have to take it to the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court will have to decide either #1 or #2: 1. Corporations are exempted from the NFA *and* the people shall not be restricted from owning NFA weapons. OR 2. People shall be restricted under the NFA/'86 ban *and* corporations are restricted as well. There's no possibility for a middle ground. If corporations are to be exempt from the NFA, SO TOO MUST THE PEOPLE. Like I said, it's a dumb set of questions. Or is it? The more I think about it, the more interesting and far-reaching the implications are.