I could be mistaken (I'm not nearly as well read as some of the other members here), but wasn't the government's argument, which SCOTUS agreed with, in Miller that the NFA was not an outright ban but rather a tax? If so, couldn't the Hughes Amendment be more easily interpreted as an outright ban? Also, given the current court's apparent distaste for purely discretional law (remember, both D.C. and Chicago had registration in place, they just refused to register any handguns), does anyone else think that the CLEO signoff requirement of the NFA might be in danger?
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar