Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok...well, like you said, we shall see how it all pans out...
tyeo098Sam,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam1911
You could say it's been covered:
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...egislation.pdf
That letter applies to FFL's and is carefully worded to make it sound like it applies to everyone, but they only have that authority over the FFL's. This is because they know with firearms made in accordance to the FFA they have no jurisdiction over.
Actually I live in VA where there is no such law, and without a relevant court case or law stating otherwise, the only thing we can do is speculate.If you think Federal laws regarding commerce in firearms only applies to FFL's you are terribly in error.
If you think ATF only enforces firearms laws on FFL's you are terribly in error.
If you think a state "firearm freedom law" will actually offer you immunity from prosecutuion then by all means go for it. Be prepared to lose everything you own.....which will be fine for the next ten years because you'll be living rent free.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed more than three decades before there was such a thing as a Federal Firearms License. But go ahead and make a pipe bomb out of materials you acquire locally. That would be a Destructive Device under the NFA and subject to a tax stamp, but since your "firearm freedom law" protects you, ATF won't go kicking in your door....right?
Not exactly. A Class 02 Manufacturer can make machine guns. A Class 03 Dealer cannot. A Class 02 doesn't need a demo letter. A Class 03 dealer does.Yes, class 3 manufacturers can make new MG, as samples for LEO's. With a Demo letter only.
Technically the laws of Congress only apply what they are based on, ie. Interstate Commerce.
If the machinegun never enters Interstate Commerce, the law doesn't apply to it ie Montana's Firearms Freedom law.
Similarly, the Court upheld a ban on the growth of marijuana intended for medical use on the grounds that Congress could rationally conclude that this growth might make enforcement of drug laws more difficult by creating an otherwise lawful source of marijuana that could be diverted into the illicit market:
In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Gonzales v. Raich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Contemporary_Commerce_Clause_debate