BBI, if may interject and offer what I think he's saying...
If any hypothetical state was to remove all laws regarding SBS, SBR, suppressors, AOWs, DDs, whatever, and tell the fedgov, "Our sheriffs and police chiefs don't have time to waste on all your NFA papers. Our law now says that citizens may own any of these, unrestricted.", how would that differ from a state telling the fedgov, "We're done enforcing your marijuana laws, and you are not welcome to enforce them in our state, either. Our citizens may use that substance at their leisure."
Personally, I think any state doing so would more than make up the loss in federal highway funding in sales taxes on twinkies, doritos, and ho-hos.
It's not a question of what the law discussed in the OP is doing, it's a hypothetical comparison between two laws we'll never see.
Pretty close, GFGT?
Blessings,
Bill
If any hypothetical state was to remove all laws regarding SBS, SBR, suppressors, AOWs, DDs, whatever, and tell the fedgov, "Our sheriffs and police chiefs don't have time to waste on all your NFA papers. Our law now says that citizens may own any of these, unrestricted.", how would that differ from a state telling the fedgov, "We're done enforcing your marijuana laws, and you are not welcome to enforce them in our state, either. Our citizens may use that substance at their leisure."
Personally, I think any state doing so would more than make up the loss in federal highway funding in sales taxes on twinkies, doritos, and ho-hos.
It's not a question of what the law discussed in the OP is doing, it's a hypothetical comparison between two laws we'll never see.
Pretty close, GFGT?
Blessings,
Bill