Got a question/need
- Thread starter Gary
- Start date
Rick H
Well-Known Member
It is against Federal Law, but the question is will the Fed's enforce it? Marijuana is still a Class one controlled substance and it is a felony to possess, use, or sell. That includes THC.
I remember arresting a convicted armed robber with a loaded Remington 1100 shotgun in the carboard box it came in with a cutout in the box to expose the trigger housing so he could fire it from the box. I was pretty sure the felon was up to no good, but the only existing Michigan law I could charge him with was the Fish and Game violation of having a loaded shotgun in a motor vehicle. A minor misdemeanor that carried a $200 fine. I contacted the Feds, who were not in the least interested in charging him. He ended up with the fine and his "girlfriend" picked up the shotgun.
The fact is you are at the mercy of the the federal authorities/prosecutor's whim, and use such things at your own peril.
I remember arresting a convicted armed robber with a loaded Remington 1100 shotgun in the carboard box it came in with a cutout in the box to expose the trigger housing so he could fire it from the box. I was pretty sure the felon was up to no good, but the only existing Michigan law I could charge him with was the Fish and Game violation of having a loaded shotgun in a motor vehicle. A minor misdemeanor that carried a $200 fine. I contacted the Feds, who were not in the least interested in charging him. He ended up with the fine and his "girlfriend" picked up the shotgun.
The fact is you are at the mercy of the the federal authorities/prosecutor's whim, and use such things at your own peril.
Last edited:
Montana politicians were making some noise along similar lines about guns. The feds regulate inter state commerce. So if you buy a gun made in Montana in Montana the feds don't get to regulate the sale because the sale is intrA state commerce instead of intEr state commerce. Nothing came of the noise.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
NO (unless you obtained a tax stamp)
Title 26 U.S.C. Section 5845 defines one of the devices subject to the NFA tax as a silencer.
And
Title 26 U.S.C. Section 5821 levies a "making tax" under that title .
Unlike most of the 1968 Gun Control Act that requires firearms to have affected interstate commerce in order to fall under the commerce clause of the Constitution; the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a taxation code. It requires a tax to be paid to manufacture, import or transfer certain items, regardless of where they are made, imported or transferred. It is, at it root, a federal excise tax. The federal government requires that tax to be paid and heavily restricts the process by which the tax may be paid (Application, background check, finger prints, fee, etc.)
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the authority to levy excise taxes (which was the authority Congress relied upon for the 1934 NFA)
AND
Article I Section 8 also grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce (which was the authority Congress relied for the 1968 GCA)
Both acts are gun control acts but they function in different ways.
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
It's not quite that cut and dry.
A GUN that's manufactured within one state and never leaves that state may not come under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution; and therefore escape the reach of the 1968 GCA.
However, A MACHINE GUN manufactured in one state does fall under the federal government's excise tax authority, and therefore falls under the provisions of the 1934 NFA.
Some other examples of federal authority to require an excise tax are: distilled spirts (alcohol) for human consumption, cigarettes and gasoline.
The feds have more than one method to reach into every corner of the nation.
A maker and a customer got charge and convicted here in Kansas via Federal court over a suppressor. From what I have read the charges stuck because of not paying the tax. Even with the Kansas 2A act in place. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The customer was an idiot and posted is purchase on FB. Ugh !!!!
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
If you break the law from ignorance, you will get punished. If you break the law because you are stupid, you will be punished worse. If you get your legal advise from the internet, you will go away for a long time.
This is like people saying they didn't have to pay taxes because the "constitution" says it has to be in gold or silver coin.
This is like people saying they didn't have to pay taxes because the "constitution" says it has to be in gold or silver coin.
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
And don't go to a mould maker for tax advice. Just sayin'. IRS is the most powerful bill collections agency the world has ever known.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Dual Sovereignty is a concept that trips up some folks. Federal law doesn't "trump" state law nor does state law dictate federal law.
Both sovereignties can put you in prison. You have to be in compliance with both.
A state cannot "opt out" of federal law by passing some legislation. A state cannot simply say their residents don't have to pay the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gasoline excise tax or tell their licensed distillers they can just ignore that pesky federal excise tax on alcohol.
States, not being constrained by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, often have more authority to create laws than the federal government; as long as those laws don't violate the Constitution or intrude upon issues reserved exclusively for the federal government.
Because the stakes are high and the internet is not a good place for legal advice, I cannot recommend making important legal decisions based on internet advice.
Both sovereignties can put you in prison. You have to be in compliance with both.
A state cannot "opt out" of federal law by passing some legislation. A state cannot simply say their residents don't have to pay the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gasoline excise tax or tell their licensed distillers they can just ignore that pesky federal excise tax on alcohol.
States, not being constrained by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, often have more authority to create laws than the federal government; as long as those laws don't violate the Constitution or intrude upon issues reserved exclusively for the federal government.
Because the stakes are high and the internet is not a good place for legal advice, I cannot recommend making important legal decisions based on internet advice.
Last edited: