Federal judge strikes down ATF 'ghost gun' rule for 3D printed parts — says restrictions violate Fifth Amendment and historical tradition of DIY...
- Thread starter jimc
- Start date
Yeah this one should have the anti gun crowd frothing at the mouth. There is nothing wrong with making your own guns. New Worlders have been doing it since the 1600s.
Judge jack Reed must be illiterate AND insane.
SCOTUS already ruled in 2025 in Vandersatock.............Frame and Receiver rule is Constitutional.
I love it when a pissant pisses on the giant!! He is abut to drown as the big dick pisses down upon him.
The silencer/.SBR decision will likely also fall in the next 6 months.
SCOTUS already ruled in 2025 in Vandersatock.............Frame and Receiver rule is Constitutional.
Loading…
www.supremecourt.gov
I love it when a pissant pisses on the giant!! He is abut to drown as the big dick pisses down upon him.
The silencer/.SBR decision will likely also fall in the next 6 months.
Last edited:
byron
.308 Win
The Ruling: Because the Supreme Court left the constitutional questions open, the case went back down to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor. He ruled that the regulation violates the Second Amendment by restricting historical DIY gunsmithing traditions and violates the Fifth Amendment because its definitions are unconstitutionally vague. [1, 2, 3, 4] In short, SCOTUS ruled in 2025 that the ATF had the administrative authority to write the rule, but the lower court just ruled in 2026 that the substance of the rule violates the Constitution
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Like anyone in government gives a fuck either way. Like three thieves arguing which one owns the liberty bell.
Robin
Robin
It seems pretty clear that when SCOTUS ruled against "no serial # ghost guns" and kits, in Vanderstock, due to the public safety concerns, that to rule that" fixing guns is a tradition," completely misses the SCOTUS point. Ghost gun builds are still legal in some states, if you follow the rules, just not in NYS, etc.
Any more of these decisions, that SCOTUS reads intently EVERYDAY, may just poison the well for the upcoming AW cases this fall.
To say that form 4's are no longer necessary, on the tax issue, despite the fact that Silencers are still on the
NFA, is defective reasoning.
Any more of these decisions, that SCOTUS reads intently EVERYDAY, may just poison the well for the upcoming AW cases this fall.
To say that form 4's are no longer necessary, on the tax issue, despite the fact that Silencers are still on the
NFA, is defective reasoning.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
"due to the public safety concerns,"
WTF! Safety is not their business. ALL their findings should be based on one document, The Constitution of The United States of America. That is it, nothing else.
Robin
WTF! Safety is not their business. ALL their findings should be based on one document, The Constitution of The United States of America. That is it, nothing else.
Robin
Interest balancing is a thing of the past since Chevron was struck down.
The decisions coming out of district appellate courts that are declaring the bans and registries of SBR's, SBS's, suppressors and such can only help the AW and magazine cases in front of SCOTUS right now. Further, those same decisions will be used in the future to help destroy the restrictions here in NY and in the other 10 or so States that are intent on disarming their residents.
spat
.950 JDJ
The reasoning of "You can't enforce a $0 tax" is pretty clear.
The entire justification for the NFA is tax enforcement.
The real question is what that means for the Hughes ammendment. If this is invalid because a $0 tax isn't a tax, then is a tax you're not allowed to pay also invalid ?
spat
.950 JDJ
The form 4 is a tax form. The NFA stamp is a tax stamp. The NFRTR is just a list of who paid the tax.
The entire NFA is a tax, that's *all* it ever was.
Just like Obamacare was only allowed because they ruled it was a tax.
The federal government can't just do whatever it wants, it has very limited powers. So most of the regulations are built around their ability to tax.
- Form 4:
Form 4-----------It records the transfer, serves as proof of registration once approved, and is filed in the ATF’s federal registry of NFA firearms
- The form requires personal or trust information, fingerprints, passport‑style photos, a background check, and payment of the applicable transfer tax (currently $200 for machineguns and destructive devices; $0 for other NFA items under new law effective Jan. 1, 2026)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives+1.
The national registry of NFA items has not been dismissed as dog shit at all.
Form 4 gives personal ownership data info the ATF registry, and all subsequent Transfers also require a Form 4.regardless of tax reasoning.
If you owe zero Income tax and get a tax credit or actual funds...........the zero tax levy, does not mean you do not have to file.
More to come this fall.
spat
.950 JDJ
Without the tax none of that has a justification for existing.CoPilot:
- Form 4:
Form 4-----------It records the transfer, serves as proof of registration once approved, and is filed in the ATF’s federal registry of NFA firearms
- The form requires personal or trust information, fingerprints, passport‑style photos, a background check, and payment of the applicable transfer tax (currently $200 for machineguns and destructive devices; $0 for other NFA items under new law effective Jan. 1, 2026)
The national registry of NFA items has not been dismissed as dog shit at all.
Form 4 gives personal ownership data info the ATF registry, and all subsequent Transfers also require a Form 4.regardless of tax reasoning.
If you owe zero Income tax and get a tax credit or actual funds...........the zero tax levy, does not mean you do not have to file.
More to come this fall.
You do realize that the entire ATF was a branch of the Treasury not the DOJ until very recently. Because it is *all* a tax, and *only* a tax.
Form 4 is a transfer record *because transfers are what is taxed*. The stamp you get when your form 4 is processed *is a tax stamp*. The registry is a registry of *who paid the tax*.
spat
.950 JDJ
LoL, except it isn't. Did you not hear about the ruling, and the subsequent no form no stamp transfers ?
The *only* thing the feds have *ever* prosecuted someone for with these devices is ... tax evasion.
In fact that's the only thing they *can* prosecute you for.
And this court just ruled that they can't prosecute for tax evasion unless you actually owe money.
Have you ever actually read the NFA ?
Have you ever purchased something regulated by it ?
Last edited: