I have worked on this issue for several years, and THIS is the ONLY approach that stands ANY chance of success without some Billionaire suddenly volunteering to foot the bill!
Class suits are financed by large groups. -- I've been actively working since the mid '60s to repeal unreasonable gun laws, and your incremental approach [the NRA 'way'] is a demonstrable failure.
Do we REALLY trust SCOTUS to get it right, even if we could get a case to them?
A flat rejection, by SCOTUS, of our RKBA's would be as good as a complete win. Such an unacceptable 'ruling' would precipitate a Constitutional crisis that would resolve the issue, or the republic would fall. Rest assured it will not fall.
There are other issues with ATFE that may end up in court, some of them fairly soon, but THIS issue is long overdue for settlement. It is clear that congress is our only PRACTICAL means of getting the relief we seek, as ATFE will not admit that there is any problem, much less make ANY legitimate effort at correction.
I think the Congress approach is a loser. The power of a State to reject unconstitutional law is a much better bet. -- Either Alaska, Montana, or New Hampshire could start the rejection movement rolling, and once started, imo, it would not stop.
Failure to heed NFA-34 will land you in Fed. prison for ten years + $250,000 fine, and to date no attempt to challenge it's constitutionality has been successful, so that is NOT a winning strategy!
Catch 22, the USSC refuses to hear such challenges. A State could make an unrefusable challenge, simply by rejecting the 'power' that Congress gave itself in the NFA-34.
Many people here may understand that many of our "law's" are unconstitutional, but to prevail we HAVE to work with reality, and reality is that most most Americans accept whatever Gov. Org. tells them and abides by it.
Your acceptance of that idea as 'reality' is indeed the problem.
In order to succeed we have to work within the current reality, working only from lofty constitutionalist purity will not get us anywhere we want to go.
That has been the NRA's position since it backed the GCA of '68. -- I submit to you the outcome, -- you are arguing that we should comply with an unconstitutional amnesty, and complaining that my "lofty constitutionalist purity will not get us anywhere".. I suggest you go look in a mirror to see where we are.
Well it doesn't look like you've had much success with your "get rid of them all at once" plan, either... AND FWIW the "NRA way" as you call it has nothing to do with this; NFA gun owners are the red-headed stepchild of American gun-owners. The NRA does not support us.
you are arguing that we should comply with an unconstitutional amnesty,
NO, we are arguing that an amnesty should be made available. If you don't wish to register your machinegun THEN DON'T REGISTER IT! NOT hard to understand. I'll say it again: if you believe that going along with the amnesty will give credibility to the NFA, or that they'll later confiscate your gun, then DO NOT REGISTER IT. I don't care what you do, but for many veterans and their families, they would like to become legal. The ultimate goal of opening the registry is to impress upon people that NFA weapons are not a threat.
SWEET CHRIST you people are unreal. I believe just as strongly as you that the NFA and the GCA are 100% unconstitutional. You seem to be arguing that we then should "just ignore it." Alright, good luck with that, do whatever you want.