大美麗法案2026年生效，消音器不用繳$200稅票了，但還是NFA管制物品

[麦克王]

https://www.silencershop.com/blog/heari ... n-act-2025

明年就再買一個消音器。。。

这次大美丽法案把200块钱给免了，其实给开了一系列诉讼的方便之门
以前有人起诉说是这等于强迫register ， 而ATF的答辩是，俺们实际上是收税 -- 200块钱税。 而ATF作为政府部门是可以依据行政权力收税的，所以起诉者没办法。
这次把钱免了，结果只剩下登记了， ATF就没法说这是收税 -- 下面肯定很快就会有相关官司， ATF这次估计肯定败退，但是败退到何程度，能否把消音器从NFAlist 上拿下来，不知道

[magagop]

这次大美丽法案把200块钱给免了，其实给开了一系列诉讼的方便之门
以前有人起诉说是这等于强迫register ， 而ATF的答辩是，俺们实际上是收税 -- 200块钱税。 而ATF作为政府部门是可以依据行政权力收税的，所以起诉者没办法。
这次把钱免了，结果只剩下登记了， ATF就没法说这是收税 -- 下面肯定很快就会有相关官司， ATF这次估计肯定败退，但是败退到何程度，能否把消音器从NFAlist 上拿下来，不知道

把消音器從NFA拿下來是重大法律改變，參議院不能以簡單多數就通過法案，需要超過60票。如果共和黨敢開這個頭，下次民主黨掌握兩院，真正的2A災難就來了，無窮無盡的控槍法案將會通過兩院成為法律。所以這次參議院才只免了稅，沒敢改法律。如果是國會眾議院的預算決議，也就是Bill，不是Act，參議院可以迅速簡單多數通過表決，副總統也能投關鍵一票，這就是大美麗預算法案通過的原因。美國法律設計非常精妙，不是英聯邦國家和歐洲大陸法系可以追趕的。

https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/c ... 51-is-fair

[oldestghost]

这次大美丽法案把200块钱给免了，其实给开了一系列诉讼的方便之门
以前有人起诉说是这等于强迫register ， 而ATF的答辩是，俺们实际上是收税 -- 200块钱税。 而ATF作为政府部门是可以依据行政权力收税的，所以起诉者没办法。
这次把钱免了，结果只剩下登记了， ATF就没法说这是收税 -- 下面肯定很快就会有相关官司， ATF这次估计肯定败退，但是败退到何程度，能否把消音器从NFAlist 上拿下来，不知道

good point

[oldestghost]

把消音器從NFA拿下來是重大法律改變，參議院不能以簡單多數就通過法案，需要超過60票。如果共和黨敢開這個頭，下次民主黨掌握兩院，真正的2A災難就來了，無窮無盡的控槍法案將會通過兩院成為法律。所以這次參議院才只免了稅，沒敢改法律。如果是國會眾議院的預算決議，也就是Bill，不是Act，參議院可以迅速簡單多數通過表決，副總統也能投關鍵一票，這就是大美麗預算法案通過的原因。美國法律設計非常精妙，不是英聯邦國家和歐洲大陸法系可以追趕的。

https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/c ... 51-is-fair

你没看懂他说的。

[magagop]

原來是這樣，奇怪的知識又增加了。。。

Difference Between a Bill and an Act

Bill: A proposed law introduced in either the House (as H.R.) or Senate (as S.). It's debated, amended, and voted upon in both chambers .

Act (Law): Once both houses pass a bill and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law—officially called an “Act of Congress” or a statute .

Summary: A bill is a draft; an Act is that draft turned into law.

---

Why Gun-Control Laws Typically Need 60 Senate Votes

The Senate allows unlimited debate, a tactic called the filibuster, whereby a minority can block legislation .

To end debate and force a vote (a process called cloture, under Rule XXII), 60 votes (three‑fifths of the 100‑member body) are required .

Once cloture is invoked, debate may continue for up to 30 more hours before a final vote can happen .

So even if 51 senators support a gun-control bill, fewer than 60 means the minority can filibuster it, preventing it from even reaching a final vote. This is why major laws—like gun-control—typically need 60 Senators to proceed .

---

Does the Vice President’s Tie-Breaker Count in the 60 Votes?

No—the Vice President’s tie‑breaking vote does not count toward the 60-vote threshold for cloture. The rule requires three-fifths of the “senators duly chosen and sworn”, meaning actual senators. The Vice President is not a senator, but only presides over votes and can cast a 51st vote in a tie, but cannot help reach 60 for cloture .

---

Summary Table

Concept Requirement VP Tie-Breaker Counts?

**Passing a bill (final vote)** 51 votes (simple majority) Yes (to break 50–50)
**Invoking cloture (end filibuster)** 60 votes (three-fifths of 100) No (VP not included)

---

Why This Matters for Gun Control

Gun-control legislation isn’t eligible for fast-track procedures like reconciliation, which require only a simple majority. So, they must go through regular Senate debate, which is subject to the filibuster .

