Page 3 of 3

Re: How did Montana get around the ATF for Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:10 pm
by Ameer
You can't carry a mace, even with a CHL. See 46.01 (1) and 46.02 (a) :biggrinjester:

Re: How did Montana get around the ATF for Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:12 pm
by Sangiovese
Jumping Frog wrote:
APynckel wrote:I'm just wondering how they were allowed to circumvent the NFA to allow over the counter suppressor sales. Can anyone shed some light on this? Would be awesome if Texas did the same. :txflag:
It is a difference of opinion that could end up ruining some unsuspecting lives. Sure, Montana can take the stance that it is legal. That does not mean that BATFE agrees. There will inevitably be a federal court case on the matter and someone will be the test case facing federal felony charges. They will likely lose.
:iagree:

Re: How did Montana get around the ATF for Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:58 pm
by APynckel
Sangiovese wrote:
Jumping Frog wrote:
APynckel wrote:I'm just wondering how they were allowed to circumvent the NFA to allow over the counter suppressor sales. Can anyone shed some light on this? Would be awesome if Texas did the same. :txflag:
It is a difference of opinion that could end up ruining some unsuspecting lives. Sure, Montana can take the stance that it is legal. That does not mean that BATFE agrees. There will inevitably be a federal court case on the matter and someone will be the test case facing federal felony charges. They will likely lose.
:iagree:
I dunno, with Obamacare facing the inevitable knife of constitutional authority, it may be the time to get some cases in place that are true to the constitutionalist argument.

Re: How did Montana get around the ATF for Suppressors?

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:56 pm
by SRH78
jason237m wrote:I can see a group saying the steel, tools, etc. crossed state lines to build the supressor and is therefore open to federal regulation. It's extemely strained logic but we've seen worse from big government, central planning types.
It would be nothing new. We already have federal law based on this very way of thinking.