Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0

    Another off beat NFA question

    I have a friend who lives in Nevada which has historically always been NFA friendly. The new governor and legislature etc though are talking about reversing course on the subject.

    As far as I know not many states have ever really completely reversed course from legal to illegal. It's always been the other way around.

    He's asking me about what would happen and I told him simply I don't know.

    For people who already own suppressors and the like, I don't know what they can do as it's already legally owned and no grandfather clause is being discussed.

    I can see how it would prevent any new stamps from being issued, but what about existing ones, or say suppressors brought in from out of state?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    15,286
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Depends on the verbiage of the law. Hard to accurately answer a hypothetical question when you don't really have a frame work yet.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Maybe somebody from Nevada or who knows what's going on can eventually comment.

    Just in general though if a state reverses course on an NFA item that was legally obtained I don't think they can retroactively make you give up your stuff.

    It seems to me that there are all kinds of legal limbo questions going on around the country. Those stupid mag limit laws and other things...it's all a variant of the same bullshit.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    15,286
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The laws now are written without grandfather clauses.

    Look at New Jersey, where you could only have a 15 round magazine before, now it's 10 rounds.

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...-jail-n2491153

    These idiots expect you to give up your own property without compensation, no due process. In fact, in California, they were going to tax text messages, and then retroactively go after texts you've already sent the last 2 years to tax that. INSANE!

    Where I live, the State Law already specifically bans NFA items SBR, SBS, MG, DD's, unless you have a tax stamp... well MG's and SBS's are still banned. So they're defacto illegal unless you have the proper documentation. A little rewording and poof they're gone. The ATF stopped approving Form 1 SBR's here for awhile because the gray area legal wording. There is no doubt in my mind, you'd have to move your stuff to a free state if legislation passed.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    On the bank of the Mighty Muskingum
    Posts
    4,029
    Downloads
    6
    Uploads
    0
    <backspace>

    ... So stuff that feather up your a$$ and call it macaroni! Oi!
    There's no "Team" in F**K YOU!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,070
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by alamo5000 View Post
    Just in general though if a state reverses course on an NFA item that was legally obtained I don't think they can retroactively make you give up your stuff.
    Yes, they can. It's generally hard to get laws passed that aren't retroactive, but there is nothing stopping them other than the democratic process and state constitution.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    820
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I would think there would have to be some sort of compensation...but I really couldn't give you anything more than a guess.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,854
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BoilerUp View Post
    Yes, they can. It's generally hard to get laws passed that aren't retroactive, but there is nothing stopping them other than the democratic process and state constitution.
    I would think something like this would easily wind up in the Supreme Court as it has constitutionality written all over it on a whole number of levels.

    First off would be just gun control in general and the desire to say ban AR15's or whatever and then more generally taking someones legally and lawfully purchased and owned products and so on and so forth.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    15,286
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by alamo5000 View Post
    I would think something like this would easily wind up in the Supreme Court as it has constitutionality written all over it on a whole number of levels.

    First off would be just gun control in general and the desire to say ban AR15's or whatever and then more generally taking someones legally and lawfully purchased and owned products and so on and so forth.
    So far, lower courts have typically said, FU to gun owners and the SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •