PDA

View Full Version : Update: AZ on it's way to non-NFA supressors. Passed 1st round.


audiophil2
01-30-2010, 7:47 AM
Machine guns are still a no-no, but firearm accessories (cans) looks like they will be able to be home made if passed into law.Similar to Montana and Tennessee. Hopefully by the time this passes, the lawsuits will already be filed.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1098p.pdf

B Strong
01-30-2010, 9:00 AM
I like the intent, but the fed. law supersedes wrt NFA weapons and devices.

Telperion
01-30-2010, 9:04 AM
No, silencers would still be a "prohibited weapon" under 13-3101. Many, many states are like Arizona: they broadly prohibit NFA-classified firearms as a matter of state law, and then make an exception for firearms that are in the NFRTR. If Arizona wants to kick the Feds out of their gun laws, wouldn't a more effective first step be to decouple their state law from its dependency on Federal law?

B Strong
01-30-2010, 9:05 AM
No, silencers would still be a "prohibited weapon" under 13-3101. Many, many states are like Arizona: they broadly prohibit NFA-classified firearms as a matter of state law, and then make an exception for firearms that are in the NFRTR. If Arizona wants to kick the Feds out of their gun laws, wouldn't a more effective first step be to decouple their state law from its dependency on Federal law?

AZ is an NFA friendly state. Lot's of owners and SOT's.

Telperion
01-30-2010, 9:15 AM
Did I say it wasn't? Read Arizona code 13-3101(8) (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03101.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) carefully. NFA firearms are illegal, except if the firearm is lawfully registered in the NFRTR. Again, if Arizona wants to assert independence from Federal law because the Fed prohibits many firearms, maybe it should look at what it prohibits by state law, and why it depends on Federal law and regulation.

TMC
01-30-2010, 9:21 AM
Sounds like what Montana was going to do with firearms manufactured in its state. If the item is manufactured and sold within the state the thinking is the interstate commerce laws do not apply nor do the fedarel firearms laws that regulate interstate commerce of firearms.

Weather or not it works I like the way thier legislators think......I have got to move ot AZ.

dustoff31
01-30-2010, 10:21 AM
Did I say it wasn't? Read Arizona code 13-3101(8) (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03101.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS) carefully. NFA firearms are illegal, except if the firearm is lawfully registered in the NFRTR.
Again, if Arizona wants to assert independence from Federal law because the Fed prohibits many firearms, maybe it should look at what it prohibits by state law, and why it depends on Federal law and regulation.

To whatever extent they are serious about it, I think most states in the "anti-commerce clause" firearms movement including Montana, are taking the progressive approach.

You know, like Bill's saying about the girl in the bar.

Telperion
01-30-2010, 12:37 PM
If by "progressive approach", you mean feel-good, do-nothing laws, then sure. By the way, Montana's law on MGs and suppressors is that possession is only illegal if used in the commission of a crime. State law doesn't care if Feds have it in their registry. Their law for SBS requires it to be in the NFRTR, though.

dustoff31
01-30-2010, 3:06 PM
If by "progressive approach", you mean feel-good, do-nothing laws, then sure. By the way, Montana's law on MGs and suppressors is that possession is only illegal if used in the commission of a crime. State law doesn't care if Feds have it in their registry. Their law for SBS requires it to be in the NFRTR, though.

If you are making reference to the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, you might want to call the Montana legislature and let them know that. They seem to think it says this.


http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm (http://http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm)

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce…..

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

audiophil2
02-02-2010, 7:05 AM
SB1011, Firearms Freedom Act, and SB1102, "Constitutional Carry", passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today by 4-3. They will move to the Rules Committee, Caucus and then the Floor for Committee of the Whole (COW) and a Third Read (Final) vote. SB1102 is pending a floor amendment in COW to address certain concerns of... law enforcement, as well as AZCDL. HB2347, the House version of "Constitutional Carry", will be amended in the House MAPS Committee on Wednesday to reflect those concerns.

Flopper
02-02-2010, 11:03 AM
I like the intent, but the fed. law supersedes wrt NFA weapons and devices.

I see this written quite a bit, but I don't understand where it comes from.

I thought everything that wasn't explicitly delegated to Fed was the jurisdiction of the States, or the People.

Doesn't the NFA derive it's authority from the Commerce Clause?

yellowfin
02-02-2010, 11:56 AM
I see this written quite a bit, but I don't understand where it comes from.

I thought everything that wasn't explicitly delegated to Fed was the jurisdiction of the States, or the People.

Doesn't the NFA derive it's authority from the Commerce Clause?The NFA derives its authority solely from the fact that the challenge to it in court lost. Thus it is assumed to be valid and on no other basis. Regard is not given to the fact that the entire proceeding was rigged (FDR court packing threats, Miller's lawyer quit, etc.), only that it hasn't been reversed.

Flopper
02-02-2010, 11:47 PM
The NFA derives its authority solely from the fact that the challenge to it in court lost. Thus it is assumed to be valid and on no other basis. Regard is not given to the fact that the entire proceeding was rigged (FDR court packing threats, Miller's lawyer quit, etc.), only that it hasn't been reversed.

Thank you, I thought maybe I had missed something.

Because of this, I think people should stop reflexively saying "Fed supersedes!" and instead acknowledge that these state bills might possibly lead to an overturning of bad precedent.

dantodd
02-03-2010, 8:19 AM
This is another place, like Slaughter Houses, where stare decisis is a thorn in our sides.

The interesting issue might be with SBR and SBS. While homemade cans can be fashioned without using being considered interstate commerce can the same be said for SBRs and SBSs built on host weapons once used in Interstate commerce.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 9:35 AM
Thank you, I thought maybe I had missed something.

Because of this, I think people should stop reflexively saying "Fed supersedes!" and instead acknowledge that these state bills might possibly lead to an overturning of bad precedent.

From a practical perspective, it's highly unlikely that AZs and similar state legislation does anything except stir public interest and support. In that regard, they are valuable, although I worry about the wrong people setting the wrong precedent (we, the gun movement, may have to file strategically losing cases simply to be the first on the scene, a "clean" loss per se, and not US v. Crackhead). Ultimately, it will probably take an act of Congress, strategic and well-timed Federal litigation or both to create the outcomes we seek; and, as they say, we're still in the "you're cute, wanna get it in the ***?" stage of NFA.

7x57
02-03-2010, 9:40 AM
The basic problem is that justices left and right *will not obey or enforce the law* as it applies to the limits of federal power. So it's kind of pointless to discuss what the law is. We'd actually have to have the rule of law first, and with respect to almost everything having to do with the magic wish-granting genie clause (formerly known as the Commerce Clause) we do not.

7x57

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 10:08 AM
The basic problem is that justices left and right *will not obey or enforce the law* as it applies to the limits of federal power. So it's kind of pointless to discuss what the law is. We'd actually have to have the rule of law first, and with respect to almost everything having to do with the magic wish-granting genie clause (formerly known as the Commerce Clause) we do not.

7x57

Indeed.