The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Because the Supreme Court was too weak to strike down the NFA as unconstitutional, which led the way for future courts to weasel out of striking down further infringements.Paladin wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:41 am Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US?
I would definitely say more stringent penalties for criminals in possession. I agree, only law abiding citizens are being punished for following the letter of the law.Paladin wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:07 pm The sensible thing is to remove these from the NFA and add penalties for felons in possession and criminal misuse. The current law ONLY impacts law abiding citizens.
No penalties are strict enough to prevent any criminal from doing criminal stuff. These switches that make pistols full auto are about the stupidest firearm accessory in existence and are valuable only to gang bangers who want to be seen as gangsters. There is an obvious penalty for breaking laws that will guarantee a criminal never again does criminal stuff but society has no stomach for it. It seems that society has the stomach to tolerate the carnage, death and misery caused by criminals and are intent to allow it to continue.Jose_in_Dallas wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:35 pmI would definitely say more stringent penalties for criminals in possession. I agree, only law abiding citizens are being punished for following the letter of the law.Paladin wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 1:07 pm The sensible thing is to remove these from the NFA and add penalties for felons in possession and criminal misuse. The current law ONLY impacts law abiding citizens.
Off subject but somewhat related. We are seeing a rash of these Glock switches being used in crimes. There was a guy busted recently in the DFW area for selling them. Not sure that the penalties are stringent enough to deter this stuff.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause
...As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.
...The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
Paladin wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:29 pm Haynes v. United States
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause
...As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.
...The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
So then.....Grayling813 wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 8:03 am….’To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding gun owner that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless”……Paladin wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 4:29 pm Haynes v. United States
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause
...As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem.
...The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.
Lysander Spooner