What if?

I just read a short article that I came across researching another subject, where the ATF was asked by a Congressman to explain their “Ruling Process”. This request however, may create another issue regarding the Pistol Brace’s and its requirement or not for a Tax Stamp (see attached article).

My question is this…what would one do if they currently had a legal Pistol with a Brace, the law changed and now required a Tax Stamp, then a year or whatever later the ATF rescinded that Ruling, effectively negating the requirement altogether. Would the ATF be required to or should they refund the said owner of that Pistol their $200?


We all know what the law might say, but can anyone point to the Article and Section in the Constitution where it states government can require a ‘tax stamp’ and additional paperwork to be able to own an item that is a right.


That’s the whole problem with “rulings” like this…seems if they want to outlaw them they should legislate not just waive their pen and make it so.

The ATF issued a ruling, and Trump signed off.

The ban on bump stocks. Personally, bump stocks are a waste of time and ammo, but the issue is not the item, it is the ruling.

The ruling declared bump stocks illegal because they ‘make a semi-automatic into an automatic firearm’.

That is false, and the law they used to ban bump stocks defines an automatic, a ‘machinegun;’ as a firearm that fires continuously with one operation of the trigger. The definition of a semi-automatic is a firearm that fires one shot for each operation of the trigger. The trigger is pulled and must be reset before it can be pulled again to fire another round.

The bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. The bump stock simply increases the rate of fire, but the trigger must be operated for each shot, pulled, released and reset, and pulled again for the next shot.

If they can redefine words, can modify an semi-automatic into an automatic by altering the meaning of words, and ignoring the actual operation of the firearm, what can they do next?

I asked this already in another post, where in the Constitution, which article and section, is the authority granted to the government to restrict, limit, regulate or ban or prohibit or TAX any firearm.



Have you ever known the government or state to reimburse you on things before? I’ve fought a few tickets in my life and I have yet to ever have the court suddenly say, “we’ll dismiss the charge and pay you for your time to come in today since it was dismissed.”

I live in California. We have several “stupid” laws that come up and are kicked out as they’re fought in court. One example is the magazine ban on large capacity mags. California Decided that they were going to ban anything over 10 rounds on ANY firearm. That meant that you couldn’t buy any new mag with more than 10 rounds. Problem is, at one point, the law was overturned for a week before the state got the judgement overturned and appealed. So for one week people in California could buy large capacity magazines again…until the week was over and then it was back to stupidville. Shortly after that, there were cases where people were charged with with crimes when they were found to be in possession of these legally purchased high capacity magazines. I remember reading about several cases where someone had their weapon and the magazines confiscated even though their lawyer argued that the magazines were purchased during the legal week. Didn’t seem to matter to anyone as the laws reverted back and it was again illegal.

Thankfully, today, the law again got overturned and we’ll see if the twisted idiot we now have as AG chooses to uphold the law and allow it, or again decides to ignore the law and take matters into his hands like his predecessor Kamala Harris did and waste millions fighting the law they’re supposed to uphold. I know I shouldn’t be political…but at some point we need to hold politicians accountable for the wasted tax dollars they spend fighting against laws they should uphold.

In other words, don’t hold your breath. I purchased a lot of things in California legally that have gone from legal to illegal to legal again. I remember seeing the original video of the San Diego police confiscating legally purchased firearms some time ago…I couldn’t find the original but I did find some youtuber talk about it and show it in his video.

Don’t ever expect any government or state to reimburse you without spending much more fighting for it.

1 Like

I completely agree with you, and believe all these firearms laws are illegal. But, they have bigger guns than we do.

Article IV in part: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.” – Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

“An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.”Ex parte Siebold , 100 U.S. 371 (1879)

“An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

    “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.  **The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail** **.**  This is succinctly stated as follows:  The general rule is that  **an unconstitutional statute** **,**  **though having the form and name of law** **,**  **is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective**   **for any purpose;**  since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  **An unconstitutional law,**  in legal contemplation,  **is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.**  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

“Since an unconstitutional law is void , the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one . An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it .”16 American Jurisprudence 2d , Sec. 177

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it . The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state , though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, in legal contemplation, IS AS INOPERATIVE AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED. 16 American Jurisprudence 2d , Sec. 256



I reference several of those statements often.

Especially, a Law Repugnant to the Constitution is void…

and there is ;
When an act injurious to freedom has once been done and the people bear it, the repetition of it is more likely to meet with submission ~ Samuel Adams.

We the people do hold much responsibility for the current disaster our nation is in, as we could have and should have been well informed and not allowed the politicians and courts to take tyrannical power.