Getting the law changed to pre-86?

You're never going to convince the bliss-ninnies that they should allow you to have something they don't want you to have.
Click to expand...

The sad part is that it's true. From dealing with people who are either anti-gun or even neutral, what I have seen is that when you mention the word "rifle" people tend to think of a redneck in the woods waitin' for a deer to run by. When you say "Machinegun" "Assault Rifle" or the dreaded "Automatic Weapon," people think of Columbine, drive-by shootings, gangs, bank robberies, terrorists etc. Not to mention that the non-gun owning majority of the population have seen too many bad guys in movies with AK's shooting at the good guys to be unbiased. I think it would be political suicide for a politician to back such a movement when you factor in the Brady and whoever campaigns flashing as Jim said:

bad guys with machine guns mowing down children
Click to expand...

For every politician that would back it, there are too many others that would oppose it to get good publicity by keeping the "really evil black baby killing mind warping machine guns" out of people's hands. Because history tends to show that MOST politicians could care less about your rights as long as they look good, have power and make money. This is just what I think on the matter. I could be and hope I am wrong.
 
sgtgrunt, ive often been told and heard of people like you, nothing against you if you dont fall into this catagory just sounds like you might,
people always trash on the govt say how corupt and backwards it is but yet they work for it, support it, keep it going...
ask a school teacher if they work for the govt. theyll always say no, yet they do, everyone wants to act like they hate the govt and do nothing to support it but by working for them they infact are the govt, personaly i would never work for them, never be a teacher, post office worker or any position for them, im not going to rise up but think its backwards enough that i dont want to be part of it... my .o2
 
dream

Let me start by saying I love automatic weapons. I was trained on their use and repair by the military, so I know a little bit about the machinery.

However, there are just not enough people and money to effect the repeal of the NFA. The fact is that the people who like and want machineguns are a very small minority of the shooting community. They were in '34, and the numbers are even smaller today.

People have been trained since the '20s that machine guns are used by criminals. News reports, and all manner of popular fiction repeat this point endlessly. NOBODY except a small number of enthusiasts associates machineguns with anything other than crime or war. Reality doesn't matter. The majority of people are incapable or unwilling to accept it. They "know what they know", and what they know is what they see in the movies and on TV. Until we can change that I see little hope.

If we had some billionaire to finance the effort (like the anti-gun Sorros), we MIGHT have a chance. Eventually. Today, sadly it is nothing more than a dream.

About the tax, the ONLY good thing is that the NFA tax has never been adjusted for inflation. The tax was $200 in 1934. A lot of money then. Not nearly so much today. Would you be so ok with the tax if it was $10,000?

As far as those who blame the NRA for "supporting" the NFA in 34, please remember that in those days the NRA was not the political entity that it is today. Basically the NFA went into effect before any serious opposition could be mounted. People in those days didn't realize what was going on, nor what the consequences would be. After all, it was just another "tax" law.

As far as the '86 freeze, yes, one can say the NRA let us down. In fairness, they went for what was seen as the greatest good for the greatest number. More people would be helped by the Firearms Owner Protection Act, than suffer from the machinegun registration freeze. Sad for the full auto crowd, but it is a done deal, for 20 years now.

Could we get the '86 freeze lifted? Possibly. If it was approached the right way. I think the right way would be the way they did it to us. Quietly. Sneakily. Add it on to something that MUST be passed, at the LAST MINUTE, with a voice only vote. And don't tell the press. After all, it is only an administrative rule change, right?

And, yes, the NFA (and all its additions) is unconstitutional. In our opinion. Until, however, the Supreme Courts states that, it is the law of the land. And considering the Supreme Court today, I don't want them to make a ruling on ANY 2nd Amendment issue, because I believe we will lose more than we can gain. Just look at the recent ruling on emminent domain. Unless/until we get a court where we can be confidant of a ruling in our favor, I don't think it is worth the risk.

I realize this is the "better the devil we know..." view, but while the legal requirements/restrictions are onerous (and insulting to free citizens), they are better than a complete prohibition.

I do not mean to imply that we should stop trying to change things for the better, just that to expect complete sucess in today's political climate is overly optimistic.
 
