Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4?

[lazyengineer]

Here is the Prohibition/Depression-Era former DNC Chair and then Attorney General Homer Stille Cummings’ intent on the NFA and permits or papers:

"…And I am assuming in all this, of course, that the criminal elements are not going to obtain permits and they are not going to obtain licenses, and they are not going to be able to bring themselves within those protective requirements. Therefore, when we capture one of those people, we have simply a plain question to propound to him—where is your license; where is your permit? If he cannot show it, we have got him and his weapons and we do not have to go through an elaborate trial, with all kinds of complicated questions arising. That is the theory of the bill.”

"Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it; but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to com ply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.”

MR. McCLINTIC: I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: We were afraid of that, sir.

MR. McCLINTIC: Afraid it would conflict with State laws?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.

This is the way.

The fight on this one isn't Common Use, and it's not Arbitrary and Capricious. The fight on this one, and the part that is profoundly new in our lives, in our fathers lives, and even in our Grandfathers lives, is we have a a brief window of the USSC actually recognizing and instructing the courts to uphold the Constitution, as written, in philosophical consistency of the time it was written - specifically when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (Bruen). That has never happened before. The actuary table for Clarence Thomas isn't great - we have maybe 10 years. And in this particular case, there is no legitimate reason to ban SBR's, since such arms did exist in military usage, even then.

Now is the time to strike. That said, in this moment of the path, people have individual decisions to make, and the outcome is not certain. The cases will come before the courts regardless of what people individual do, and if folks have a discomfort to run a 12" Armbraced Grendel in their theater; well - do what you think is right for you.