News broke yesterday about a decision in which the State of Wyoming took place regarding silencers and short barreled rifles and shotguns, all things controlled under the National Firearms Act.
A local news story:
The Court did not strike the statutory provisions down, as it was urged to do, and as some parts of the press are reporting it did. In fact it denied declaratory relief. Rather, what it did, was to find that the basis for the NFA, which was passed as a taxation bill, fails once no tax is applicable.
That makes perfect sense.
What doesn't is that the Court didn't take the next logical step, which would have been just to strike those portions of the NFA down. Rather, it simply enjoined the NFA from being enforced as to those provisions on the specific plaintiffs in the suit.
Eh?
That result is frankly rather weird, and not sustainable. This will be appealed, I think, to the Federal Court of Appeals. Having said that, the Trump Administration, in spite of supposedly being "pro gun", was fully defending the law and it might make a strategic decision not to appeal. If it doesn't, this ruling is so narrow that it effectively is a nullity.
Here's the court's entire decision.
On the items in question, I'd like to see the NFA struck down. Without the taxation element of it, it really fails to make any sense.
The big question, of course, is automatic weapons, which are also addressed by the NFA. They are not addressed by this decision, and the taxation aspect of the system still applies to them. Some argue that the NFA violates the 2nd Amendment by restricting them, but I frankly do not think it does as I'm not certain, if analyzed in the 18th Century prospective of the 2nd Amendment, that they would be considered "arms". Rather, I think they'd likely be regarded as "ordinance", as they're actually more akin to cannon, in context, than small arms, in context.
