ASA & LEADING 2A ORGANIZATIONS FILE LAWSUIT TO CHALLENGE NFA

This came in an e-mail from the American Suppressor Association, see link: http://ASA & LEADING 2A ORGANIZATION... CHALLENGE NFA

On August 1, 2025, a coalition of four leading gun rights organizations comprised of the American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), announced the filing of a joint federal lawsuit in the District of Missouri challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA). In 1937, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA was primarily a revenue-generating measure and the registration requirements of the statute served to verify who had paid the required tax. With the tax rate of $0 as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, the constitutionality of requiring suppressor owners to register with the federal government is no longer valid. This litigation joins Anderson v. Raoul, and Padua v. Platkin, the ASA Foundation and Silencer Shop?backed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the ban on suppressors in Illinois and New Jersey, at the forefront of pro-suppressor litigation.

The legal filing is also in the link. Any MSM or DU news of this should make some heads explode! They'll have to try to assassinate him again, along with the Supremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hummer

This came in an e-mail from the American Suppressor Association, see link: http://ASA & LEADING 2A ORGANIZATION... CHALLENGE NFA

On August 1, 2025, a coalition of four leading gun rights organizations comprised of the American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), announced the filing of a joint federal lawsuit in the District of Missouri challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA). In 1937, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA was primarily a revenue-generating measure and the registration requirements of the statute served to verify who had paid the required tax. With the tax rate of $0 as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, the constitutionality of requiring suppressor owners to register with the federal government is no longer valid. This litigation joins Anderson v. Raoul, and Padua v. Platkin, the ASA Foundation and Silencer Shop?backed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the ban on suppressors in Illinois and New Jersey, at the forefront of pro-suppressor litigation.

The legal filing is also in the link. Any MSM or DU news of this should make some heads explode! They'll have to try to assassinate him again, along with the Supremes.

---

Not much to celebrate in Colorado, if they are successful, then all NFA will be prohibited under long-existing Colorado law. (and a few other States as well).

While well meaning, it's also apt to shoot ourselves in the foot. The Supremes will NEVER eradicate the NFA unless you have 5 Clarence Thomas' on the bench. Each of the rest will be swayed by arguements about "undesireables" running through their own neighborhoods with gat-switches and M60's.

Then, heads don't explode... what we do is cause a Pendulum to start swinging. Our government is only fully conservative for another year and half. Trump has all but guaranteed that, and the economy is now beginning to stutter. By drawing a tremendous amount of attention to something doomed to fail in the beginning, we likely induce pushback in unintentional ways, and end up with either an expansion of the NFA (all semi automatic "assault weapons"), increased fees (Like the $4,000 one), etc...

Things are only good for a moment in time, but if our goal is to make heads explode, the pendulum is going to come back and smack the crap out of us when the winds change, and they will change, thanks to the Big Borrowing Bill, Epstein cover-up, failure to reduce any spending, inflation picking back up, impending recession, etc.

So we should be buying NFA items now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sawin

So we should be buying NFA items now?

---

Due to other efforts, it may be wise. Delisting suppressors is more likely to be successful at some point or another. If you already have them, you already have the tax stamp, therefore you have legal possession. If they delisted them, you couldn't get tax stamps on any others, therefore, additional ones would be illegal under existing CO law.

ETA: Transferrables, I wouldn't worry about. Supremes aren't going to sign off on cheap full autos for undesirables. What WILL happen is we'll have a case law where the Supremes justify their position with some bullshit explanation, that then gets recited as precedential law to justify new gun control going forward.

Conservatives should've taken a playbook from the left - do an incremental approach and only pursue winning cases. Headline generation cases produce adverse case law that later blows your own toes off.