Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: NoobRep
Quote from the ATF letter to FFL dealers:

However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

--

The Gun Control Act--

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (also known as GCA or GCA68, and codified as Chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code) is a federal law in the United States that broadly regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

--

National Firearms Act--

The National Firearms Act, often shortened to NFA, is technically known as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 through 26 U.S.C. § 5872. Passed in 1934, the National Firearms Act requires a tax on the manufacture and transfer of all firearms that National Firearms Act Stamp are Title II, as well as Federal registration of such firearms. However, one of the most widely known parts of the National Firearms Act is the 1968 Gun Control Act, which bans the importation of any firearms not used for a “sporting” purpose.(The Stamp requirement was on full automatic weapons)

--

Do either of these laws comply with the 2nd Amendment which, by the way, has not been changed?

2nd Amendment--

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

16 posted on 07/19/2009 8:12:15 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (The last time I looked, this is still Texas where I live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Texas Fossil

The feds are too stupid to understand the meaning of the complicated phrase, “shall not be infringed.”


26 posted on 07/19/2009 9:07:19 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Fossil
-- Do either of these laws comply with the 2nd Amendment which, by the way, has not been changed? --

According to the US Supreme Court in US v. Miller, the answer is NO - the 1934 NFA is unconstitutional in light of the 2nd amendment, when applied to weapons that are used by militia, e.g., short barrel shotgun or machine gun.

The US Supremen Court, in the Heller case, recently transmogrified the Miller case, by bullshitting. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2245126/posts?page=27#27

28 posted on 07/19/2009 9:16:59 AM PDT by Cboldt (USA v. SOTO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Fossil

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/07/08/local-sheriffs-are-last-defense/


72 posted on 07/20/2009 11:28:13 AM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson