chasehav2014
Inactive
Just wondering on what ya'll thought about repealing the full auto firearm ban. I would like to repeal it I believe that we have the right to own that type of firearm.
Last edited:
full auto ban
- Thread starter chasehav2014
- Start date
chasehav2014
Inactive
OK if you want to get technical that is true and I knew that. What I was asking was for guns made post 1986 so you can get new guns that are full auto.
I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.
It's political suicide. It's too extreme. It's a fight to hold onto what we have, and the progress we've made in recent years almost seems like a fluke to me.
Then why didn't you just say that from the beginning?
How can you discuss what you don't appear to understand?
It's political suicide. It's too extreme. It's a fight to hold onto what we have, and the progress we've made in recent years almost seems like a fluke to me.
Then why didn't you just say that from the beginning?
How can you discuss what you don't appear to understand?
In my own defense, I have learned, since my first internet connection in '94, to take text I read and 'cypher it word for word as written literally... I am far more often correct in understanding than if I try to assume the person typed differently than they intended...
And at this stage, I ain't about to change what works most of the time.
Brent
chasehav2014
Inactive
I didn't add the post 1986 part at the begining because I thought that it would be understood that when you say the ban you mean new firearms. That is how most people refer to it anyways.
chasehav2014
Inactive
I have to agree with you there that a lot of people have no clue about these things. Some people probably don't even know the difference between full or semi auto.
vranasaurus
New member
Demons will be ice skating before it happens.
There just isn't a lot of support in the population for the ownership of machine guns. If you took a poll and asked "Should Americans be allowed to own machine guns?" The majority of people would answer no.
In order to advance the cause of gun rights and prevent further restrictions we need pro gun Congressman and Senators who have to win close elections.
Nobody in a close election wants to face an ad that says "Congressman x voted to allow Americans to buy new machine guns. This vote allows military weapons to flood our streets."
While we all know that it would still require registration. The anti-gunners won't mention that part and would try and paint gun owners as lunatics. People who want to ban guns never let facts get in the way of their agenda.
While I am no fan of the NFA or the Hughes amendment I don't think it's going anywhere short of a court decision throwing it out as unconstitutional. Getting such a decision is probably a long shot as well.
There just isn't a lot of support in the population for the ownership of machine guns. If you took a poll and asked "Should Americans be allowed to own machine guns?" The majority of people would answer no.
In order to advance the cause of gun rights and prevent further restrictions we need pro gun Congressman and Senators who have to win close elections.
Nobody in a close election wants to face an ad that says "Congressman x voted to allow Americans to buy new machine guns. This vote allows military weapons to flood our streets."
While we all know that it would still require registration. The anti-gunners won't mention that part and would try and paint gun owners as lunatics. People who want to ban guns never let facts get in the way of their agenda.
While I am no fan of the NFA or the Hughes amendment I don't think it's going anywhere short of a court decision throwing it out as unconstitutional. Getting such a decision is probably a long shot as well.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Repealing the Hughes amendment (let alone the NFA)? I guarantee the opposition would notice.chasep255 said:
Neither opening up the registry nor relief under the NFA have any chance in Congress (nor much chance in court). Vranasaurus nailed it.
Geezerbiker
New member
I'd like to see the hoops to get a suppressor reduced. They're an over the counter item in a some countries and not at all a problem. I can afford a suppressor or 2 but I could never afford to feed a full auto...
Tony
Tony
Technosavant
New member
I'd love to see the Hughes Amendment repealed. I think most of us here would as well.
I'm not sold that it's a "never gonna happen" thing, I just think that at the federal level our legislature just has an extreme reluctance to REMOVE gun control provisions. Sure, they'll let things expire, but they won't actually repeal anything. IMO, it might be possible to sneak a sunset provision for 922o into something (forcing a reauthorization of it), but then again, that would leave the door open for them to go ahead and pass a reauthorization before it does go away.
IMO, this is a reason EVERY bill passed should have a built in sunset- force the legislature to take steps to keep useless and stupid laws instead of keeping them in force via inaction.
I'm not sold that it's a "never gonna happen" thing, I just think that at the federal level our legislature just has an extreme reluctance to REMOVE gun control provisions. Sure, they'll let things expire, but they won't actually repeal anything. IMO, it might be possible to sneak a sunset provision for 922o into something (forcing a reauthorization of it), but then again, that would leave the door open for them to go ahead and pass a reauthorization before it does go away.
IMO, this is a reason EVERY bill passed should have a built in sunset- force the legislature to take steps to keep useless and stupid laws instead of keeping them in force via inaction.
carguychris
New member
+1; I've written the same thing in other threads whenever someone brings up repealing the Hughes amendment. IMHO the change to the NFA that would have the biggest benefit to actual American shooters and sportsmen (as opposed to COD players and mall ninjas) is to remove suppressors from the registry.
It would also be the easiest to accomplish because one of the strongest favorable arguments is "It Will Make Hunters Quieter", which should garner strong support from rural dwellers who like country peace and quiet... specifically retiring urban boomers who might otherwise oppose NFA changes.
("You know, I would love to quiet down that .30-06 that keeps waking you up at 6am during deer season, but we have to change this pointless federal law first..." 
)The major risk with trying to repeal the Hughes amendment is that the opposition WILL notice, the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater, and no further changes will be politically possible for a decade or two.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
But we're an urban society, and there aren't nearly enough people who would even be touched by this issue to make a difference. I suspect that even the majority of retirees who have moved to more rural environs live nowhere near where anyone hunts.carguychris said:
maestro pistolero
New member
Funny, I was just writing about this at Cal Guns:
Quote:
Now, if he's around, Tennessee Gentlemen will be along shortly to tell us that F/A should never be approved for wide civilian use and that the militia clause of the 2A is a dead letter since we have the National Guard and local police. Right TG? Love ya!
www.christopherjhoffman.com
Quote:
Now, if he's around, Tennessee Gentlemen will be along shortly to tell us that F/A should never be approved for wide civilian use and that the militia clause of the 2A is a dead letter since we have the National Guard and local police. Right TG? Love ya!
www.christopherjhoffman.com
chasehav2014
Inactive
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I guess the right of the people part you didn't read did you. Also the Supreme Court ruled that we have the right to bear arms and that it also applies to state and local governments. If we have that right why is it they get to pick and choose which firearms we can and can't own.
maestro pistolero
New member
Who are you referring to?
That's how the Hughes amendment got passed in the first place.
"In common use" is something of a litmus test, and unfortunately, the opposition will bring up that exact point.
Actually, it would meet with some resistance because silencers (albeit illegal ones) are frequently the tool of poachers. In many areas, the hunting angle is the last one we'd want to pursue.
Vranasaurus is right in that the issue is still a bit too much of a hot potato at the moment to pursue. We still need to get a decision affirming that carry outside the home is a right. A challenge to the NFA will be at least 8-10 years out.
Oh, please. In jurisprudence, the right to keep and bear arms is only three years old. Like it or not, that's the reality, and that's what we have to deal with. We can keep fighting an incremental battle in the courts and legislatures, which is working, or we can sputter slogans and achieve nothing.