Typically, at least 41 senators can sustain a filibuster, meaning you need at least 60 votes to break it—which is a high bar in today's polarized Senate .

---

Final Takeaways

1. A bill becomes an Act (law) after passage and presidential approval.
2. To overcome a filibuster, Senate rules require 60 votes for cloture.
3. The Vice President can break 50–50 ties (simple majority votes) but does not help meet the 60-vote requirement for cloture.

[magagop]

你没看懂他说的。

我解釋了立法程序走不通的原因。至於走司法程序，聯邦法院訴訟也不能解決問題，因為全國禁止令被共和黨自己的最高法院否決了，個別州的聯邦訴訟對其他州沒有影響，最多只能州內部暫時禁止，紅州本來就可以買消音器，藍州也不容易有聯邦左派法官來支持消音器訴訟，結果就是紅州藍州各過各的，直到最高法院終審，這至少需要十幾年時間，跟參議院60票立法程序也差不多難度。

[oldestghost]

聯邦法院訴訟也不能解決問題，因為全國禁止令被共和黨自己的最高法院否決了，個別州的聯邦訴訟對其他州沒有影響，最多只能州內部暫時禁止，紅州本來就可以買消音器，藍州也不容易有聯邦左派法官來支持消音器訴訟，結果就是紅州藍州各過各的，直到最高法院終審，這至少需要十幾年時間，跟參議院60票也差不多難度。

你还是理解错了

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2025070 ... s%20Policy

目测不等换总统就能到高院。

但怎么判不敢说。

[magagop]

你还是理解错了

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2025070 ... s%20Policy

目测不等换总统就能到高院。

但怎么判不敢说。

如果這次消音器法案能快速通過高院判決形成聯邦判例，那控槍的紅旗法案下次也能迅速通過高院判決形成聯邦判例，這樣司法機構就變成了立法機構，那還要國會和參議院做什麼？所以我認為最高法院是不會提審類似案件的。

[magagop]

AI還是有用的，可以當法律助手幫助掃盲，其實我最擔心的是豬黨利用同樣的法院程序來推動控槍判例，最高法院最好少參與此類案件。

Supreme Court can delay acting on a cert petition indefinitely—there’s no fixed deadline for deciding whether to take up a case. But let’s unpack how it actually works:

---

1. Filing Deadlines for the Petition

Once a lower appellate decision or judgment is issued, parties usually have 90 days to file a petition for a writ of certiorari—this can be extended up to 60 additional days if a Justice grants good cause .

---

2. The Certiorari Review Process

The Court receives roughly 9,000–10,000 petitions per term.

Clerks screen these and recommend a handful for Discussion at the Justices' weekly conferences, usually held October through June .

If four justices vote (“rule of four”), the case is “granted” and placed on the merits docket .

---

3. How Long the Court Can Delay

Denied petitions are typically disposed of within a few months, but there’s no statutory timeline.

If none of the Justices pulls your petition for conference, it may simply fade from consideration—you might never receive a definitive rejection.

The Court’s term runs October–June, meaning petitions filed in late spring could linger without action until the next term begins .

This means that absent special steps, a petition can effectively be on ice for a year—or even longer—with no ruling at all.

---

4. Emergency (Shadow Docket) Alternative

For urgent matters—like red flag challenges where enforcement is imminent—parties may file emergency applications (e.g., stays or injunctions).

These are handled on the shadow docket, often on an accelerated timeline, sometimes in days or weeks .

However, shadow-docket decisions are narrow and don't mean the Court will grant full review.

---

5. Red Flag Laws Example

If someone sues over a state red flag law and loses in the appeals court, they may file a cert petition. But:

Without a vote of four justices, the Supreme Court may never take it up.

Even if they do, it might not be scheduled until well into the next term.

Meanwhile, only an emergency shadow‑docket action could offer quick, temporary relief—but not a full constitutional ruling.

---

Bottom Line

There's no deadline for the Supreme Court to act on certiorari. A petition may remain unresolved for months or even years.

The Justices only decide to act when they choose—especially for controversial policies like red flag laws.

Urgent relief can sometimes be sought through the shadow docket, but that doesn’t guarantee a full hearing or a nationwide ruling.

[oldestghost]

如果這次消音器法案能快速通過高院判決形成聯邦判例，那控槍的紅旗法案下次也能迅速通過高院判決形成聯邦判例，這樣司法機構就變成了立法機構，那還要國會和參議院做什麼？所以我認為最高法院是不會提審類似案件的。

之前有个很经典的案例。。。

关于隐蔽携枪的。

如果按照甲州法院和九马戏团，估计一辈子没戏。

然后高院判了。

现在大家都在等攻击武器，弹匣的案子谁先下来。判一个，大家都幸福。

[oldestghost]

目标远大。。。。不错。