Dismantling the NFA *ACTIVE BILL*

[bug]

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.

My original post was meant to question how offensive weapons would be treated if NFA disappeared. I wouldn't expect any support from our current state leadership. I believe that there are 15 other states with similar state law and exceptions. I also very much doubt that the NFA will be dismantled but I had the same concern when it looked like suppressors might become title 1 firearms.

[GeneCC]

I'm sending mine to Soros. I know that stands a better chance than with Casey.

Casey is a disgusting human being. If the DNC wants it, so does Casey. Except Abortion.

[Didnotcomply89]

Guy's a hero just for proposing the bill.

He's a piece of trash, in my opinion. They had two years to do this and no one did anything. Politicians DO NOT CARE about the Constitution. In light of that opinion... I support the bill.