I don't think a campaign ad would work, and I think it would be political suicide for any politician.

The complacentcy of the "the people" see no need for it now and it would never be "voted" in. For the masses to vote for something, there has to be a perceived need. Most of us here don't talk guns with our neighbors because we tire of the justification conversation. Now imagine being a politician and trying to justify to your contributors that we have a need for fully auto weapons for every Tom, Dick, and Harry...

The best way to address the situation is for it to be tried before the US or a state Supreme Court. There would have to be a ripe case or controversy before the court and the court would have to rule that the law violates the US Constitution. For a ripe case or controversy, it would require that a person be arrested in possession of banned weapons and then take that to trial, lose on an appealable issue, then go through the channels until he ultimately gets to the Supreme Court AND they'd would have to grant review.

Not really worth the risk for that unlucky person because he would likely lose and go to jail for the better part of his life and then be forgotten.

Barring this scenario, the next best scenario for getting fully auto weapons is for the citizens to be called upon to fight either our own government, and then disregarding the law or demanding it to be changed, for some atrocity OR a foreign invader, like Mexico.
 
The only way that I feel would ever get any laws changed (In regard to full auto ) in an exceptable amount of time (E.G. less than an eterinty) would be a revloutoin, or an invasion of America. Neither of which I see happening soon.
 
Murdoch a conservative? The one palling around with Hillary? Really.

Nor do I hear any outcry from folks sitting on guns that are now worth $10-50K that would be worth a couple of hundred if the ban were repealed. The people paying that money as investments are not eager for a repeal, either, for obvious reasons. Sure, some have posted here that they would be happy to see the ban removed even if it cost them money. I applaud the thinking, I just don't believe it is very common.
Click to expand...

I agree. The silence on this issue, especially from the NFA owners who buy and sell as investments, and from the dealers who profit from buying and reselling them at higher and higher prices is positively deafening. I think I'll look up an older post I once saw where a man was comparing his ClassIII collection to his corvette and how he liked it the way it was- a sort of status symbol that only special 'worthy' people could get. :barf:
 
Flawed logic,

If the NFA was repealed, specifically the ban on ownership of new production, I believe the actually exempted weapons would still hold a value worth more simply because of this knowledge...Kinda like a Thompson or Garand that actually was issued and used during the war, would be worth more than a new production one because of the ,"nostalgia factor"...

If that still isn't good enough, make a distinction between weapons that were,"exempted/grandfathered", by making a class of non-transferable NFA(transferable only upon death, or to a federal/state agency)....

Just my 0.02 cents
 
So even with a "republican" "president", a Republican Congress, and a mostly Republican nominated Supreme Court, It still wouldn't happen.

Ever notice how stupid people always talk louder than their inteligent counterparts?
 
Care to re-evaluate???

In light of all of the speculation about the DC gun ban reversal, anyone think this might have a chance? At least to reopen the registry?

I am hopefull but still doubt it.....
 
Trapp, I'd like to think so, but Frankly i doubt it. Ron Paul has sposored a bill to literally repeal EVERY gun law on the federal level since GCA 68' but as of yet it has Zero co-sponsors, and is pretty mich DIW..Lets be realistic here..we are in an entirely dem controlled Congress here (Not that the republicans were all THAT much better)...i would hazard a guess that we are MUCH more likely to lose ground than gain it at this point. IMO our best bet is that those dems remember that the old AWB was one of the reasons they lost the house and senate, and they can put a muzzle on Pelosi and the rabid antis.
 
Getting the law changed would be in my opinion an impossibility. With all of the anti-gun sentiment in the news media I'm surprised that the Democrats haven't focused on the fact that subguns and machine guns are legal for civilians to own. Granted the spread of CCW permits throughout the United States is a fact and this is largely due to the NRA fighting for second amendment rights. But there are many other people out there who believe that the right to bear arms is not protected under the constitution. Regarless of constitutional scholars debate that the the 2nd amendment is a right of the people, the unfortunate wording of the 2nd amendment regardless of pro gun interpretation is problematic at best. It is unfortunate that it is not as clear cut as we would like it to be because if it was there would be no issue. I think that attempting to repeal the NFA in regards to automatic weapons would result in a volatile backlash against those who possess them. Something like this could possibly even result in stricter firearms laws in general. The Democrats would have a field day:"Regular guns aren't good enough for them, now they want to be able to indulge in wholesale slaughter." The firearms laws are an abomination to be sure, but I don't think we should make things possibly worst by advancing such ideas regardless of whether we believe the legislation is illegal to begin with.
 
