Cavalry
.338 Win Mag
An interesting take on legal fuckery. Probably not going anywhere, but pretty cool. I am curious why they chose VW as the test bed?
I believe Montana has no law restricting MGs used for lawful purposes. I suppose as long as the Fed is not involved one could do what they want as far as building/possessingDidn't one of the Western States like Wyoming or Montana do something like this?
I was thinking what they passed was anything manufactured in and used within the State wasn't subject the the NFA...they were the or among the first to challenge the Act, which caused a lot of angst with the Feds....it's been a while and being in a non Class III State I didn't delve that far into it.I believe Montana has no law restricting MGs used for lawful purposes. I suppose as long as the Fed is not involved one could do what they want as far as building/possessing
The Premise is the new (non BATFE Registered) manufacturer of MG's within and for use by State Residents without Federal oversight or approval.In any of the free states, you can legally own a MG, but it has to be registered with ATF.
Otherwise, you would be hearing about thousands of new built MG's in those states.
I believe that's the same angle that was used with which ever State(s) had gone this route.Texas is/was doing this with suppressors. The started a few years ago, not sure where it sits in the courts or in practice. The entire argument was Congress has the powers for regulating interstate commerce not intrastate commerce. So the NFA did not apply to suppressors made in the state bought by state residents and used in the state boundaries.