Filed in Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky:
FPC Case Link:
The NFA imposes felony prosecution for violations of its regulatory scheme over now-untaxed firearms. The plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that such regulations are unconstitutional as they exceed Congress’ enumerated powers and violate the Second Amendment. They seek a permanent injunction against the enforcement of those NFA sections and other relief.
Slammed at work - but this appears to be big news in not the thread subject case, but a related case Jensen v. ATF:
Still short on details:
so does this mean we can drive to a state that is covered, purchase with cash a supressor or supressors and drive home with them? just the short answer please
west virgina is the closest/
Not legally.
Suppressors still outright banned in NJ.
(apologies for the lengthy 8 word answer. WARNING WARNING more nuance ahead)
If you DID reside in a state that did not ban suppressor possession you’d still need to be a member of one of the organizations involved in the lawsuit as currently only members of those orgs are covered.
If you have a home in one of the 15 states, yes. Otherwise, no.
should be the same as driving to Dixie Gun Works and buying muzzleloaders. yes NJ cant legally possess yet but will stores sell them now?
why would I need a home, not needed for muzzleloaders, should be treated the same now that no documentation is needed?
Presumably you will eventually go someplace to put your shiny new suppressor on a firearm and then put it in a safe or closet or unused shower stall or at the bottom of a feed barrel somewhere.
I’m guessing you don’t plan to live in a van outside the store you buy the suppressor at after you buy it?
Yes, you don’t need a home to purchase it (assuming this judgement gets implemented soonish and you’re a member of one of the org’s covered under it) but it will need to be legal in the places you go to after you purchase it.
what exactly are the proven safeguards they speak of?
The proven safeguards of NFA registration requirements, of course.
Keeping us all safe since 1934!
Is anyone else concerned with the focus and resources that our advocacy groups have invested into litigation that is based on the premise that various NFA provisions are contingent on the tax levied by the legislation establishing it, and unenforceable after the tax was eliminated? I know that some of those efforts have been successful, and likely more will be once those remaining points get a full hearing by SCOTUS, if not before. My concern is based on th assumption that if those decisions are based on zeroing the tax, while allowing the NFA to remain in effect, any subsequent Democratic majority in Congress would only need to put a tax (of any amount) back on those activities to put us right back where we were. Personally, I would rather have seen those resources go toward obtaining a decision that the entire NFA regime is an unconstitutional 2A violation, even if that would have not produced favorable outcomes as quickly. Caveat: IANAL.
I’m drooling over this.
Copyright © 2024-2026. All rights reserved. New Jersey Gun Forums LLC
