National Are pistol braces coming to the chopping block?

[awshoot]

You mean like bumpstocks and Akins accelerators

Man -- that looks like good affordable fun:

 

[FireArm]

feds after the 70,000 X $200 ...

 

[awshoot]

feds after the 70,000 X $200 ...

But they also got a $215ish PISTOL excise tax. They have to pay that back if it is not a pistol.

 

[BSDave]

Yes that I would say is a MAJOR downside of getting an NFA item. You are then officially on a list with the exact type of firearm you own. Unfortunately

I feel unfortunately if you've purchased a firearm in the last 10 years your already on a list. The reason I say this. The last rifle I bought just before the KungFlu became popular. Was a Savage Stealth in .308w. For whatever reason the gun shop called in the BGC and was on speaker. He rattles of all my info and such along with gun info. Then I here the nics guy asks. Savage Stealth, is that an assault rifle? Gun shop guy says no just a fancy bolt action hunting rifle.

 

[wollzy]

Then I here the nics guy asks. Savage Stealth, is that an assault rifle? Gun shop guy says no just a fancy bolt action hunting rifle.

Yikes...he called it an assault rifle huh?

Yea I have a hard time believing the state is actually destroying the BGC records after 5 years.

 

[SCARed]

Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR

He was arrested for constructive possession, which absolutely is a thing.

Like I said, "constructive intent" doesn't exist.

 

[The Resister]

I think you are mistaken on ex post facto laws -- this is a prohibition on recategorizing previously legal conduct as illegal and prosecuting the previous conduct on the basis of a change in the law. Ex post facto law - Wikipedia .

TLDR: it doesn't matter if a thing was legal in the past, if it is illegal now and you hold it, your conduct is a present crime, not a past one. Theoretically, you are entitled to just compensation under the 5A.

Property is not the same as conduct. Here's an example. Let's say that in 1914 the US outlawed cocaine (*). A person imports a ton of coke in 1913 and sells some of it via mail order. The 1914 law could not be used to prosecute that person for the drug importation/dealing he did in 1913. After passage in 1914 however, that person has an issue with respect to any remainder of the legally imported 1913 stash -- keeping it is a form of conduct happening in the present under a new law.

What he should do is use the 5A and request compensation for the value of the remainder of his now illegal goods and hand them over to some authority while he awaits compensation. If he doesn't do that though, he can be arrested and charged in 1915 for holding on to (and/or selling) his recategorized now illegal, previously legally imported blow. The person would face zero consequences for the 1913 conduct (that would be application of a law ex post facto), but by possessing and/or distributing in 1915, he is committing a current crime and thus, there is no ex post facto situation because he's only being prosecuted for what he did after the law went into effect.

(*) History of Cocaine in America: When Did It Become Illegal?

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion; I deal in facts. My stance is correct - plenty of legal education to sustain a discussion, but you said TLDR, so I won't entertain your position. Just offer you some advice if you want to argue law with someone who did it for a career:

"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13

 

[The Resister]

You mean like bumpstocks and Akins accelerators

That is exactly the kinds of things I had in mind. When they came out, they were looked at and deemed legal. Nothing mechanical changed, so the only reason for outlawing such items is political popularity. Would you invest in anything if you knew the government could come along and declare it illegal tomorrow? Did Trump offer anyone the $125 to $200 price tag people probably paid for a bump stock?

The courts and the president are not legislators.

 

[awshoot]

... but you said TLDR, so I won't entertain your position. ....

LOL -- the TLDR wasn't in reference to your post -- it was an offer to anyone who didn't want to read my long blahblahblah.

EDIT: TLDR for the long post below: "citation for that?"

Anyway, I believe I understand your assertion. Paraphrased it is:

the prohibition on ex post facto laws makes an object acquired when it was legal to do so, lawful to possess for all time, even if a law enacted after the date of acquisition makes that object illegal to possess.

I suggest this is a dangerous assertion.

Your focus is on the object itself when thinking of ex post facto laws. I believe this focus is misplaced and it should be on conduct, i.e., the act of possession. I used cocaine as an example of an object that was once legal to import, have, and sell by anybody. The article I cited indicated that some famous people, Ulysses S Grant for one, thought it good stuff. The guy who invented Coca-Cola originally made cocaine laced wine, until GA made booze illegal, so he went with a sugar concoction we all love to this day (though sans coca these days).

Anyway, I provided an example of an object that became contraband and which would cause legal issues for continued possession following a change in the law. Others mentioned bump stocks. I'm sure there are plenty of examples from many areas of life.

That means it is your turn -- provide us an example of something that was made contraband without a grandfather clause, that has been determined legal to continue to posses if acquired pre-ban.

 

[wired]

That is exactly the kinds of things I had in mind. When they came out, they were looked at and deemed legal. Nothing mechanical changed, so the only reason for outlawing such items is political popularity. Would you invest in anything if you knew the government could come along and declare it illegal tomorrow? Did Trump offer anyone the $125 to $200 price tag people probably paid for a bump stock?

The courts and the president are not legislators.

What you meant and what happened are two different things. You said you cannot make possession of either one of those illegal if you had them already when the law changed. Thats exactly what he ATF did except for the fact that the law did not change. The ATF's interpretation of the law changed.

 

[The Resister]

LOL -- the TLDR wasn't in reference to your post -- it was an offer to anyone who didn't want to read my long blahblahblah.

EDIT: TLDR for the long post below: "citation for that?"

Anyway, I believe I understand your assertion. Paraphrased it is:

I suggest this is a dangerous assertion.

Your focus is on the object itself when thinking of ex post facto laws. I believe this focus is misplaced and it should be on conduct, i.e., the act of possession. I used cocaine as an example of an object that was once legal to import, have, and sell by anybody. The article I cited indicated that some famous people, Ulysses S Grant for one, thought it good stuff. The guy who invented Coca-Cola originally made cocaine laced wine, until GA made booze illegal, so he went with a sugar concoction we all love to this day (though sans coca these days).

Anyway, I provided an example of an object that became contraband and which would cause legal issues for continued possession following a change in the law. Others mentioned bump stocks. I'm sure there are plenty of examples from many areas of life.

That means it is your turn -- provide us an example of something that was made contraband without a grandfather clause, that has been determined legal to continue to posses if acquired pre-ban.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. So, I'll be blunt. In 1994 they passed the Assault Weapons Ban. If you owned a banned weapon before the date of enactment of the law, you got to keep your weapon with no caveats. You did not have to pay a tax on it; didn't have to register it; did not have to surrender it.

The law means what the law says. The only constitutional way the government can now ban firearms is to start on the ones that will be produced after a proposed law is signed into effect. All firearms that precede it will be automatically covered and subject to the restrictions. Even then, we need to have l o n g discussion about how the government illegally attacked and then nullified unalienable Rights.

 

[wired]

Two words. Street Sweeper. All the ATF has to do is rule something as non sporting and it falls under the NFA. No laws changed and you have to pay tax and register on a form 1. Plenty of precedence . Wining about your inalienable rights and 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

 

[The Resister]

What you meant and what happened are two different things. You said you cannot make possession of either one of those illegal if you had them already when the law changed. Thats exactly what he ATF did except for the fact that the law did not change. The ATF's interpretation of the law changed.

Now you're simply playing semantics. That's a cool way to allow for the registration of all firearms. Just keep reinterpreting the law.

 

[wired]

Now you're simply playing semantics. That's a cool way to allow for the registration of all firearms. Just keep reinterpreting the law.

Semantics are the game you're playing. They are setting policy based on loopholes in the law that allow them to do it. You could drive a truck through those holes and that's just what they are doing. Loopholes pass both ways. Sure as sh!t that's how they are going to put what THEY define as assault weapons under the purview of the NFA sooner or later.

 

[The Resister]

Two words. Street Sweeper. All the ATF has to do is rule something as non sporting and it falls under the NFA. No laws changed and you have to pay tax and register on a form 1. Plenty of precedence . Wining about your inalienable rights and 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.


View attachment 761614

Make no mistake. I'm not concerned with inalienable rights. I only care about unalienable Rights. In legal parlance, they are different concepts. Now, I've been obliged to give an example of how the ban of ex post facto laws has been observed in this country. I did. Has the government previously passed ex post facto laws? Does a wild bear take a dump in the woods?

According to Black's Law Dictionary, the term ex post facto means:

"After the fact; by an act or fact occurring after some previous act or fact, relating thereto; by subsequent matter..."

"Wining" (sic) - whining about your Rights and a few bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. Sitting on your butt and refusing to do something about your Rights is an iron clad guarantee that a conniving government will take the balance of what Rights you have left. The methods by which government has stolen our Rights is immoral, illegal, unconscionable, indefensible, reprehensible, and unconstitutional. That you did not see that I complained about unalienable Rights not "inalienable rights," reminds me of asking a high schooler the difference between a profit and a profit margin. You mean well, but you simply do not have the facts.

I realize that 99 percent of all the people here will never do anything proactive about their Rights. This would be a perfect platform to get a feel for the way another guy feels about the subject and you can always PM that person IF you're interested in working together. Why let this kind of platform go to waste? The future will not be decided by masses, but rather by small numbers who fully understand the system and they work within those parameters to effect the best possible outcome.

