Separate names with a comma.
Welcome to The Outdoors Trader! Join today, registration is easy!
Thread in 'Law & Order' started by Nautibodi, Jun 2, 2019.
No... they can't 'ban' them without changing the NFA. Unlike bump stocks, cans are fully described in the NFA and there's no legal difference between a suppressor today and one from the 1930s. There's no grey area with suppressors for the ATF to do a bump stock-like ban.
If anything, I could see Congress doing something like the post-86 machine gun ban though, or raise the $200 tax to match inflation, which would make it about $3,800 in today's money.
I'm sure either of those would pass the House, but the Senate might be iffy. I'd be afraid that there would be a 'compromise' of making the tax 'just' $1500 or something.
GOP should have pushed the HPA through when they had a chance. I guess this means the suppressor companies will be doing well again until things settle down one way or the other.
Y’all be careful, there are chunks of sky hitting all around us...
Guess he couldn't read. He broke the law when he ignored this.
If they decide to ban them they will, regardless of any current NFA status.
Yup, about the only thing the ATF could do would be require CLEO sign-offs again.
Anything else would have to be Congress changing the NFA and post-NFA laws. This isn't a new technology like bump stocks, where the ATF has latitude. Neither the technology or the definition of a suppressor has changed since the NFA went into effect.
We really need to find out of the suppressor used was purchased or homemade. A homemade can would really show how ridiculous the NFA is, if you can simply take an oil filter and a thread adapter and use it instead of a legal suppressor.
Trump dont like em so they gotta go. I would like to see this defended.
I have noticed the new buzzword for the gun control crowd is “extended magazines”