With all of the anti-gun sentiment in the news media I'm surprised that the Democrats haven't focused on the fact that subguns and machine guns are legal for civilians to own.
Click to expand...

No, for three reasons. First, there is no need. They've won that batttle. The '86 ban has put the price of machineguns beyond the reach of most Americans. With the cheapest machinegun pushing $4,000 and machineguns like the M16 going for $15,000+, only dedicated gun nuts will spend the money to get one.

Second reason is they have no desire to educate the public on the difference between a machinegun and their so-called "assault weapon." There is this lovely gray area where many Americans think "assault weapons" are full auto and need to be banned.

Third, they can hold up the NFA and show that gun registration does work (low crime rate of registered NFA items) and that gun registration is legal (NFA upheld by the Supreme Court)
 
I kind of side with Pickpocket, probably mostly because we are both "Texians"
living where we can excersize our rights and doubt that the GCL of 1968 will ever fall because about half of Americans are of the other voting group and a huge proportion of them are anti-gun.

And....That the agency that handles firearm laws, seem to hate firearms and firearm enthuisiasts, makes what they consider the law of the land (the rules)
among themselves without consulting Congress or the will of the people.

The real bad guys already have their ill gotten full auto weapons and do and will use them against the law officers, we the public if we get in their way or whatever. I couldn't afford to feed a Thompson, Uzi, or AK, etc., but I should be able to purchase one at a reasonable price after police investigation, tax stamp and paperwork no matter when it was made.......if I wanted one which I do not.
 
well, if the Parker vs DC goes well, then there is a good chance that the definition of "people" and "arms" will be defined in gun owners' favor, and there is a good chance that select-fire military arms will be no longer regulated by the government. The US vs Miller has established the precedence that non-conventional firearms, such as the short-barreled shotgun in question, are not protected under the 2nd Amendment, thus if 2nd is fully recognized, the M4s, the M249s, and assorted other standard-issue firearms will be the most protected guns of them all.

This idea is not mine but from Bill W from CAlguns. I fully agree with it(how can you say no to the prospect of owning brand-new fully functional M4s?).:eek:
 
There is a lot of discussion of various legal aspects given the current set of laws and the Constitution. I have a slightly different take. I don't think the will of the country would be clearly for liberalization of owning such guns.

There is enough support to get CHL bills passed and let the AWB expire. One part of the latter is that the military derivative guns were not fully auto and not much different from more 'friendly' looking sporting guns. The ban was based on cosmetics of no real impact as to gun usage. That point was made repeatedly.

However, to totally repeal the NFA laws, you would have to argue that we want to add a new class of weapons, not currently (new manufacture) or easily available to the public. Also, these guns have firepower abilities probably not needed in the 'sporting' scenario or the homeowner vs. crook self-defense scenario.

The rationale for the fully auto guns (or that part of the argument) would be to establish a base of more powerful specifically military style weapons for the specific instance of defeating governmental tyranny.

I don't think most of the country would be into it. They would see the risk of easy access spreading the weapons into the hands of crooks and nuts as being more of a risk than tyranny.

In fact, given what I see of the Bush administration trying to flood all the government posts with religious zealots of their own kind, one might argue that tyranny is not far away - however, the non-GOP folks who might fear this probably aren't the types who like guns and want to plan for the fight against the tyranny of the right. However, I do note that the Progressive magazine had an article directly to the point that a tyranny of religious, social conservatives might be a treat to prepare against.

However, most folks won't buy into and I don't see a change. One might hope for a heavily regulated and expensive ability to buy new items. That's the best that might happen, IMHO.

I would like a G18 for CCW as that would be tacticool, though.
 
I don't think most of the country would be into it. They would see the risk of easy access spreading the weapons into the hands of crooks and nuts as being more of a risk than tyranny.
Click to expand...

