NFA Weapons Requirment, Why?


New member
The NFA has been challenged - and some laws were changed as a result of Miller vs US 1939. But we are still stuck with a majority of the original "stuff."

Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Justice Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Justice Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.[2]

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Well-known member
I find it hilarious how armchair attorneys make statements like this like they have insider information and connections to make it happen. Lolz

Nobody was acting like an armchair attorney, nor were they implying that they had insider information and connections. This was merely one poster expressing an opinion as to potential reforms of the current law.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Latest member