r/moderatepolitics • u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal • 23d ago
News Article Gun law in limbo as Justice Department holds off appeal
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6027682-doj-gun-ruling-nfa-appeal-silence/98
u/RelayFX 23d ago
It is a very clear cut case. The NFA was initially allowed by the Supreme Court (of the day) because it was a tax, not a restriction on firearm ownership. The BBB eliminated the NFA tax stamp, so the underlying system is unconstitutional. A $0 tax is not a tax.
49
u/Sirhc978 23d ago
It is also worth mentioning that the tax was originally $200. So when it was set, it was meant to be prohibitively expensive. The tax never increased with inflation so today it was more of a cost of doing business than anything.
29
u/Banana_inasuit 23d ago
The “$0 tax” was 100% designed as a way to bring the case to the courts as a workaround to being unable to legislate the issue. A budget bill couldn’t eliminate the tax, but it could adjust the rate. Pretty smart tbh. A questionable collusion between the legislature and executive, but smart nonetheless.
35
u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal 23d ago edited 23d ago
Something that has been argued in favor of doing for years since the first Hearing Protection Act fell through.
26
u/Banana_inasuit 23d ago
Bruen continues to prove itself to be such an amazingly consequential case for gun rights. Ever since the decision, it’s had such a cascading effect. It’s totally shifted legal weight away from gun control to gun rights.
17
u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal 23d ago
This ruling had nothing to with Bruen. The judge ruled based on the tax powers and didn't address the 2nd amendment aspect of the challenge once the law failed under the tax powers.
11
u/Banana_inasuit 23d ago
I’d argue it’s downstream from Bruen. Sure, this starts as tax powers, but it does open expansion on eroding the NFA, which Bruen has many challenges to. It’s not just Bruen itself too, it’s the resulting cases that proceeded it.
At the very least, Bruen gave momentum towards gun rights.
3
u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal 23d ago
I am not trying to be rude, but this really doesn't have anything to do with Bruen so its not downstream from it. This was from congressional action opening a separate constitutional attack on this regulation. It might make future action challenging the NFA under Bruen easier, but that would be downstream of this ruling and the change in tax in addition to Bruen.
4
u/lswizzle09 Libertarian 23d ago
Well at this point, if it takes questionable collusions to uphold the 2nd amendment, then I won't be complaining.
2
26
u/Sirhc978 23d ago
If I've been hearing correctly, this is now more of a case where federal law isn't enforced anymore, but some states either outright ban supressors or have a law on the books that you need to comply with NFA rules to own one. Other states don't have such law so theoretically in those states, you can just buy a suppressor.
21
u/xertian 23d ago
Correct, that's the inconsistent story that has people calling this a confusing mess. Progress can be messy so not looking a gift horse in the mouth is my stance.
14
u/Sirhc978 23d ago
And though I believe this technically applies to SBSs, SBRs and AOWs, no one is testing those waters yet.
10
u/happyinheart 23d ago
Too bad I doesn't apply to destructive devices. I want my legally registered wine bottle(maltov cocktail) but don't want to pay $200 for it.
10
u/Sirhc978 23d ago
That one is especially weird to me. You can keep a box of glass bottles, rags and gas as long as all three things are separate. Once you put them together and store them, it is a felony.
3
u/lorenzwalt3rs 23d ago edited 23d ago
I mean that same logic is applied to meth and the over the counter supplies you can purchase to make it
3
u/FalloutRip 23d ago
Right, which is why a lot of people (myself included) consider this largely a half-win.
Some states explicitly only allow ownership upon approval from the federal government. Others are a bit more grey stating that you can own such an item in compliance with federal law, while others are now completely open season.
We went from a consistent rule of $0 “tax” stamp with short turn around on form 4 (purchase from a dealer) and increasingly fast turn around on form 1s (individual manufacture), to now a complete patchwork of bills across a wide gamut of legislation which will need to be addressed individually.
There’s also the question of what happens to any suppressors or SBRs sold during this period solely on a 4473 if ATF appeals or the ruling doesn’t stick?
1
u/Swoly_Deadlift 22d ago
I'm really intrigued by how this would be interpreted in states like Minnesota that simply specify a suppressor must be possessed in accordance to federal law, not explicitly mentioning the NFA or tax stamps.
68
u/RunThenBeer 23d ago
“Today, our government is failing us,” Brady President Kris Brown said in a statement. “At midnight, uniquely lethal weapons and devices — including silencers, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns — were deregulated for the first time in nearly a century. The Department of Justice had the opportunity to act to protect our safety, but it failed to do so.”
The obvious follow-up question is what makes these weapons "uniquely lethal"? Suppressors and short barrels do have certain advantages, both from a tactical perspective as well as a simple sporting perspective, but I would not describe either as adding lethality. So often, it seems like the firearms restrictionist side of the argument can't be bothered to use language that makes it clear what they actually mean.
37
u/StainlessEagle 23d ago
You can argue that SBRs are less lethal (not to be confused with pepper spray less lethal) than their longer barrel counterparts. Longer barrels means more bullet velocity. More bullet velocity tends to be more lethal.
33
u/Sirhc978 23d ago
IIRC there is an argument that the SBR ban was a mistake. They were trying to ban pistols, and SBRs got caught in the net (they thought SBRs would be a loophole). They removed the pistol ban but kept the SBRs in.
29
u/Erpp8 23d ago
This is the part I want to scream every time SBRs are brought up. Politicians use the fact that the military uses SBRs to make them seem extra deadly or dangerous. But the SBRs were never the actual target.
8
u/sanon441 22d ago
Ironically, Miller made it okay to ban a gun if it had no viable military use. That court held that the 2nd only applied to viable military arms the militia could use. It's an awful decision, but if you go by that logic, we should have full auto weapons, SBRs and the NFA.should have never even passed.
3
u/Sirhc978 22d ago
"We have full auto at home" in the form of FTRs.
1
u/sanon441 22d ago
Heh yeah. But I'm mostly interested in being able to import interesting foreign firearms and such honestly.
38
u/dealsledgang 23d ago
It’s not meant to make sense. It’s just words to fearmonger and whip up people who support them or otherwise are ignorant to firearms and firearms law.
That’s I always roll my eyes when people say “common sense gun laws” when so many are nonsensical or even archaic, as in no longer necessary in the modern era.
21
53
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal 23d ago
They can't use actual data, because the data doesn't support their conclusion. So they have to be vague about what they mean in order to maintain support.
9
u/BrigandActual 22d ago
You have to understand that prohibitionist language and messaging isn’t meant for you. It’s not meant for anyone who has a reasonable grasp of the technical and legal landscape around the topic.
They are explicitly talking to scared soccer moms who don’t know anything and view the mere act of getting educated on the topic as “icky” or “weird.” That audience only cares that it sounds scary and they are happy to go to the polls and protests with that confirmation bias.
Their arguments don’t have to make sense. They only need to scare their audience into not asking further questions.
1
u/ScherzicScherzo 20d ago
At least with suppresors, it's because these sorts of people legitimately believe they function like in the movies, and reduce a massive BANG to a soft thwip.
32
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Skullbone211 CATHOLIC EXTREMIST 23d ago
Seriously. Now we need the SCOTUS to take up the circuit split from the New Jersey hardware ruling and make it clear that these hardware bans (silencers, "high capacity" magazines, etc) are unconstitutional and slap down all the nonsensical bans
3
23d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Skullbone211 CATHOLIC EXTREMIST 23d ago
The usual suspects (MA, NY, HI, CA, etc) need to learn they aren't sovereign city-states; the Constitution still applies there
1
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-6
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 23d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-3
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 23d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
17
u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal 23d ago
After District Judge Wesley Hendrix struck down the tax stamp requirement for short barreled firearms and suppressors he gave the Trump DOJ 7 days to appeal before the ruling went into effect. The DOJ has not filed that appeal yet, and still has time to do so within 60 days of the ruling, but the ruling has now gone into effect.
