Full Auto Should Be Legal...?
- Thread starter Konrad
- Start date
- Status
it wasn't quite so bad until 1986
When the number of NFA weapons was frozen to what was already in the inventory. Once the supply became fixed (and done by voice vote only, at the "last minute" an amendment tacked on to an otherwise good bill), the prices started jumping hugely, above and beyond the $200 transfer fee and inflation.
I personally would be ok with the current NFA system, IF new guns were allowed to be added, AND all states allowed ownership under Federal approval. Since the Federal system requires approval from the head of your local law enforcement agency, I really don't understand how a state could object, except for the fact that some of them have had a total ban on the books for some years.
Yes, we, the law abiding citizens, should be able to just buy a full auto the same as any other gun. But reality is that we haven't been able to do so for generations. I think that repeal of the freeze on the registry is where we should concentrate our efforts. The general 0public has been brainwashed for generations, repeal of the entire 34 NFA is just not possible. But opening the registry back up, so approved citizens can enjoy the privilege of legally owning an FA firearm, this might be possible.
When the number of NFA weapons was frozen to what was already in the inventory. Once the supply became fixed (and done by voice vote only, at the "last minute" an amendment tacked on to an otherwise good bill), the prices started jumping hugely, above and beyond the $200 transfer fee and inflation.
I personally would be ok with the current NFA system, IF new guns were allowed to be added, AND all states allowed ownership under Federal approval. Since the Federal system requires approval from the head of your local law enforcement agency, I really don't understand how a state could object, except for the fact that some of them have had a total ban on the books for some years.
Yes, we, the law abiding citizens, should be able to just buy a full auto the same as any other gun. But reality is that we haven't been able to do so for generations. I think that repeal of the freeze on the registry is where we should concentrate our efforts. The general 0public has been brainwashed for generations, repeal of the entire 34 NFA is just not possible. But opening the registry back up, so approved citizens can enjoy the privilege of legally owning an FA firearm, this might be possible.
Being a Second Amendment fundamentalist, I detest the restrictions on full-auto, and frankly, thnk the NFA would be constitutionally questionable if the Courts interpreted the Second Amendment as half as broadly as they interpret the First Amendment. A Revolutionary War infantryman who went to sleep in 1777 and awoke today would marvel at our technology but it would be far easier to explain firearms technology, including full-auto, than it would be to explain communications technology. So does that mean that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to the Internet?
Realistically, I know the NFA isn't going anywhere. But if you accept it, you also have to accept what comes with it, which is to-the-letter enforcement. A malfunctioning semi-auto can land you in jail. Don't believe me? I suggest a web search on "Olofson accidental felon" (we carry extensive coverage on our web site). The Olofson case is an example of the "collateral damage" one accepts if one aceepts the NFA.
As a practical matter, if I'm in a gunfight, I'll take my trusty dusty ol' .45 and I'd much rather the other guy be armed with a full-auto weapon. I've seen a head-to-head match of sub-guns vs. pistols which merely demonstrated the fact that you can't miss fast enough to win.
Realistically, I know the NFA isn't going anywhere. But if you accept it, you also have to accept what comes with it, which is to-the-letter enforcement. A malfunctioning semi-auto can land you in jail. Don't believe me? I suggest a web search on "Olofson accidental felon" (we carry extensive coverage on our web site). The Olofson case is an example of the "collateral damage" one accepts if one aceepts the NFA.
As a practical matter, if I'm in a gunfight, I'll take my trusty dusty ol' .45 and I'd much rather the other guy be armed with a full-auto weapon. I've seen a head-to-head match of sub-guns vs. pistols which merely demonstrated the fact that you can't miss fast enough to win.
Well I can't say that I am a lawyer, however as of right now with an extensive background check private citizens CAN own full-auto's that were manufactured before a certain date which I believe was 1986. Here is a website that gives some specific information on the legal issues involved.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Hypotheticals are thrown about on both sides. We don't know why Cho chose what he did. His weapons were easy and quick to get and easily portable to campus. That makes as much sense as saying he should have walked across campus with an AR - hard to do.
The claim was that we know that increasing easy access to NFA weapons would have little impact on rampagers. We don't know that and my speculation that it would aid rampagers is just as rational.
Also, if you try to make the case to have easy access to NFA weapons, my analysis would surface and sorry to say be hard to refute by saying why didn't someone buy XYZ.
I agree that is pie in the sky to expect easy access and the best that might be hoped for is access with the current system to new manufacture.
The claim was that we know that increasing easy access to NFA weapons would have little impact on rampagers. We don't know that and my speculation that it would aid rampagers is just as rational.
Also, if you try to make the case to have easy access to NFA weapons, my analysis would surface and sorry to say be hard to refute by saying why didn't someone buy XYZ.
I agree that is pie in the sky to expect easy access and the best that might be hoped for is access with the current system to new manufacture.
The NFA is not going away...but...
I would say, NO, we don't have to accept that. For the first few decades after the passage of the NFA, minor paperwork violations didn't automatically send owners to jail. Unregistered guns, when discovered, could be registered, and the taxes paid. Federal agents generally did not go out of their way to persecute the legal owners, and malfunctioning weapons were clearly not considered intentional machine guns.
That started changing back in the 1960s and has continued ever since. Legal machine gun owners who have a mistake in their paperwork are faced with swat team tactics. Over what should be, at worst, a $200 tax matter. The ATF registry of FA firearms was for many years one of the worst kept of federal records. Many instances of the feds losing their copies of registration have occurred. In the old days, when this happened, the owner simply showed the feds his copy, and problem solved. Today, the owner is likely to be charged with a crime, anyway. The enthusiastic enforcement and tactics in use today are not something mandated by the law. They are the result of the people in the administration, those setting policy, and their desire to look good to their bosses, and justify expanding their kingdom and budgets.
The 1986 freeze not only prohibits new made machine guns from being added to the civilian registry, it prevents ALL additions to the registry. So, if you find that grandpa or great grandpa had an unregistered Tommygun, or BAR stuffed in a trunk in the attic for the last 50 years, you CANNOT legally own that gun, no matter what. You cannot register it with the Govt and pay the tax, the govt will not (by law) let you. You cannot keep it, and keep your mouth shut about it, that is a crime. You can't even legally have it deactivated and keep it, as the feds rules only allow that under certain conditions. You MUST turn it in to the feds, and pray that some overzealous type doesn't try to prosecute you. The usually don't in a situation like that, but stranger things have happened.
The website link provided by Re4mer has some interesting info, but there are important things missing as well. In particular, the words "at the rate of" in this sentence.
only a belt fed medium or heavy machine gun is capable of actually firing over400 rounds in a minute (and only if you have that much ammo linked together). No matter how high the cyclic rate, submachine guns and assault rifles (the real ones, the select fire ones) cannot do this. The need to change magazines, and the skill of the shooter doing so (meaning the amount of time it takes to change the mag) means that they cannot actually fire as many rounds as their cyclic rate numbers imply.
The numbers of actual illegal machine guns used in crimes, or seized during crimes (without actually being fired) has been repeatedly shown to be significantly less than 1% of crime guns, even when using the broadest definitions.
Contrast this with decades of Hollywood "entertainment/propaganda/training films" showing illegal machine guns being used well over 50% (and often much higher percentage) of the time, in crimes.
Machine guns are impressive, they are dramatic, they look good on the big screen, but they are not magic death rays that will wipe out entire city blocks just by pointing and pulling a trigger.
I would say, NO, we don't have to accept that. For the first few decades after the passage of the NFA, minor paperwork violations didn't automatically send owners to jail. Unregistered guns, when discovered, could be registered, and the taxes paid. Federal agents generally did not go out of their way to persecute the legal owners, and malfunctioning weapons were clearly not considered intentional machine guns.
That started changing back in the 1960s and has continued ever since. Legal machine gun owners who have a mistake in their paperwork are faced with swat team tactics. Over what should be, at worst, a $200 tax matter. The ATF registry of FA firearms was for many years one of the worst kept of federal records. Many instances of the feds losing their copies of registration have occurred. In the old days, when this happened, the owner simply showed the feds his copy, and problem solved. Today, the owner is likely to be charged with a crime, anyway. The enthusiastic enforcement and tactics in use today are not something mandated by the law. They are the result of the people in the administration, those setting policy, and their desire to look good to their bosses, and justify expanding their kingdom and budgets.
The 1986 freeze not only prohibits new made machine guns from being added to the civilian registry, it prevents ALL additions to the registry. So, if you find that grandpa or great grandpa had an unregistered Tommygun, or BAR stuffed in a trunk in the attic for the last 50 years, you CANNOT legally own that gun, no matter what. You cannot register it with the Govt and pay the tax, the govt will not (by law) let you. You cannot keep it, and keep your mouth shut about it, that is a crime. You can't even legally have it deactivated and keep it, as the feds rules only allow that under certain conditions. You MUST turn it in to the feds, and pray that some overzealous type doesn't try to prosecute you. The usually don't in a situation like that, but stranger things have happened.
The website link provided by Re4mer has some interesting info, but there are important things missing as well. In particular, the words "at the rate of" in this sentence.
only a belt fed medium or heavy machine gun is capable of actually firing over400 rounds in a minute (and only if you have that much ammo linked together). No matter how high the cyclic rate, submachine guns and assault rifles (the real ones, the select fire ones) cannot do this. The need to change magazines, and the skill of the shooter doing so (meaning the amount of time it takes to change the mag) means that they cannot actually fire as many rounds as their cyclic rate numbers imply.
The numbers of actual illegal machine guns used in crimes, or seized during crimes (without actually being fired) has been repeatedly shown to be significantly less than 1% of crime guns, even when using the broadest definitions.
Contrast this with decades of Hollywood "entertainment/propaganda/training films" showing illegal machine guns being used well over 50% (and often much higher percentage) of the time, in crimes.
Machine guns are impressive, they are dramatic, they look good on the big screen, but they are not magic death rays that will wipe out entire city blocks just by pointing and pulling a trigger.
Have there been any major technological advancements in FA weapons since 1986, or are they pretty much the same.
I know there has to be something, but I don't really know enough about them to know when certain things were invented.
If there have been some big advancements, don't people have a right to have the safest and best FA weapons if they are going to have them at all? Any gun over 20 years old is almost an antique right? Eventually (might take a long time) none of these old guns are going to work and then what? It won't matter if they are legal if they don't shoot.
Is there any way that new guns can legally sneak there way through the registry?
I know there has to be something, but I don't really know enough about them to know when certain things were invented.
If there have been some big advancements, don't people have a right to have the safest and best FA weapons if they are going to have them at all? Any gun over 20 years old is almost an antique right? Eventually (might take a long time) none of these old guns are going to work and then what? It won't matter if they are legal if they don't shoot.
Is there any way that new guns can legally sneak there way through the registry?
Wildalaska
Moderator
really...so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?
WildillpassAlaska TM
using criminal behavior to rationalize the reduction of presently held, or previous freedoms, will have calibers over 22lr and shotguns that hold more than two taken away. kooks on a plane with box cutters, and a-holes like timothy mcveigh, or even loons like chai vang and dahlmer gone totally insane prove time and time that its just in the makeup, it isnt the weaponry. stopping belt feds wont stop liquor store hold ups and dope dealing, and some old fool driving a chevy thru a crowd on a sidewalk is no reason to outlaw station wagons. human behavior is unpredictable, but one thing you can predict is the resourcefulness of the black market to provide whatever is outlawed to whoever wants to pay. make it illegal, it will be available because you cant put the toothpaste back in the tube.
*see war on drugs and prohibition.
as to the right to bear or whatever...having gone thru a revolution, i think they meant whatever it takes to equalize the situation between victim and threat. otherwise toothpicks and lead pipes would be the only protected armament. no...they meant whatever is needed to deal with XYZ situation adequately. outlaw short barreled shotguns, but make sure all hacksaws disappear too, or you havent done much.
*see war on drugs and prohibition.
as to the right to bear or whatever...having gone thru a revolution, i think they meant whatever it takes to equalize the situation between victim and threat. otherwise toothpicks and lead pipes would be the only protected armament. no...they meant whatever is needed to deal with XYZ situation adequately. outlaw short barreled shotguns, but make sure all hacksaws disappear too, or you havent done much.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Alloy,
Actually I do not worry that much about criminals having the weapons as much as I worry about regular civilians owning very lethal and destructive military weapons that they have no training with, and no accountability for until after the fact. FA and other military weapons are more lethal and indiscriminate than weapons in common use by civilians. They were designed for military combat and not the situations faced by civilians in SD events. They are unsuitable I believe for the SD purpose that I think the 2A addresses in the operative clause "keep and bear".
I think the decision in Heller shows that lines may be drawn about what type of arms civilians may have, who may have them and where they may take them. The line has been drawn with the NFA and 1986 FOPA and has withstood constitutional challenge. Webleymkv posted a thread that we (and many others) engaged in last summer. I don't want to rehash it either (I felt like a Spartan at Thermopolye!
) but there is no judicial or public support (other than a few in the gun culture)for allowing civilians unrestricted access to military weapons. I think lines have to be drawn concerning weapons and arms and this is one of them that is unlikely to change. The 2A like all the BORs has limits and this is one of them.
Actually I do not worry that much about criminals having the weapons as much as I worry about regular civilians owning very lethal and destructive military weapons that they have no training with, and no accountability for until after the fact. FA and other military weapons are more lethal and indiscriminate than weapons in common use by civilians. They were designed for military combat and not the situations faced by civilians in SD events. They are unsuitable I believe for the SD purpose that I think the 2A addresses in the operative clause "keep and bear".
I think the decision in Heller shows that lines may be drawn about what type of arms civilians may have, who may have them and where they may take them. The line has been drawn with the NFA and 1986 FOPA and has withstood constitutional challenge. Webleymkv posted a thread that we (and many others) engaged in last summer. I don't want to rehash it either (I felt like a Spartan at Thermopolye!
) but there is no judicial or public support (other than a few in the gun culture)for allowing civilians unrestricted access to military weapons. I think lines have to be drawn concerning weapons and arms and this is one of them that is unlikely to change. The 2A like all the BORs has limits and this is one of them.I live in the PRK, the logical extension of TG's position. No ruger .380's no cheap guns, no AR-15's with removeable mags, no .50's, etc.
ONLY LEO's or former LEO's are to be trusted with such weapons....
I guess, with a Juris Doctrate degree in Law, a year in the D.A.'s office, I'm not trustworthy with full auto.:barf:
ONLY LEO's or former LEO's are to be trusted with such weapons....
I guess, with a Juris Doctrate degree in Law, a year in the D.A.'s office, I'm not trustworthy with full auto.:barf:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This is part of the great continuum debate of what weapons are allowed the civilian or do basic rights give you access to all. We've done this before.
So if you think there is some line - where should it be? Full auto seems to be a reasonable bright line for some. No way - or - should it be a bright line that has some allowed - like Socrates.
I think, repeating, that the current NFA system with new guns allowed is a good solution. A closer look and a touch of a price barrier to the causal purchaser.
Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned? Is there a continuum or no.
We are back at the same point. No restrictions or some and then where. CA shows you a system that is too, too rigid. Most states get along without such a line.
So if you think there is some line - where should it be? Full auto seems to be a reasonable bright line for some. No way - or - should it be a bright line that has some allowed - like Socrates.
I think, repeating, that the current NFA system with new guns allowed is a good solution. A closer look and a touch of a price barrier to the causal purchaser.
Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned? Is there a continuum or no.
We are back at the same point. No restrictions or some and then where. CA shows you a system that is too, too rigid. Most states get along without such a line.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Nobody has adressed my rhetorical question above
WildimbummedAlaska ™
WildimbummedAlaska ™
i didnt, because:
A:law abiding is one type of person
B:never been arrested(in your context) is something totally different
C:a member of MS13 is most likely viewed similar to an OMG member by the feds where simple membership gives that person a different legal status than either A or B above, as they try to apply rico...rendering the actions of a Cali member, to a criminal organization, which renders a member in Conn guilty by association.
basically it looks like a trap to promote a circular logic post-a-thon where the answer is run up and down the court all day, and i was off to chucky cheese's.
ooops i forgot, you have most likely sold firearms, knowingly(A) or unknowingly(B,C)...to type A, B, and, C.
so really...whats the question?
A:law abiding is one type of person
B:never been arrested(in your context) is something totally different
C:a member of MS13 is most likely viewed similar to an OMG member by the feds where simple membership gives that person a different legal status than either A or B above, as they try to apply rico...rendering the actions of a Cali member, to a criminal organization, which renders a member in Conn guilty by association.
basically it looks like a trap to promote a circular logic post-a-thon where the answer is run up and down the court all day, and i was off to chucky cheese's.
ooops i forgot, you have most likely sold firearms, knowingly(A) or unknowingly(B,C)...to type A, B, and, C.
so really...whats the question?
Last edited:
longrifles Inc
New member
I've said this a number of different ways now on various forums when subjects like this pop up.
We all listened to politicians rally around the cause with catch phrases during the aftermath of 9-11-2001 as they described America and its citizens as "hard working, patriotic, dedicated, honorable, moral, family loving, yada, yada, yada. . ."
A dark plume from the odor of eagle **** and apple pie lingered over DC for weeks as they went on and on about it like a Sunday morning evangelist.
But yet we can't buy a machine gun or any other destructive device the way we buy cigarettes and booze because we aren't trustworthy. (WTF??) Since the government thrives on statistics lets compare tobacco, alcohol, and firearms deaths and see where that leads us.
Kind of a mixed message I think.
There are so many laws on the books for dealing with criminals already, why the redundant math? Life in prison vs 140 year sentence is still life unless your Jesus or a superhero and I feel pretty good about saying neither of the two are going to be doing liquor store hold ups with an illegally modified Uzi anytime soon.
These people (elected officials) that perpetuate this crap are windsocks and opportunists. They need to be shown the door.
Know why silencers became a controlled item? It was right after the depression and "they" were worried about people poaching. That's how it was sold folks and now you are taxed an additional $200 bucks and fingerprinted for the privilege. Name another amendment dealing with personal rights subject to taxation and fingerprints?
All this just so you don't go bugging the neighbors or needing to wear ear plugs when you shoot your gun.
I think these kinds of laws go against the very grain on which this country was founded and they should be abolished.
We all listened to politicians rally around the cause with catch phrases during the aftermath of 9-11-2001 as they described America and its citizens as "hard working, patriotic, dedicated, honorable, moral, family loving, yada, yada, yada. . ."
A dark plume from the odor of eagle **** and apple pie lingered over DC for weeks as they went on and on about it like a Sunday morning evangelist.
But yet we can't buy a machine gun or any other destructive device the way we buy cigarettes and booze because we aren't trustworthy. (WTF??) Since the government thrives on statistics lets compare tobacco, alcohol, and firearms deaths and see where that leads us.
Kind of a mixed message I think.
There are so many laws on the books for dealing with criminals already, why the redundant math? Life in prison vs 140 year sentence is still life unless your Jesus or a superhero and I feel pretty good about saying neither of the two are going to be doing liquor store hold ups with an illegally modified Uzi anytime soon.
These people (elected officials) that perpetuate this crap are windsocks and opportunists. They need to be shown the door.
Know why silencers became a controlled item? It was right after the depression and "they" were worried about people poaching. That's how it was sold folks and now you are taxed an additional $200 bucks and fingerprinted for the privilege. Name another amendment dealing with personal rights subject to taxation and fingerprints?
All this just so you don't go bugging the neighbors or needing to wear ear plugs when you shoot your gun.
I think these kinds of laws go against the very grain on which this country was founded and they should be abolished.
Last edited:
If you can obtain anthrax bacteria elsewhere, why a particular concern involved in obtaining it at a gunshow?
No one wants that!
MS13 is a continuing criminal enterprise, so its member is arguably excluded from the law abiding population even if not yet arrested. Presumably, you would have a "problem" selling that sort of person a single shot rifle, so the question doesn't bear particularly on the FA issue.
Your question goes to whether you regard ownership and possession of arms as a right, or whether is a privilege only to be extended to the sort of people you like. If it is the latter, your analytical framework is precisely the same as Sarah Brady's, but your conclusion is more liberal and less restrictive.
I have "problems" with the way some people use their right to vote, but I wouldn't consider abridging the right for that reason a good exercise of law.
Longrifles, I am not personally invested in the full-auto issue (I just do not find them interesting), but I have a more visceral reaction to taxing or prohibiting sound suppression units. Hearing loss is a real danger; shouldn't a safety nanny mandate that all new arms be sold with a safety lock AND suppressor?
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
alloy said:
Are you saying that by merely being a member of MS13 puts you in the same category as a convicted felon? No trial or conviction needed just association? Does the FBI enter MS13 members who have not been convicted of a crime into NICS and therefore prohibit them from legally buying firearms? Doesn't seem constitutional to my laymen's mind.
Glenn E. Meyer said:
So where is the line? I don't think too many have answered that one.
Wildalaska
Moderator
So associations count?
WildanswercarefullyAlaska ™
- Status