The Federal Firearm Act of 1934 has yet to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, it is not only the law of the land but it is Constitutional and legitimate..........Nice Try
Actually, I think it was.
US v. Miller in 1939 was a decision of the Supreme Court arising from the dismissal of charges against Miller by the District Court for having a short-barreled shotgun without the NFA required tax stamp. The District Court had dismissed charges due to the Second Amendment.
The prosecution made two claims. First was that Miller was not protected by the Second Amendment because he was not a member of a Militia. Second was that the "arm" was not useful to a Militia and therefor the protection of the Second Amendment did not extend to such a weapon.
The Supreme Court could have reversed the lower court decision by simply noting that Miller was not a member of a Militia and thus that his possession of weapons, regardless of the type of weapon, was not protected. THEY DID NOT DO THIS.
Instead, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court. They ruled that they had no "judicial notice" that a short-barreled shotgun was useful to a Militia and thus the lower court would presumably need to address that issue.
Miller and his fellow defendant either disappeared or died and no further action was taken.
Obviously, an automatic M14 is useful to a Militia or an Army and, had it been the weapon at issue in the Miller case, the lower court would have to have found in favor of Miller.
The reason that you and many other people are mistaken about the Miller case and the status of the National Firearms Act is that the various courts of the land who later cited the case LIED about the outcome, insisting that the Second Amendment only protects a "collective right" of Militias and not an individual right.
Nothing in the more recent Heller and McDonald cases caused a conflict with Miller because THERE IS NO CONFLICT. Heller simply expanded Miller to cover both weapons useful to a Militia and those which are useful for self-defense. There are interesting days ahead for the anti-gun crowd.
One little-noticed case was Caetano which the Supreme Court addressed without, I think, any kind of hearing. The Court simply directed the Massachusetts Supreme Court to reconsider Caetano's case in light of Heller.
Of interest is the fact that Caetano was convicted of carrying a stun gun (perhaps a taser) in public in violation of Massachusetts' laws. I believe that charges against her were finally dismissed.
The most common theory I have heard regarding why the Supreme Court has not taken a Second Amendment case recently is that Kennedy was not a sure vote in favor of the right. Now, finally, we may be in a position to get some really interesting decisions regarding the Second Amendment.
Given that it was confiscation of arms outside Boston which precipitated the American Revolution, I can see no way to justify any government requirement to have a serial number on a firearm or any justification for government to have any record of firearm ownership or any justification for licensing manufacturers or dealers. Once that is gone, almost all other gun laws become unenforceable.