Not completely. I don't think the 4473 is de facto registration. I think FFLs lose these things and I am not sure they are that easy to trace. I would have to go with a backgound check, federal BATFE registration and no undocumented transfers. I could be worng but I think when you buy a class 3 item you have to go to your local LEO and he has to sign off on it. Maybe somebody here could say. Anyway, I like that as it might keep a legal FA out the hands of the local kook, who might have a clean record otherwise. After that yeah take away the $200 except for explosive devices and the '86 ban as well and we might have a deal!
The 4473 is retained by the FFL for as long as he's in business. After that it is turned into the BATFE which stores them. If an FFL does "lose" a 4473, he could lose his license. I would support the following regulation of full-auto or any gun for that matter: Required background check on
all sales (so long as the procedure is not overly complicated or expensive and possible exceptions or variations made for close relatives), mandatory records to be kept by the selling party for a certain amount of time (10 years seems logical enough though I wouldn't necessarily object to a longer period so long as it's within reason), mandatory destruction of 4473's by BATFE after a certain period after the original transaction (once again, 10 years seems reasonable but I wouldn't necessarily object to a different amount of time), and finally a certain amount of liability in the case of theft or misuse by a third party
if it can be proven that the owner did not take reasonable measures to keep them out of the third party's hands (i.e didn't keep it in a safe, let his buddy borrow it, etc.). I might be able to understand required demonstration of safe handling equipment for certain types of explosives. I don't support the tax, fingerprinting, federal registration, 86 law (which wouldn't matter anyway if registration goes away), or LEO signoff. I don't support the LEO signoff in particular because the LEO may refuse to sign off for any reason and this, in my mind, makes abuse by the LEO too easy. I suppose I could live with the LEO only being able to refuse for certain documented reasons (FA and explosives only), but the background check would seem to make that redundant. Personally, I don't think silencers should be regulated at all as a silencer by itself is not a firearm and is to my way of thinking no different than a scope, holster, or recoil pad. Also, I see no reason for a short-barreled shotgun or rifle or large caliber rifle (i.e. over .50 cal) to be viewed any different than any other firearm. Also, the ridiculous '89 import ban and parts count rules should go away all together.
Quote:
I don't see any market for rocket and grenade launchers emerging. That sounds more like fear mongering.
Reasonable fear since if the NFA were repealed they would be easier to get. Anyway, don't put too much faith in that background check, remember the two recent school shooters got by them even though they shouldn't have. And no it doesn't invalidate the background checks it just shows they aren't run well. Hoepfully, the latest legislation will help and the mental health lobby needs to be suppressed.
Your point about the school shooters makes a better case for revising NICS than for over-regulating certain weapons.
Quote:
I would say that civilians, who are part of the unorganized militia, should be able to own the same weaponry as a national guard troop, who is part of the organized militia, is given before he goes into a combat zone.
I disagree. The unorganized militia is not the "well-regulated militia" put forth in the COTUS, it is only a pool of people who might be apart of that regualted militia. The Heller decision broke that code between militia participation and individual right to keep and bear arms in common use by cilivians. Anyway, according to the statute females and those over 45 aren't in. Go to the link I provided before to another above and read more about what the unorgnaized militia really is.
While you are correct that there is a distinction between the organized and unorganized militia and that memebership to the militia does not determine one's 2A rights,
Miller failed to make the distinction stating only "the militia."
Weapons suitable for and/or in common use by the militia (be it organized or unorganized) are protected, according to
Miller by the 2A, and the 2A is an individual right and one need not belong to the militia in order to enjoy it according to
Heller. Since full-auto is suitable for and in common use by the National Guard (which is defined by the Militia Act as the organized militia) and one need not belong to the militia in order to enjoy one's 2A rights, it only follows that it is within one's 2A rights to own fully-automatic weapons.
Quote:
Maybe I missed it. I don't have time to go back and read all of your posts. Maybe you can do me a favor and give me the post number your answer is in so I can go and read it without wading through all of the others.
Alright, since you asked so nicely I'll do this one more time.
