No Tax $$-No NFA

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

Clyde: NFA Rules Can’t Stand Without the Tax

[Blackwater 53393]

Let’s hope SCOTUS and DOJ will take action in the positive on this!!

[John Kloehr]

18 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Let’s hope SCOTUS and DOJ will take action in the positive on this!!

Nope.

 

Clyde's letter was on the 13th, DOJ's filing in Silencer Shop v ATF was yesterday:

 

I have not read it yet, it could be an actual defense of the law and could be the ATF stating it must enforce the law because it is what Congress passed. It clearly is not -- from posts I am seeing -- DOJ agreement the law is unconstitutional now that the tax is $0.

 

On edit: The X post only contains the first two of the 30 pages, Pacer wants money to download the filed copy. So until I find the entire document available for free, I will not be able to look at the fine print. Maybe someone else can find the entire document and post a link in this thread.

[John Kloehr]

2 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

On edit: The X post only contains the first two of the 30 pages, Pacer wants money to download the filed copy. So until I find the entire document available for free, I will not be able to look at the fine print. Maybe someone else can find the entire document and post a link in this thread.

Found it:

 

https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/cases/silencer-v-bondi/625cv00056-Silencer-Shop-v-ATF-Response.pdf

 

Reading now.

[John Kloehr]

Core of the government argument (extremely long paragraph, my bold):

 

"

 

Plaintiffs facially challenge certain NFA requirements principally on the ground that they are
no longer supported by a sufficient constitutional source of congressional power. Their argument is
that the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the NFA under Congress’s taxing power, see Sonzinsky v.
United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937), no longer controls this question because the OBBB recently zeroed
out the NFA’s taxes on the making and transfer of four classes of regulated firearms (i.e., short-
barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and certain other concealable firearms labeled “any other
weapons” (or “AOWs”)). That argument fails for two independent reasons. First, the regulatory
requirements that plaintiffs challenge support the collection and enforcement of another NFA tax that
the OBBB left intact—the NFA’s tax on businesses that manufacture, distribute, or deal in NFA
firearms. Second, Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause
independently authorize the NFA’s regulatory requirements. See, e.g., United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d
177, 180 (5th Cir. 1994). The NFA regulates, at its core, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and
purchasers as they participate in an interstate firearms market and the firearms that flow through that
market, and enforces its regulations through criminal prohibitions that are tied to economic activities
and, in some cases, expressly to interstate commerce. See 26 U.S.C. 5861. That is the heartland of the
Commerce Clause. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995). But even the intrastate activities
that are subject to the NFA are within Congress’s power to regulate, as they are part of an economic
class of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17 (2005).

 

"

 

So while Clyde and others wanted to strip the registration requirement act the same time as they zeroed the tax, and the parliamentarian ruled this change was policy and not financial, Clyde and others did not try to eliminate the tax on businesses making these NFA items. And the tax on the businesses is not under challenge.

 

I write this not to agree with the government, just to share my understanding of the government position as to this suit. Should the 5th rule the registration requirement can not stand with a $0 tax, there is still a separate tax and registration requirement for commercial makers of the devices which now have a $0 tax; the government will lose the ability to account for (track) the devices manufactured by those commercial entities..