It's set in stone until another Supreme court ruling overturns it.

There is absolutely zero chance the current court overturns heller vs DC.

So what's your point then? You believe if congresses passes an act that outlaws all semi autos, that someone isn't going to sue and the Supreme Court isn't going to toss it in the garbage? They'll probanly even cite heller as a precident for declaring it unconstitutional.

No it doesn't. Heller reaffirmed the right to semi automatics, handguns, and certain long guns and shotguns.

The NFA doesn't apply to literally any of these. It applies to full automatic weapons, destructive devices (grenade launchers, tank guns, etc), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and suppressors.

Heller affirmed none of those, and that's how the NFA has been allowed to stand. For the record, I wish that law would be done away as well, short barreled rifles and suppressors shouldn't be a part of that.

If the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitional, then it's unconstitutional and is thrown out, even if it was a law from congress. Maybe you need to study basic American civics?

It's a major check on the power of the legislative branch, congress cannot just pass whatever the hell they want if it's blatantly unconstitutional else it will be thrown out

If an act of congress goes against heller, someone will sue to block it. It will either be thrown out in a lower court, or it will be appealed. It may end up being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if they choose to hear it. The court will then either throw it out, again, and cite their interpretation of the laws and previous rulings like heller, or they will overturn it, like roe v wade.

It is political pandering to propose laws that your party knows has zero chance of passing, and then even if it does pass, will be in direct violation of a previous ruling that was already tossed out for being unconstitutional.

Ok sure, come back when that's happened then.

No you can't, because DC already tried and the Supreme Court threw it in the garbage where it belonged in heller vs DC.

That's why congress hasn't tried, because it would be useless political pandering and would be thrown out in the first court case against it. Congress doesn't even care enough about useful political pandering in most cases, so they won't even waste their time here.

The only way to get rid of heller vs DC is to get rid of the 2nd amendment itself which cannot be done by congress.

Even places like California haven't tried a complete ban on anything semi automatic because they know it will not stand, so they've opted for things like magazine and " assault feature" bans.

Uhhhh.... The fact that I don't support gun control and believe a fair number of our existing laws including the NFA are already unconstitutional?

For the record, I'm fine with automatics being included under the current restrictions of the NFA, but suppressors need to go, and short barreled rifles should go as well.

Heller Vs DC already settled that. It says you can go pound sand :)

The Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens have a right to own semi automatic weapons including handguns (which cause far more deaths annually than rifles do in the USA) - so the NFA clearly cannot be expanded to include semiautomatic weapons without stepping on this ruling.

No ruling exists that explicitly protects automatic or other "exotic" weapons, which is why the NFA hasn't been thrown out yet.

When people talk about banning automatics, there's really no point as the NFA already exists, and it just shows they are uneducated in a field they want changes made in

. When they talk about banning semi automatics, which is really what they mean when they say they support more gun control, then you have Supreme Court cases that says that is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

That question is irrelevant. The fact that the NFA itself hasn't been overturned or amended says the entire govt for the last 90 years agrees that "not just anyone can have these, if you want one of these, you gotta jump through extra hoops".

I can't find a single example of a mass shooting being committed with a properly licensed NFA weapon in the USA..... because there's no reason to use one.

The closest you can get is the Vegas shooting where the dude used bump stocks, which at the time were legal to own for anyone, and have since been reclassified as machine guns and now fall under the jurisdiction of the NFA.

If you count a 200 dollar tax stamp to the ATF, a fingerprint check, 6 months of your gun waiting in ATF jail before you can take possession of it, plus the cost of the gun itself, as something that "just anyone" can get. You also need to request prior written approval from the ATF to take them out of state lines from the state they were registered in.

There's no national gun registry, but there is one for NFA items, the ATF knows exactly who owns what and where it is supposed to be - violating the NFA is a 10 year prison sentence if you're lucky. If you're unlucky they'll no knock you and shoot your dog in the process. If you're really, really unlucky, it was actually your neighbor they were after and they no knocked the wrong house.

Sure you can get them but it's like..... Who's got time to jump through all those hoops?

Also, most automatic weapons had to have been manufactured before 1986 to be eligible for private ownership - which creates a limited supply which drives up price. Your basic bitch milspec AR15 costs 500 bucks from your nearest gun shop, a fully automatic eligible for transfer pre 86 ban M16 probably will cost you 15 grand.

But sure, just anyone can get these.

Great, get started with the process of amending the constitution then.

Automatic weapons are already extremely heavily regulated under the 1934 NFA act and are hardly something just anyone can get.

At least try to do some basic research before you spout off about what should and should not be allowed.

Edit- anyone down voting me should get off reddit and go read the NFA instead.