[Mt man]

Yes there is. If the local sheriff or State authorities tell the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms to stay the devil out of their county or out of their State with threats of arresting Federal authorities that has teeth. Here is to hoping that happens in many States and counties across the United States.

And if it does be ready to stand behind them instead of whining on here about what they will "let us have"!

 

[lklawson]

Long video but the short of it is....

I watch a lot of his videos as of late.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[CamoDeafie]

Update, the Final Rule is supposed to be published in the Federal Register on January 31st last I read; and @ajole , the Heller case says 2A also protects arms that didn't exist at the time of 2A writing, the same way 1A protects internet, cell phone comms, and tv.... as to the "common use" thing; Caetano V. Massachusetts went to SCOTUS but was unanimously vacated and remanded and the opinion of Honorable Judge Alito, with Honorable Judge Thomas concurring; is that 200,000 stun guns makes them not "Dangerous and Unusual" weapons, and that because they didn't exist at the time of 2A's writing, doesn't mean that they are outside 2A Protection, repeating from Heller. The State of Massachusetts chose to drop all charges... and in Ramirez v. Commonwealth, it was found that stun guns are protected under 2A and the absolute Prohibition of stun stuns violated 2A...but as it didn't go all the way to SCOTUS, and as SCOTUS didn't make a decision, it is not "precedent" but... there's a possibility that the entire NFA could be binned to the trash of history through the "common lawful use vs "dangerous and unusual " weapons route.

 

[Visper]

it is not "precedent" but... there's a possibility that the entire NFA could be binned to the trash of history through the "common lawful use vs "dangerous and unusual " weapons route.

Oh God one could only hope!!!