While SCOTUS is at It, The National Firearms
Act is Largely Unconstitutional

"I must first fill out Form 4473 and pay a $5 fee to run a National Instant Check System (“NICS”) background check." Good article Ted, but the dealer NICS check, and paperwork now costs me $40 in Virginia if I don't buy the gun from him. And it keeps going up.

The regulations in the the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) are largely arbitrary and capricious, and both Acts should be repealed in toto because they are unconstitutional on their faces. Noel describes the anfractuous rules regulating shotguns, short barreled rifles, suppressors, even the rifling inside the barrel of certain pistols that can also shoot shot shells. None of this busybody rulemaking makes a soul safer from "gun" violence. The problem has always been the criminals, not the guns they use in their crimes. FTA: The imposition of these excise taxes might be a lawful act. But levying a tax on the exercise of a constitutional right is a clear infringement of that right. If I want to buy a fully automatic weapon and pay for the immense amount of ammunition it eats just because it has the giggle switch (full auto selector), that is my right. I become liable when I misuse it, just as I would become liable for misusing a single shot derringer or a delivery truck. That's exactly correct. Under the law as it exists, a member of the local police SWAT team can have almost any weapon he wants, including fully automatic. Why can't moral, sane adults who want one buy, say, a Glock 18? It's got a giggle switch. A few of my shooting friends would like to take something like that to the range. If it were legal, we'd do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp1JoDkofyA (Glock 18C machine pistol)

He’s right, of course...

As I understand a major argument for banning short barrelled rifles/shotguns was they were easily concealed under the garments worn in the era of bank robberies. Those clothes would be conspicuous today and banks don't keep enough cash to make daylight heists practical. Automatic weapons are very expensive (and few can afford to expend hundreds of $$ ammo per minute) and bought mostly by collectors. Most criminals are lower income and aren't going to pay more than necessary for their tools (aka evidence) which many will merely discard after the crime. BTW, resident bidet, the 2nd Amendment obviously didn't prohibit ownership of a cannon. Like Automatic weapons of today, need and cost of the weapon and ammunition was the limitting consideration.

Yes, it is. And in the Supreme Court's Miller decision, the only reason that the court found that a short barreled shotgun could be restricted is because, lacking any lawyer speaking for the defendants, the court was misinformed when they opined that a short barreled shotgun wasn't part of ordinary military equipment. In fact, short barreled shotguns had been issued to the troops in the trenches and used effectively in that role. And the POINT of the Court's opinion, almost always ignored, was that basically any guns which are used by the US Army are protected from any infringement. This includes machine guns, mortars, anti-aircraft guns, artillery, etc. And artillery was commonly owned by privately funded militias prior to the 1910 era, even though the cost of the guns and their ammunition limited this a good bit. They were NOT illegal at all, just damned expensive. The entire 1934 National Firearms Act is a severe infringement. Unfortunately, I doubt that many of our current justices have the spine to stand up for the 2nd Amendment the way it was INTENDED ---- "....shall not be infringed" is absolutely unequivocal. And even Scalia's opinion was weak on which kinds of guns were protected, inventing the "guns in ordinary use" test for whether a gun was protected from air just as thin as the Roe v. Wade "right to privacy" was conjured from.

As the proud owner of two Thompson’s, the typical drum holds 50 rounds. There is a “Type C” drum that holds 100, but I’ve never actually seen one. That said, the drum rattles and is a pain to load, so the 30 round stick mag is preferred.

RE #6. If those are the real deal, not the modern semi-auto versions, it would be a lot of fun to take them to the range. I've considered getting a M1 TSMG, but the current cost of about $25-30K, I've been deterred. I may still just say, 'what the heck' and start the paperwork. Not nearly as iconic, but I did get a chance to spend some range time with a MP40 and an Uzi. Those are slightly less money, perhaps $18-20K, and were very easily controlled. If the 1986 ban was removed, the prices would drop dramatically for many, although the old historic arms would still be expensive. But, like a modern replica of a Winchester 1873 costs $1,000 to $1,500, instead of $3,000 to $10,000, modern reproductions of these old subguns would fill in the gap for many as 'range toys'.

Yes they are real. One never fired. Two tax stamps for each: SBR and full auto.

Two big thumbs up for #8.