AgEng06 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Judge James Hendrix. Maybe he goes by Jimmy?

I am confident he will see through the purple haze and won't be swayed by defense arguments unless they keep the law, some guy named Joe is gonna shoot his ole Foxy lady after catching her messing round with another man. I think the plaintiffs' arguments that "there must be some way outta here" and "there's too much confusion, I can't get no relief" will prevail.

Sorry, it had to be done.

---

FIFY

---

Nice. Forgot that one.

The brief is up from the ATF.

They (the Government) argue even though the tax is $0, the registry still falls under the Special Occupational Tax paid by dealers and manufacturers. That does not make sense to me. You have the dealers and manufacturers registered, don't you? Also, the dumb commerce clause argument i referenced earlier. Third, they argue that SBRs and silencers are "dangerous and unusual" weapons not falling under the 2nd Amendment.

Judge Jimmy Hendrix, the ball is in your court. Burn it down Jimmy! BTHO ATF!

As a lawyer following that case, what is your opinion of the fate of the affected portion of the registry if the government loses? Do they have to delete the items off the registry and forget they exist?

It would just be speculation on my part. I'm sure there are laws around record-keeping. And when have you ever seen the gov't or bureaucrats give up a power when they aren't ordered to do so?

Also with respect to the case, the requested relief is an injunction. So the law doesn't "go away," the ATF is just barred from enforcing it. So I'd say no.

I should also mention the AFT is requesting if the Court is going to rule in favor of Silencer Shop, et al., they only have a very limited injunction and not a broad one. E.g., limit it only to the named plaintiffs, etc... The court could also only grant it to one and not the other, e.g., SBRs ok, but still have to register suppressors.

Slicer97 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Judge James Hendrix. Maybe he goes by Jimmy?

I am confident he will see through the purple haze and won't be swayed by defense arguments unless they keep the law, some guy named Joe is gonna shoot his ole lady after catching her messing round with another man. I think the plaintiffs' arguments that "there must be some way outta here" and "there's too much confusion, I can't get no relief" will prevail.

Sorry, it had to be done.

---

Let us stop talking falsely now. It's Jimi, not Jimmy.

---

Said the joker to the thief...


You are correct, sir!

HDeathstar said:

---

do you have to carry paperwork with you, everywhere the suppressor goes in case ATF shows up? Understand the burden of getting the suppressor, but what is the owner's requirements after purchase?

---

Technically speaking you will need to provide proof either digitally or paper. I have both so Im covered no matter what. Ive never been asked but I dont go to ranges or take them to the general public domain. I have a place to go for all the shooting stuff I do