An M-16 is a machinegun. Machineguns are more lethal than semi-auto weapons (like the AR-15) or other manually operated small arms. Why is this? Because when you pull the trigger with the "happy switch" on lots and lots of bullets come out real fast. The more bullets that are fired the greater the chance you will hit something. This is precisely why the military adopted them was because they can kill a lot of people real fast.
Their intended use is for a)fire suppression and b) area denial. These purposes are not advisable for use in civilian self defense situations because spraying bullets about tend to hit innocent bystanders, not too big a problem for the military in combat. Machine guns are also difficult to control, particularly when shoulder fired. The muzzle will rise as the weapon is fired causing many of the rounds fired to miss the target and go on to perhaps hit other people or things.
As has been pointed out, a machinegun is not the only type of firearm that propels multiple projectiles with each pull of the trigger. Also, it is entirely possible (not even overly hard without proper care) to cause collateral damage to innocent bystanders with semi-automatic, revolving, slide action, lever-action, multiple barrel, or single shot firearms through either over-penetration or a complete miss. I've seen a great number of people "spray" their rounds with semi-automatic firearms either through improper gun hadling, excessive recoil, or both. Finally, there are a great number of fully automatic firearms that are quite controllable. The last Thompson that I fired had very little recoil or muzzle rise due to both it's weight and Cutts Compensator. Also, one of the reasons that the HK MP5 is so popular with both military and law enforcement agencies is it's great controlability with fully-automatic fire. The controlability issue is remedied by proper weapon selection and adequate technique and training and honestly these are requirements for any type of firearm.
Think of this scenario: Joe Horn, that famous vigilante from Texas, had an M-16A1 instead of the shotgun he used to shoot those guys in the back. Joe, who just bought the M-16 since we repealed the NFA wants to kill these guys (as he told the 911 operator) so he grabs his M-16 which he has never fired because it is too expensive to shoot and outside he goes. He correctly surmises that if semi-auto will kill these guys, full-auto will do it better since he will have less chance of not hitting them, so he puts it on rock and roll and fires 'em up. He does indeed kill them but his other 25 rounds go into neighboring homes and kill and wound several innocent people. Now, of course Joe is arrested and sued to pieces but the neighbors are dead. They might not have been so if Joe had stayed with his trusty shotgun. Joe might have hit innocent bystanders with the shotgun (furhter showing his recklessness) but the chance are he would have had less of a chance of doing so with OO Buckshot as opposed to the 25 rifle bullets that didn't hit the bad guys.
Could the same not happen if Joe decides to bump-fire his semi-automatic AR-15 in order to simulate full-auto fire in his infinite stupidity. The difference is that now, because he's shooting from the hip, his accuracy is so terrible that he still inadvertently kills his neighbors and still misses the miscreants in his front yard.
Because of the operation (the way it shoots) of the machinegun this is more likely to happen than with other types of weapons. I would be very concerned and frightened to have a neighbor like Joe Horn with an automatic weapon such as the M16.
If my neighbor Joe is too stupid to become familiar with his weapon, I'd be concerned and frightened at him having any sort of weapon at all, regardless of it's operation.
Quote:
What about shotguns with 00 buck?
Sorry, I think that is a bit of a stretch. And don't just focus on the M-16 3-round burst which makes the best case for your argument. Remember with the NFA repealed there will be SAWs, M-60s and others in the mix. Not to mention the grenade and rocket launchers.
Yet again, it all boils down to the same safe gunhandling procedures as anything else (specifically know your target and what's beyond it). If someone's too dumb and/or irresponsible to follow that, they probably shouldn't have a gun of any type. Like I said before, I think it's a better idea to focus on keeping all weapons out of the hands of some people that to keep some weapons out of the hands of almost everyone.
I think but I could be wrong that I ahve not used need in my posts. If I did please disregard. Need is not an issue with me and I always answer the same way when someone asks "why do you need to carry a gun". I answer the same way every time and it is similiar to what everyone her says. I have used the word suitable and I have explained why I feel that way. In other words we have sufficent weaponry to meet any threat I can think of in the good ole USA.
Regardless of your use of the word 'need' (or lack thereof), you basically said the same thing in the same post. Afterall saying "You can't have a machinegun because you don't need it" is basically the same as saying "You can't have a machinegun because you already have sufficient weapons to meet any use you may have for one."