Why the 2nd Amendment may no longer be revelent to the Federal Government

[BjornF16]

I disagree it is not like the obama care mandate. The 2nd clearly states "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon". A tax is clearly an infringement.

The administration clearly believes that requiring a "costly" ID to vote infringes upon an individual's right to vote. Should that shame idea not apply to the 2nd?

Cory, I'm not advocating it, just saying that is the rationale of Congress and the Courts...they can tax anything they want. ObamaCare mandate is ruled a tax by SCOTUS.

US v Miller (1939) showed they can get away with taxing firearms, as long as it wasn't a weapon "in common use" with the militia. They didn't prohibit anything, just taxed the weapons of interest (short barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, automatics) since they were heavily involved with crime in the early 30's (that was their rationale).

I agree with Variable (and you) that NFA of 1934 should have never have happened, and should have been thrown out. Unfortunately, SCOTUS ruled and it is the law of the land.

But what I have said previously, I don't understand how the FOPA of 1986 banning automatics wasn't challenged based upon the precedence of US v Miller (1939) since automatics are clearly "in common use" in the military. If it was challenged (I am not aware of it), I can't believe they would ignore precedence (ok, with today's libtard courts, I can believe it).