Absolutely worthless in cases where States get away with flagrant violation of it regardless. Looking at you California and New York.
Also, good luck with actually exercising your right to "keep and bear" arms when the Interstate commerce clause is the preferred mode of shadow firearm regulation, so production of regulated parts can get you into hot water if someone doesn't like you enough. Enjoy carefully planning every travel arrrangement with having the possession of your firearm in mind, so you know the right song and dance to do on crossing State/jurisdictional boundaries, and double check with any NFA items and whether you need to engage with an FFL before crossing State lines. Also God help you if they really don't like you and you have the means and knowledge to manufacture an automatic firearm or other NFA item. In today's world, I'm not entirely sure they wouldn't try to spin it as constructive possession. Furthermore, if you machine or manufacture related components, enjoy your Special Occupational Tax, and if you're a Federal Firearm License holder, surrender of your 4th Amendment rights as a condition of doing business, and opening yourself to at will audit by the government.
Yeah, yeah, I get it. "Just don't do anything illegal and you'll be fine." That's cute and all, but I've been trying to run down and list everything I have to technically pay attention to and make sure to never slip up on as a pre-condition of owning something, and to be honest, cannot justify the risk of ownership given most of the penalties involved, because I'm horrible about keeping up with the bureaucracy. It seems to me to be less a means to get anything meaningful done, and just something to increase the odds you can throw the entire book at someone if they do do something.
So while technically the argument can be made you face no infringement to keeping and bearing of arms, I don't buy that that assertion holds water. When you create a secondary class of citizen that has to report every movement to the government just to keep their personal property with them, that's the very definition of infringement. Same thing is relevant to the closing of the Machine gun registry via the restriction of funding applied to maintinging the bloody thing since 1986.
It gets worse than that, if you buy a gun that was imported you are subject to the 922 rule. Which means that if you take that imported gun and put a US part on it, you are subject to being viewed as having assembled a foreign manufactured gun.
So to comply with the law one must change out a certain percentage of the gun with US made parts to not violate the law.
Comments
Absolutely worthless in cases where States get away with flagrant violation of it regardless. Looking at you California and New York.
Also, good luck with actually exercising your right to "keep and bear" arms when the Interstate commerce clause is the preferred mode of shadow firearm regulation, so production of regulated parts can get you into hot water if someone doesn't like you enough. Enjoy carefully planning every travel arrrangement with having the possession of your firearm in mind, so you know the right song and dance to do on crossing State/jurisdictional boundaries, and double check with any NFA items and whether you need to engage with an FFL before crossing State lines. Also God help you if they really don't like you and you have the means and knowledge to manufacture an automatic firearm or other NFA item. In today's world, I'm not entirely sure they wouldn't try to spin it as constructive possession. Furthermore, if you machine or manufacture related components, enjoy your Special Occupational Tax, and if you're a Federal Firearm License holder, surrender of your 4th Amendment rights as a condition of doing business, and opening yourself to at will audit by the government.
Yeah, yeah, I get it. "Just don't do anything illegal and you'll be fine." That's cute and all, but I've been trying to run down and list everything I have to technically pay attention to and make sure to never slip up on as a pre-condition of owning something, and to be honest, cannot justify the risk of ownership given most of the penalties involved, because I'm horrible about keeping up with the bureaucracy. It seems to me to be less a means to get anything meaningful done, and just something to increase the odds you can throw the entire book at someone if they do do something.
So while technically the argument can be made you face no infringement to keeping and bearing of arms, I don't buy that that assertion holds water. When you create a secondary class of citizen that has to report every movement to the government just to keep their personal property with them, that's the very definition of infringement. Same thing is relevant to the closing of the Machine gun registry via the restriction of funding applied to maintinging the bloody thing since 1986.
It gets worse than that, if you buy a gun that was imported you are subject to the 922 rule. Which means that if you take that imported gun and put a US part on it, you are subject to being viewed as having assembled a foreign manufactured gun.
So to comply with the law one must change out a certain percentage of the gun with US made parts to not violate the law.
https://www.ficarettalegal.com/domestic-assembly-of-nonsport....