 

[The Resister]

Semantics are the game you're playing. They are setting policy based on loopholes in the law that allow them to do it. You could drive a truck through those holes and that's just what they are doing. Loopholes pass both ways. Sure as sh!t that's how they are going to put what THEY define as assault weapons under the purview of the NFA sooner or later.

No, I do not play semantics. I interpret laws as per the admonition of the founders of this country and framers of the Constitution. The government has the power to do what you claim. I have not disputed that. What I've said is that they lack the authority. It is the job of the citizen to hold the government in check. I'd like to have a couple of other gentlemen weigh in on this conversation. First, I will introduce you to Thomas Jefferson, the author or the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson states:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

In his Farewell Address, George Washington said:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

Next, I would call upon Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. As a Justice, I would submit that his words are a bit more authoritative than other Justices sitting on the bench because Story was nominated to the bench by the author of the Second Amendment:

"The Right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

The purpose behind taxing firearms then outlawing same by feature along with registration is calculated so as to infringe on the Right of the people so as to prevent them from insuring the security of a free State. It's time we quit making excuses, having liberals defend the actions of the left and then man up, step up, and resist tyranny. You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress, but before you do that, you have to understand what those Rights are. Unfortunately, you're not quite there yet.

 

[wired]

No, I do not play semantics. I interpret laws as per the admonition of the founders of this country and framers of the Constitution. The government has the power to do what you claim. I have not disputed that. What I've said is that they lack the authority. It is the job of the citizen to hold the government in check. I'd like to have a couple of other gentlemen weigh in on this conversation. First, I will introduce you to Thomas Jefferson, the author or the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson states:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

In his Farewell Address, George Washington said:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

Next, I would call upon Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. As a Justice, I would submit that his words are a bit more authoritative than other Justices sitting on the bench because Story was nominated to the bench by the author of the Second Amendment:

"The Right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

The purpose behind taxing firearms then outlawing same by feature along with registration is calculated so as to infringe on the Right of the people so as to prevent them from insuring the security of a free State. It's time we quit making excuses, having liberals defend the actions of the left and then man up, step up, and resist tyranny. You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress, but before you do that, you have to understand what those Rights are. Unfortunately, you're not quite there yet.

None of that matters when they are doing what they are doing with impunity. You might think its unconstitutional but you dont sit on the US Supreme court. Thats what really matters and those people have consistently said restrictions on who can own firearms and what types of firearms can be owned are constitutional.

 

[turbo_vanner]

Make no mistake. I'm not concerned with inalienable rights. I only care about unalienable Rights.

No, I do not play semantics.

 

[The Resister]

None of that matters when they are doing what they are doing with impunity. You might think its unconstitutional but you dont sit on the US Supreme court. Thats what really matters and those people have consistently said restrictions on who can own firearms and what types of firearms can be owned are constitutional.

If you look at the writings of the founders and framers it simply does not take a Harvard graduate to determine the intent upon which the Republic rests. Now, let me talk about the men and women on the United States Supreme Court:

The unofficial organization for accrediting law schools and vetting potential judges (including Justices of the United States Supreme Court) is the American Bar Association (ABA). The ABA is the most liberal institution in the United States of America, being left of even the Communist Party USA. Like the United States Marine Corps, their training is so intense that once you've graduated from an ABA accredited school you think, look, dress, walk talk and act like like a lawyer. In the United States Supreme Court the Justices use verbiage such as "make new law" when the Constitution only empowers them to interpret the law. If we went by the law that authority does not include granting powers to themselves or other branches of government; it does not allow them to legislate from the bench; it does not allow them to reinterpret their own decisions.

In an ideal world, the legislature writes up new laws and passes them. The president signs those bills into law and the courts interpret the law. Once the law reaches the United States Supreme Court, they interpret the law and no more. If society changes; if the law does not reflect public opinion, then it becomes the job of the legislature to write new laws and / or begin the process of amending the Constitution. This we did not do and now America is a tyrannical dictatorship, albeit very subtle in its nuances. The fact that you imply an almost god like omnipotent power of the United States Supreme Court should tell even you that something is very wrong.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, unilaterally decided that it was the final arbiter of what the law is. My response:


"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow." James Madison, author of the Second Amendment

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Cox, delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress

Compare that to the ruling in Heller. We have a duty, an obligation, and the Right to defend Liberty. We are being ruled by an illegal government and they treat it like toilet paper.

 

[The Resister]

You quote me, but make no point. Whether you like it or not, there is a legal distinction between unalienable and inalienable. That, my friend, is NOT semantics. It is reality.