How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

Discuss the 2nd Amendment and issues that relate to our right to keep and bear arms.
User avatar
Suck My Glock
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 8816
Joined: May 25th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 8
Location: Peoria

How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#1

Post by Suck My Glock »

Somehow I missed this article back in April. Someone just pointed it out to me, and when I read it,...I had a Keaneu Reeves moment where I went "WHOA!!"

The defendant, Bronsozian, in California (9th Circuit) had been prosecuted for possession and transfer of a machinegun under 26 U.S.C. 5861(d).

As everyone here likely knows, Congress has no power to ban guns, but merely the power to tax them. And it is under that taxing authority that machineguns and other NFA items are regulated.

Prior to 1986, an individual could legally manufacture their own machinegun and pay the tax, entering it into the NFA registry. But in the legislation Congress passed in the FOPA86', ATF was ordered to no longer accept tax payments and/or applications for machineguns. This capped the supply of MGs available for civilian purchase and possession, causing the incredible inflation of values in MG prices since then.

It has been argued among gun lawyers since that time that the NFA SHOULD be unenforceable if no tax is collected, because it is under tax authority that anything is regulated in the first place. If there is no tax collected, there is no purpose in enforcement of tax regulations that essentially cease to exist. That seems logical enough. But logic has nothing to do with government and especially gun control. In 1996 the 9th circuit ruled on this argument in U.S. v. Hunter and has used it to shoot down that point of view ever since,...although the refusal to collect tax argument has never yet made it to the Supreme Court.

Brosnozian is arguing that because the government is not collecting a tax, they are not imposing it, and if not imposing it, have abdicated any claim to punish for those who would have been liable for such tax if collection was ongoing.

Enter the case Texas v. U.S., wherein 20 Republican state attorneys general and Republican governors from Texas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia filed in February 2018 a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate of Obamacare. The 5th Circuit struck the ACA down, and it was appealed to the Supreme Court and will be heard this October.

The Supreme Court in March granted certiorary (agreed to hear) the Obamacare case. A month later, it also granted cert to Brosonzian (which is had to do to take any action other than refusing to hear it) but then took the odd step of vacating the judgement against him and remanding the case back to the 9th Circuit for the purpose of dismissing the indictment. The Supreme Court almost never does this, and the last time was 40 years ago. Usual practice is to render a decision and set a precedent.

Hmmmmm. Why did the Supreme Court take this action?

Read here an excerpt from the article;...
https://www.cato.org/blog/doj-dismisses ... -arguments

Why did the SG take this strange course? Believe it or not, ongoing Obamacare litigation is the most likely explanation. In Texas v. United States, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear but which now likely won’t be argued till the fall, the federal government argues that the Affordable Care Act, which no longer raises revenue, cannot be construed as imposing a tax.

Well, the National Firearms Act no longer raises revenue, because the government won’t collect the payment. Bronsozian argued that his provision cannot be sustained under NFIB v. Sebelius, the 2012 case that upheld the individual mandate after reconstruing it as a tax. As a result, DOJ would’ve had to argue that the National Firearms Act, which raises no revenue, must be construed as imposing a tax, while arguing that the no‐​longer‐​revenue‐​raising ACA cannot be construed that way.

Perhaps the easier path was to simply dismiss the indictment to sustain the Obamacare case. Our kudos to Mr. Bronsozian, and his counsel John Littrell, for securing an unusual win for constitutional governance by forcing the government into that pretzel.




Sooooo,...depending on how the language of the decision of the court on Texas v. U.S. this October,...perhaps there might be within it statements about what is a tax or not a tax if no revenues are collected. If so, this could be critically important to undoing the NFA.


User avatar
xerts1191
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 12215
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 7:25 pm
Reputation: 5
Location: Arizona

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#2

Post by xerts1191 »

I’m still waiting for Obamacare to disappear!
User avatar
High Standard
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 232
Joined: November 4th, 2019, 8:12 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Prescott Valley

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#3

Post by High Standard »

xerts1191 wrote: September 9th, 2020, 8:56 pm I’m still waiting for Obamacare to disappear!
It is currently my ONLY option here in AZ and it is terribly expensive and provides little coverage. There is no competition to Blue Cross/Shield which is the only current Obamacare provider. I am a senior on a fixed income now and I am not old enough for Medicare yet. It hurts to see our government interfere with the open market and then force me to either go without or buy an expensive lousy insurance policy from a single provider. Competition keeps prices lower and coverage better. That helps us seniors. :evil:
User avatar
Pale Rider
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 970
Joined: July 21st, 2018, 5:59 am
Reputation: 3
Location: Near Tucson

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#4

Post by Pale Rider »

It all makes sense. But just like all things that make sense, when dealing with the Gov and the crooked judiciary, nothing will ever come of it. Just look at how Roberts refused to hear any 2nd amendment cases recently. That POS has screwed us more than any Judge ever, including Obungholecare; the single most costly thing that has ever happened to middle class business owners in the history of this country.
User avatar
cool arrow
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1783
Joined: June 23rd, 2018, 8:06 am
Reputation: 11
Location: Tucson

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#5

Post by cool arrow »

High Standard wrote: September 10th, 2020, 7:06 am
It is currently my ONLY option here in AZ and it is terribly expensive and provides little coverage. There is no competition to Blue Cross/Shield which is the only current Obamacare provider.
wait wait wait....Obummercare was supposed to be "AFFORDABLE"!

It says so in the name!

You must be mistaken, the ACA is supposed to be a Godsend and a life saver for you. :roll:
User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 5

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#6

Post by Flash »

Fortunately I don't have to live with Obamacare. I buy the insurance for me and Mrs. Flash through United Healthcare and it's relatively inexpensive and covers everything, like 100% of our costs with no deductible. Plan "F" it's called.

Of course, it is a Medicare Supplement, but that is no big deal.
User avatar
High Standard
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 232
Joined: November 4th, 2019, 8:12 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Prescott Valley

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#7

Post by High Standard »

cool arrow wrote: September 10th, 2020, 9:51 am
High Standard wrote: September 10th, 2020, 7:06 am
It is currently my ONLY option here in AZ and it is terribly expensive and provides little coverage. There is no competition to Blue Cross/Shield which is the only current Obamacare provider.
wait wait wait....Obummercare was supposed to be "AFFORDABLE"!

It says so in the name!

You must be mistaken, the ACA is supposed to be a Godsend and a life saver for you. :roll:
Not only do I pay a fortune for terrible coverage, but you working people paying taxes supplement some of my cost. So thanks for that!
User avatar
High Standard
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 232
Joined: November 4th, 2019, 8:12 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Prescott Valley

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#8

Post by High Standard »

Flash wrote: September 10th, 2020, 12:44 pm Fortunately I don't have to live with Obamacare. I buy the insurance for me and Mrs. Flash through United Healthcare and it's relatively inexpensive and covers everything, like 100% of our costs with no deductible. Plan "F" it's called.

Of course, it is a Medicare Supplement, but that is no big deal.
Yes my wife is on Medicare like you are and I pay for a plan F supplement for her as well. Only I refuse to pay United Healthcare for the plan F supplement because they sell that same supplement for AARP which is anti 2nd Amendment. They market as the AARP supplement.
User avatar
Harrier
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 907
Joined: May 26th, 2018, 7:47 pm
Reputation: 7
Location: Right Here

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#9

Post by Harrier »

I have the UHC plan G option... I think if you compare the premiums between G & F you might find that the only thing F gives you is the $185 (or whatever it is now) deductible (ea), but the 12 month premiums are much more than that... so it is cost effective to pay that deductible out of pocket and lower monthly for plan G...
User avatar
High Standard
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 232
Joined: November 4th, 2019, 8:12 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Prescott Valley

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#10

Post by High Standard »

Harrier wrote: September 10th, 2020, 1:22 pm I have the UHC plan G option... I think if you compare the premiums between G & F you might find that the only thing F gives you is the $185 (or whatever it is now) deductible (ea), but the 12 month premiums are much more than that... so it is cost effective to pay that deductible out of pocket and lower monthly for plan G...
Thanks!
User avatar
Gunslinger808
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 755
Joined: May 3rd, 2018, 5:58 pm
Reputation: 3
Location: Florence

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#11

Post by Gunslinger808 »

High Standard wrote: September 10th, 2020, 7:06 am
xerts1191 wrote: September 9th, 2020, 8:56 pm I’m still waiting for Obamacare to disappear!
It is currently my ONLY option here in AZ and it is terribly expensive and provides little coverage. There is no competition to Blue Cross/Shield which is the only current Obamacare provider. I am a senior on a fixed income now and I am not old enough for Medicare yet. It hurts to see our government interfere with the open market and then force me to either go without or buy an expensive lousy insurance policy from a single provider. Competition keeps prices lower and coverage better. That helps us seniors. :evil:

And take a wild guess who was a major backer and fundraiser including paying lobbyist for O care.
User avatar
xerts1191
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 12215
Joined: May 28th, 2018, 7:25 pm
Reputation: 5
Location: Arizona

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#12

Post by xerts1191 »

Exactly
User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 5

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#13

Post by Flash »

Harrier wrote: September 10th, 2020, 1:22 pm I have the UHC plan G option... I think if you compare the premiums between G & F you might find that the only thing F gives you is the $185 (or whatever it is now) deductible (ea), but the 12 month premiums are much more than that... so it is cost effective to pay that deductible out of pocket and lower monthly for plan G...
There's NO deductible with our plan and we pay $450.00/month roughly for two people.
User avatar
Harrier
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 907
Joined: May 26th, 2018, 7:47 pm
Reputation: 7
Location: Right Here

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#14

Post by Harrier »

OK, now we got some numbers... We both are paying for 2 people...
you have plan F and $0 deductible and pay $450/mo = $5400/yr total cost. (Plan F is now closed to new members as of 2020)
We have to pay the $198 ea deductible and $282/month for plan G which comes to a total of $3780...
Unless there is some other compelling benefit of plan F the only one I see is the deductible...
simple math... Plan G save me $1620.... which justifies a Tavor for me...
Cbvanb
ArizonaShooting.org Bronze Supporter
ArizonaShooting.org Bronze Supporter
Posts: 215
Joined: August 19th, 2018, 9:36 pm
Reputation: 2
Location: Tucson

Re: How the Affordable Care Act may have doomed the 1986 Machinegun Ban

#15

Post by Cbvanb »

Since Roberts created this whole mess to begin with it will be interesting to see how he twists things to justify keeping ACA alive. I’m curious to see if they try to word the ruling to cover the NFA case also.
Post Reply