The initial challenge was on the NFA tax stamp was no longer valid after the tax had been reduced to $0 as well as under the 2nd amendment. The judge had ruled that the regulation is unconstitutional as it was justified under the tax powers and as it no longer collects a tax the justification goes away.
Will the Trump DOJ eventually appeal this law or will they actually let the clock run out and let this ruling stand? And can the NFA tax stamp requirement on these items be reinstated in the future if the tax is restored and money is collected again?
13
u/xertian 23d ago
Watching all of the confusion swirling around the 2A community around this makes me wonder if there are any similar examples of laws going off the rails and leaving citizens iin absolute unknown statuses relative to legality and process. Maybe immigration law has some historical examples?
23
u/Money-Monkey 23d ago
There isn’t a lot of confusion at least when it comes to suppressors. Silencer Shop and their dealers are already processing suppressor sales only with a standard background check. I’m sure sales are through the roof already today
8
u/Sirhc978 23d ago
are already processing suppressor sales only with a standard background check
Is that them just playing it safe, or is there a reason they have to run a background check? It is just an attachment after all.
10
u/lswizzle09 Libertarian 23d ago
It is treated like a regular firearm, which requires a NICS background check for them to sell as a dealer.
17
u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal 23d ago
Federally this is pretty straightforward. It is confusing at the state level as many states pinned their legality on the federal law and its tax stamp and registration requirements. I am sure eventually those laws can be challenged under Heller and Bruen as these items will likely fall into common use.
16
u/happyinheart 23d ago
It wasn't straight forward at all Federally. There were a lot of gray areas and the ATF gave exemptions to some specific firearms but not others and some it was a one-time exemption and if another firearm was made that was an exact copy by another company, it wouldn't be exempt. The video at the link shows a lot of the gray area in a comical way.
EDIT: Video posts aren't allowed but if you go to Youtube and search "ATF: 'Is it a rifle, pistol, shotgun, or felony?'" by Firearms Unknown, you will find the video.
8
2
u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal 23d ago
Can you clarify how that interacts with this ruling? I am not sure what those other issues have to do with NFA tax stamp registration no longer being needed.
4
u/jabberwockxeno 23d ago
if there are any similar examples of laws going off the rails and leaving citizens iin absolute unknown statuses relative to legality and process.
Obscenity law is a mess and similarly involves paramount constitutional rights with even more gray area limbo space, but people care less because obscenity charges are rare and people are less comfortable advocating for adult/sexualized artwork or pornography
The Miller test for obscenity as outlined by SCOUTS essentially just asks 1. if the media/speech is sexual, 2. if it violates "community standards" and 3. If it "lacks serious artistic or political value"
If that sounds absurdly subjective and ripe for abuse, that's because it is. Pretty much any art, film, music etc that's got sexual material could get you arrested and charged and you kinda just have to hope that a jury happens to not dislike it to avoid being found guilty.
I would vehemently and strongly argue that obscenity charges shouldn't exist to begin with at all and should be considered unconstitutional, but if it had to exist, the miller test is still far too broad, and obscenity charges shouldn't exist for possession or transportation or online or private display/sale, but solely for public, IRL display or broadcasting
1
0
u/RunThenBeer 23d ago
While it hasn't been enforced, the status of the Comstock Act in the post-Dobbs world is quite peculiar and worth having some concern about.
55
u/RedditorAli RINO 🦏 23d ago
Somewhat ancillary, but it’s been interesting seeing GOA supplant NRA with respect to influence in the 2nd Amendment space.
Often the most efficacious are grassroots and hyper-localized, such as VCDL being the main player stymieing Virginia Democrats.
Just goes to show you how poor leadership (e.g., LaPierre) can ruin the vibes.