Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Well, don't fall over dead, but on the issue of suppressors I am with you 100%. I think in some countries like Finland they are required. But they aren't firearms.
2nd Amendment Regulation
- Thread starter Webleymkv
- Start date
- Status
Well, don't fall over dead, but on the issue of suppressors I am with you 100%. I think in some countries like Finland they are required. But they aren't firearms.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I don't know, maybe they are easier to bribe
I have seen that page and believe that the integrity of the NFA registry is suspect as I know for sure that NICS database is way out of wack. Both the VT and NIU shooters passed the NICS check. However, I think it worthwhile to try and fix them rather than throw them out. I think they do some good and protect gun sellers.
I don't disagree with any of what you have posted here, other than the statement that machine guns are hard to control. In the case of the M16, (which technically is an assault rifle rather than a machine gun), it's not hard to control even on full auto. It does have some muzzle walk to it, but much of the recoil is taken up by the rifle itself, by design.
What about shotguns with 00 buck? They also send multiple projectiles down range with one trigger pull. Those projectiles are very lethal. Some might say they are more lethal than a .223 within 100 yards. IIRC, a 3 inch mag with 00 buck has 15 lead balls in each shell. (3.5" mag 00 Buck has 18). Most semiauto shotguns will hold either 5 or 6 rounds. So, you could pump up to 90 rounds downrange in a heckuva hurry with 3" 00 buckshot shells. Is this more lethal than an M16 with a 20 round mag? Some folks might say yes, within a certain range. Many cops have shotguns in their squads. The military also uses shotguns for close in work.
With over 100K full auto weapons in civilian hands, wouldn't you think if the danger were so great that multiple rounds being shot would cause too much carnage, we'd have seen that happen by now? Are all of the full auto owners military trained guys who never make a mistake? I find that hard to believe. Even though an M16 is potentially more lethal than an AR15 because you can get more rounds off in the same amount of time, the rounds themselves are not more dangerous. In fact they are the same. Plus, unless you are using the expanded capacity magazines, you can probably get 20 rounds out of an M16 in a second or less. You can get 20 rounds out of an AR15 in less than 5 seconds. A difference. But enough of a difference to virtually ban the M16 and not the AR15? Not in my opinion.
We have to work to eliminate the 86 ban and get the $200.00 transfer fee eliminated in favor of an instant background check for all class 3 transactions, for now. I feel that's a fair comprimise.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
My experience is different. Honestly, I never used the full auto feature in combat. Very ineffective I thought. Generally firing at targets you will be lucky to get two hits COM before it walks away. Some very well trained folks might do better but not the average joe. I saw a female soldier once on a range fire almost all of them in air starting at about 12 feet from the ground.
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.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
That would not please some of your compatriots on this site. You heretic!
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Have you seen this concerning the militia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRYR4bV317g&feature=user
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRYR4bV317g&feature=user
Legal vs actual definitions
The M16 (and all other selective fire weapons) are legally machineguns. But they are considerably different from belt fed machineguns in method of operation. Perhaps an analogy could be made between the different types of legal machineguns and some automobiles. Some are legal for use on the street, and some are not.
We don't allow top fuel dragsters on city streets, but we allow (and even encourage) people to own them and use them on race tracks. Select fire weapons (like the M16) are both semi auto rifles, and machineguns in operation, but under the law, only the machine gun classification is relevant.
We have been constantly focusing on the use of "machine guns" as either military weapons or as defensive weapons in civilian hands, and determining "need" and suitablity in those categories, based on our personal perceptions.
Here is a novel idea, no law should prevent citizens from owning any particular firearm based on someone else's concept of what they need. I say, remove the 86 freeze, and replace the local chief LEO endorsement with a "shall issue" rider (preventing the personal opinion of the LEO from denying issuance without any valid factual reasons).
Some states have laws which do prohibit ownership of full auto firearms. Fine, let them stand, states have the right to decide many things for themselves, and I have no problem with machinegun ownership being one of them (and I even live in one of those states!), provided that in states which do not have such laws Fed permission is eased back to the pre 1986 levels, and removal of the arbitrary local chief LEO signoff.
Full autos are like dragsters, they push the envelope, and can only be used on the track (at the range). Every state I have ever heard of has laws against using full auto for hunting, and rightfully so, as hunting is sport, and sport has numerous restictions. This one is not at issue.
Full auto for self defense? Well, I kind of doubt that belt fed machineguns are going to be involved in that. However, select fire weapons? Sure, they could be involved in that. I just don't see a tremendous increase in risk to the general public because of the small numbers likely to be involved in self defense. So, if that Texan (repeatedly brought up) who shot the burglars had used an M16 and sent 27 rnds down range because they missed the targets, how is that different from a risk standpoint than a couple of police officers sending 45 rounds of 9mm downrange while getting 6 hits on their target? Other than the fact that they are legally authorized to do so, I would think the risk to those in the neighborhood from all those bullets that missed would be very similar.
The people who want the restrictions eased on full auto firearms don't want ot hunt with them, they don't want to defend their homes and families with them, they just want to play with them, in the wilderness where there is no one at risk, and on safe firing ranges. They resent the fact that even if they are willing and capable of paying the money and passing the legal scrutiny that the govt still says they cannot do it, except for using one of the guns already in the registry, which effectively ensures that only a handful of people will ever get the chance to enjoy them.
And FYI, if you can afford it, you can own an M1 tank or an F-18 fighter jet. But you cannot own the machineguns that go in the tank or the plane, that isn't allowed. You can own the tank with its cannon, BATFE doesn't care about the cannon. The do care about each round of ammuntion for that cannon, however. Each round has to be registed as a destructive device! But the tank itself? They don't care. Just one more (large) motor vehicle.
The fighter jet? They don't care. FAA will let you own it, as long as there are no guns on it!
Generally speaking, current top of the line military hardware is not sold to civilians in the US. It is, however, sold to our allies abroad, and they often sell those kinds of things to civilians who have enough money. Older, outmoded equipment is sold routinely, and often cheaply, but one still has to jump through a lot of hoops to get it imported back into the US.
The M16 (and all other selective fire weapons) are legally machineguns. But they are considerably different from belt fed machineguns in method of operation. Perhaps an analogy could be made between the different types of legal machineguns and some automobiles. Some are legal for use on the street, and some are not.
We don't allow top fuel dragsters on city streets, but we allow (and even encourage) people to own them and use them on race tracks. Select fire weapons (like the M16) are both semi auto rifles, and machineguns in operation, but under the law, only the machine gun classification is relevant.
We have been constantly focusing on the use of "machine guns" as either military weapons or as defensive weapons in civilian hands, and determining "need" and suitablity in those categories, based on our personal perceptions.
Here is a novel idea, no law should prevent citizens from owning any particular firearm based on someone else's concept of what they need. I say, remove the 86 freeze, and replace the local chief LEO endorsement with a "shall issue" rider (preventing the personal opinion of the LEO from denying issuance without any valid factual reasons).
Some states have laws which do prohibit ownership of full auto firearms. Fine, let them stand, states have the right to decide many things for themselves, and I have no problem with machinegun ownership being one of them (and I even live in one of those states!), provided that in states which do not have such laws Fed permission is eased back to the pre 1986 levels, and removal of the arbitrary local chief LEO signoff.
Full autos are like dragsters, they push the envelope, and can only be used on the track (at the range). Every state I have ever heard of has laws against using full auto for hunting, and rightfully so, as hunting is sport, and sport has numerous restictions. This one is not at issue.
Full auto for self defense? Well, I kind of doubt that belt fed machineguns are going to be involved in that. However, select fire weapons? Sure, they could be involved in that. I just don't see a tremendous increase in risk to the general public because of the small numbers likely to be involved in self defense. So, if that Texan (repeatedly brought up) who shot the burglars had used an M16 and sent 27 rnds down range because they missed the targets, how is that different from a risk standpoint than a couple of police officers sending 45 rounds of 9mm downrange while getting 6 hits on their target? Other than the fact that they are legally authorized to do so, I would think the risk to those in the neighborhood from all those bullets that missed would be very similar.
The people who want the restrictions eased on full auto firearms don't want ot hunt with them, they don't want to defend their homes and families with them, they just want to play with them, in the wilderness where there is no one at risk, and on safe firing ranges. They resent the fact that even if they are willing and capable of paying the money and passing the legal scrutiny that the govt still says they cannot do it, except for using one of the guns already in the registry, which effectively ensures that only a handful of people will ever get the chance to enjoy them.
And FYI, if you can afford it, you can own an M1 tank or an F-18 fighter jet. But you cannot own the machineguns that go in the tank or the plane, that isn't allowed. You can own the tank with its cannon, BATFE doesn't care about the cannon. The do care about each round of ammuntion for that cannon, however. Each round has to be registed as a destructive device! But the tank itself? They don't care. Just one more (large) motor vehicle.
The fighter jet? They don't care. FAA will let you own it, as long as there are no guns on it!
Generally speaking, current top of the line military hardware is not sold to civilians in the US. It is, however, sold to our allies abroad, and they often sell those kinds of things to civilians who have enough money. Older, outmoded equipment is sold routinely, and often cheaply, but one still has to jump through a lot of hoops to get it imported back into the US.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
You and I have no problem here. I have no issue with getting rid of he '86 amendment as I have stated before. Your statement is actually what I have always believed most FA owners are doing and that's a hobby.
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. If the martians invade, well break open the NG Armories and issue them all out. In the meantime, I want controls on military weapons beyond those of commonly used civilian weapons because I fear their lethality. But for those hobbyists who love to shoot them at knob creek; well, have at it! Repeal the '86 FOPA if you wish.
Or bombs and missiles. Right, the weapon is what's on the aircraft.
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.
Your point about the school shooters makes a better case for revising NICS than for over-regulating certain weapons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
But they have a constitutional right to have one? Now we are getting somewhere. This is not a gotcha but you just revealed something with that comment.
You can't exercise prior restraint by making joe citizen either safe or competent in the use of the weapon prior to his using it. Unless you believe that we should take competency tests to own firearms like the idiots in DC want to do. But after the fact is too late.
The problem with public safety that I see boils down to this. I don't know you but you might be competent and trustworthy enough to own a suitcase nuke. You might own one and never cause or have a problem with it. Noww do I know that with any reasonable expectation of accuracy? If I am wrong then we might have a great problem. I don't and so I must regulate who gets to be around them and that might include a competency test. That is why for instance I also support mandatory training to obtain a CCW.
Since a much higher degree of control is exercised over soldiers in the military the risk is lower. Not non-existent! A soldier in my old Brigade stole an M-60 tank in 1981 and drove it thru downtown Mannheim until he killed himself later on. But, restrictions and regulation still make the chance of that happening less. And a tank is a very lethal weapon.
A court may well rule the latter. The NRA tried to get DC to revise it's law that would not requrie long guns to be dismantled and unloaded while in the home. Many thought if DC had done that it might have helped their case. I am very glad the fools kept the law and we won but that is a valid argument to regulate full auto. What I am maintaining is that full auto and other military weapons are not suitable for civilian self defense because of their increased danger to others. Nothing to do with need. Much more to do with what you said in the quoted comment above.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Acutally, Michael Bane and Tom Gresham recommend just that as a start point. That might work but they aren't firearms. Even Brady might have to bow to that one. Less noise pollution
If full auto firearms are not suitable for civilian self defense, how do you explain the situation in Switzerland? They can and do use their full auto weapons for private target shooting. They do get issued ammo which is controlled, but they can also purchase their own ammo for target practice. In the case of Switzerland, they force men to own full auto's for civil defense. I'd be willing to adopt the Swiss model for ownership of full autos.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Good point!
I always liked the Swiss model. However, the vitally important part is that they are trained and part of a military structure! Not just a bunch of bubbas or bubbettes with guns who report to no one! They are closer to the militia many talk about on here than this unorganized militia fiction here in the US that many preach about on here. They are also conscripted which I really like. I think everyone should do a turn in the military unless unfit physically or object reliegiously. In the US we want it both ways: to be armed with whatever military weapons we wish but under no military obligation or discipline. I posted this before :
Also, try this link for a discussion about the idea that the militia exists in order to keep the government in check. They call it a rural myth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRYR4bV317g
Yes they do undergo training, and they do have a command structure, when they are on duty. However, they can use their full auto guns for their own target practice and shooting events, outside of any government or command authority. They just have to supply their own ammo.
I'm not sure we want to go back to a draft. Our volunteer military is a much better tool. Besides, many US citizens have already been trained in our professional military and national guard outfits, unlike the Swiss who have no "official" military. Thus, there are many folks who have already been trained to handle full auto machine guns and select fire assault rifles. That doesn't matter to the federal government. You can't have one, regardless of your training, unless you can find one for sale which was built before 1986, and have oodles of cash to pay for it.
So I'd even go this far. If you want to own a class 3 firearm, you must go through the instant NICS background check. You must have been in the military and discharged honorably, or you must attend a course where you would be trained to use a full auto type firearm, just as CCW holders must attend training. Once you've accomplished the course, you too can purchase and possess a class 3 firearm after an NICS background check. All class 3 transfers must go through a FFL who will check the qualifications of the purchaser (veteran of the military or class completed) and run the NICS check. Heck I'd even let it go through the local LEO if it's a "shall issue" situation. This means the chief LEO cannot deny you because he wants to. He must have a legal reason not to and be able to prove it. This would include documented gang affiliation, violent juvenile felony crimes which were cleared from your record when you reached adulthood, and possibly some others. Of course, we could own any class 3 firearms regardless of where they came from or when. We might still want to more closely regulate ordnance and such things as nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, and missiles.
I understand that this is not the "total" freedom some would like protected under the 2nd A. However, it took some 74+ years to whittle away our rights to where they are now. We just reversed course in a big way with Heller, but it will take some time to get back to pre 1934. I'm a freedom lover, but I'm pragmatic and tuned into reality. As the wicked witch of the west said to Dorothy regarding how to get the ruby slippers away from her, "These things must be done, DELICATELY". Some folks want to storm the witches castle right away. I understand those feelings, and I have them myself at times. If we did that now, we'd be pushed back years in the fight. With Heller, we have a chance to win the fight and win big. But we can't do it all at once. We will have to fight many battles. Things are looking up, however. Look how many states how have "shall issue" CCW. Look at how many officials in those states, who opposed CCW, now have admitted that it's not been a problem for their state, despite the doom and gloom predictions from the anti gun and gun control banshees. We lost on assault weapons, but then won. The democrats have backed off to some degree on pushing for more gun control. Obama could reverse that trend, but even he publicly flip flopped after the Heller case. I don't believe him, but the fact he understood where the political winds are blowing from is a positive sign in my opinion.
This is a good opinion piece by David Kopel in Reason Magazine:
http://reason.com/news/show/127201.html
http://reason.com/news/show/127201.html
- Status