The NFA is constitutional because it’s “a modest burden” and not a ban [More]
The Second Amendment does not say “shall not be banned.” It says “shall not be infringed.” Even modestly.
Unless you’re one of the “smartest people in the room” who buy into the Trump/Bondi DOJ is playing super secret 3D chess with court rules that they can’t tell us about, and it will all work out in the end, honest…
Then ask why they’re not pushing SBRs.
Modest burdens likely include any and every infringement up to a full and unequivocal ban.
We have no friends / allies in the big club. We get little crumbs as deemed needed to convince us of the big players’ good intent.
We are deluged with creative wording, all constructed to convince us that our innate and irrevocable liberties remain in full effect.
No electromagnetic guns, directed energy tools, or even updated cartridge firing personal weapons for the little people.
Saddest part is, is most Americans on “our” side, don’t know the 2nd Amendment is about more than suppressed semi auto AR15’s and concealed carrying a Glock.
Our ignorance to the Founder’s intentions with writing the 2nd Amendment is our greatest obstacle to truly regaining our rights.
The NFA is not constitutional because the Constitution says “shall not be infringed.”
Anyone who tells us otherwise is the modern day of what the founding generation came to call “Philadelphia Lawyers.” They and the politicians they supported were exactly the reason why the anti-federalists demanded a bill of rights equivalent before they would agree to ratify the proposed constitution. Their opponents didn’t wait until the ink was dry before trying to find ways around the expressed limitations on the new government, and their descendants are still at it in the present day.