Dismantling the NFA *ACTIVE BILL*

[bug]

Well, as a PA resident if the NFA were to be abolished tomorrow, I would loose all of my NFA weapons. Remember, they are prohibited in PA UNLESS they are owned in accordance with the National Firearms Act. Be careful what you wish for.

Bob D

[wanneroo]

Well, as a PA resident if the NFA were to be abolished tomorrow, I would loose all of my NFA weapons. Remember, they are prohibited in PA UNLESS they are owned in accordance with the National Firearms Act. Be careful what you wish for.

Bob D

Federal law trumps state law, so if the federal law no longer exists, neither does the state law.

[alpacaheat]

Well, as a PA resident if the NFA were to be abolished tomorrow, I would loose all of my NFA weapons. Remember, they are prohibited in PA UNLESS they are owned in accordance with the National Firearms Act. Be careful what you wish for.

Bob D

Nothing a good Armorer’s Wrench can't fix.

[HRoark]

Federal law trumps state law, so if the federal law no longer exists, neither does the state law.

That's not how that works.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Well, as a PA resident if the NFA were to be abolished tomorrow, I would loose all of my NFA weapons. Remember, they are prohibited in PA UNLESS they are owned in accordance with the National Firearms Act. Be careful what you wish for.

Bob D

In accordance with the NFA, they're just normal rifles.

[bug]

In accordance with the NFA, they're just normal rifles.

Without the NFA they are prohibited, offensive weapons per PA law.

[knight0334]

Well, as a PA resident if the NFA were to be abolished tomorrow, I would loose all of my NFA weapons. Remember, they are prohibited in PA UNLESS they are owned in accordance with the National Firearms Act. Be careful what you wish for.

Bob D

"sawed off shotguns" are specifically prohibited as a PoW, SBR's aren't. If SBR's were knocked off the NFA item list, they would be legal in PA as a "firearm" without need of NFA compliance.

[esh21167]

Federal law trumps state law, so if the federal law no longer exists, neither does the state law.

So by the same token, a federal law against marijuana can't be overridden by a state law?

[57springer]

I bet he's really thinking it over

[buckengr]

Without the NFA they are prohibited, offensive weapons per PA law.

§ 908. Prohibited offensive weapons.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.

(b) Exceptions.--

(1) It is a defense under this section for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed or dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic performance, or that, with the exception of a bomb, grenade or incendiary device, he complied with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.), or that he possessed it briefly in consequence of having found it or taken it from an aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any intent or likelihood that the weapon would be used unlawfully.

[...]

If something is no longer controlled/regulated under the NFA, then wouldn't you be in de facto compliance with the NFA? The PA statute does not specify that the item must be registered in the NFRTR (for example), just that the item is possessed in compliance with the NFA. If the NFA no longer restricts an item, then I would think that a natural interpretation* of the statute would be that the item is possessed in compliance with the NFA insofar as the NFA regulates the item, and therefore in de facto compliance which would maintain the exemption from PA POW prohibition.

Perhaps this gets stickier if the interpretation is that the defendant must somehow prove a negative (that the possession is in compliance with the NFA) by a preponderance of the evidence. You wouldn't have a tax stamp on a form 1 or 4 to show in court, just the (amended) text of the NFA showing that SBRs are not restricted by the NFA and should therefore be judged as in compliance with the NFA.

*Note I did not say this is the interpretation that would prevail in a legal challenge, just the one that I think reads most naturally. Heed the warning in my sig line.