I was under the impression that the Supreme Court issued a strict scrutiny ruling when it came to evaluating laws that potentially infringe on the Second Amendment, meaning the law has to be narrowly tailored to achieve a specific goal and be the least invasive method possible to achieve such a goal.
I fail to see how a proposed law, attaching the broader definition of "firearm" to the NFA34 bill, would ever pass the strict scrutiny standard. I fail to see how it would even pass 4th Amendment challenges, because such a measure would easily violate the people's right to privacy and for a trivial reason.
And then there's the issue regarding the Gun Owner's Protection Act of 1986, which specifically forbade the creation of any centralized federal registry of gun owners. So any such proposal would be violating the law that's already in place unless the previous law was repealed first.
Also is the fact that the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Second Amendment is regarded the same as all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, meaning the same protections (at least in theory) apply to it that apply to all the others. And since government can't compel people to acquire a license to exercise their specific religion, or pass a background check before consulting with a lawyer, or submitting fingerprints for running an online blog, or mandate the registration of every single muslim in the country, I foresee one hell of a wrangling being necessary in order to justify such a bill to the point that congress would actually pass it in the proposed manner.
[QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.
[QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
He should practice what he preaches.
The three duties of government: 1. Protect property 2. preserve contracts 3. provide for the rule of law.