. Verification: 8ea7dd8e8067cf6e

Unveiling the Controversy: The High Cost of the National Firearms…

Unveiling the Controversy: The High Cost of the National Firearms Act and its Impact on Gun Ownership

The Los Angeles ATF's Twitter response to criticism on X has ignited a debate surrounding the National Firearms Act's $200 tax stamp. The agency admitted that this hefty fee, established in 1934, aimed to be prohibitive. Delving deeper, we explore the implications, question the treatment of the Second Amendment, and shed light on ATF's expanding powers.

The ATF's Twitter Revelation: Unraveling the NFA's Financial Barrier

In a surprising turn, the Los Angeles branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives responded to criticism on X by acknowledging that the $200 tax stamp on firearms and NFA-regulated accessories was intentionally set as a financial barrier, aligning with the NFA's objectives.

Historical Context: $200 in 1934 vs. Today's Equivalent

The tweet's revelation prompts a historical reflection. The $200 in 1934 translates to a staggering $4,688 today. This raises concerns about the accessibility of gun ownership for regular citizens and sparks a debate on the true intention behind the NFA.

Second Amendment Woes: Is it a Second-Class Right?

A compelling comparison emerges as we contemplate the hypothetical scenario of placing a $200 tax on the First Amendment for the use of "dangerous" words. This raises critical questions about the perceived hierarchy of constitutional rights and the unique challenges faced by Second Amendment advocates.

Gun OWners of America's Stand: Challenging the Unconstitutionality

Gun Owners of America has long argued that the 1934 National Firearms Act infringes upon the Second Amendment. Over the years, the ATF's expansive interpretation of the NFA has led to increased regulations on firearms. The recent expansion of the Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) definition to include pistols with stabilizing braces further intensifies concerns.

ATF's Broadening Reach: Implications of the Pistol Brace Rule Change

Estimates suggest that up to 40 million firearms may be affected by the ATF's recent rule change regarding Short-Barreled Rifles. As the ATF continues to redefine regulated items, concerns grow about the increasing scope of government control over firearm ownership.

The Nexus Between Gun Control Groups and ATF: A Growing Alliance

The establishment of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the Biden administration has created a direct link between gun control groups and the Department of Justice. This alliance raises questions about the influence of external entities on firearm regulations and the potential consequences for law-abiding gun owners.

Gun Owners of America's Legal Battles: Pushing Back Against Overreach

Gun Owners of America is actively fighting againnst what they perceive as massive government overreach. Lawsuits such as GOA & Texas v. ATF have successfully stalled the ATF's pistol brace rule. Another case, Britto v. ATF, has secured a nationwide injunction. In Congress, collaborative efforts are underway to pass the SHORT Act, aiming to remove short-barreled rifles from the NFA entirely.

Your Call to Action: Support the SHORT Act and Protect Gun Owners' Rights

To combat the ATF's expanding powers and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, your voice matters. Call your elected representatives and urge them to support the SHORT Act. Join the fight against government overreach and contribute to safeguarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the SEcond Amendment.

The freedom of speech and alternative media face challenges from powerful entities. Real Raw News relies on reader support to flourish and endure. Your contribution matters greatly. Please donate here > https://gogetfunding.com/realnewscast/

 

 

Scroll to Top