I have to agree,

The idea of that much firepower being in the hands of common people is not going to be easy to sugar coat.

I do think that some of the laws need to be backed off. First is barrel size, simply put barrels can be chopped down in ten minutes by a criminal with a hack saw. So why do we need a law that restricts barrel length when it is so easy to change anyway? I can see machine guns staying the way they are as it is hard and dangerous to convert a semi auto to auto. Barrel length just makes no sense.
 
Machine Guns...

In response to Css' post on the first page about people that have machine guns dont want the law repealed.. no true...


Myself as well as others, would LOVE to see the law repealed! I have several thousand invested in NFA, and I know a lot of others that do too, but I and my friends would be more than happy to take the hit on our money to be able to legally sell/buy new machine guns. In the long run, even for an SOT, the profit margin is a lot greater selling M16's at $1,200.00 a pop than one at $16,000.00 a pop. After all just how many 16k guns can one person realistically expect to sell, and how many people can honestly afford the current M16? If the law was apealed, there are SOOOO Many more people that would HOP on a legal M16 for $1,600.00 or $2,000.00!

Its no secret that the NFA community is gaining steam! 10 years ago, people really didn't know that FA's and silencers were actually legal. Even some gun dealers didn't know about the NFA community, but its gaining popularity and more and more speed. It's hard to find ANY ffl out there that doesn't know about NFA now.

Think about it. Even the largest Subgun dealers out there now. Like www.autoweapons.com out of PA (amazing their stock), would make so much more money if they were allowed to sell a machine gun at $1,200.00 vise having to sell it at $16,000.00. The common man, simply cant afford the current NFA rates. If the law was repealed, machine guns would explode on the range!

I think that we should not fight the $200.00 transfer tax. We should fight the 86 ban! Thats the ONLY bad thing in the NFA community! We shouldn't be selling the items over the counter to every joe-shmoe. It still needs to be an exclusive comminity, for safety sake.
 
Glen's Point...

I can understand where Glen is coming from. The national public as a whole would see it that way. Although mis-alligned. The truth about the NFA world is this:

There have been only 2 documented incidences of someone breaking the law with a legally owned NFA item since the inception in 1968 of the 200.00 tax.

Incidentally both were perpetrated by police officers. 1 cop kills his wife and lover with a MAC 10, and the other is where a cop accidentally shot his partner in the police station locker room.

There have been no documented incidences of a crime being committed with a legally owned silencer, sbs, sbr, or aow (that I know of). In 40 years, this is REALLY good numbers!!! There have been more people killed with plastic place-ware than with NFA!

The problem with this country is Hollywood. The anti-gun people and Assault Weapons Ban folks are highly-educated stupid people. They believe what they see on TV and movies. That every gang member has a FA Uzi/MAC/MP5 in his shorts. That people rob banks with M16's and AK-47's.

They seem to think that if we remove these items out of the homes of law-abiding citizens, then the criminals cant get ahold if them either... right... We all know just how effective laws are on criminals.

THey think that if we got rid of our "evil" guns, then Columbine and Virginia Tech wouldn't happen... wrong. Those people were evil, disturbed, and down right horrible individuals to begin with. There is no law that could be enacted that would keep this from happening.

Most anti-gun owners know this. They know the actual statistics, but dont care because they dont like the military looking weapons. They dont want others to have them. Its people in power subjecting the rest of the nation to their uneducated personal dislikes and views.

They need to enact laws that acutally do some good. How about making training mandatory before a weapon can be purchased? How about teaching parents how to teach their children proper safety? My children know all about guns. Because of it I dont fear them sneeking into my room and playing with a gun when Im not around. There is no mystery in it for them. They know that if they want to see one of my hand guns, they ask me or my wife, and we show it to them. We stop what we're doing and use that oportunity to teach proper respect, safety, and useage. We dont put it off and tell them 'maybe later'.... We take ALL the mystery out of it. (granted we keep all our items safely stored too, but just in case parents that have guns and dont teach their children about them cause them a GREAT injustice and personally I feel they endager their kids).


Its the same with gun haters. It makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top