Help Take Down the '34 National Firearms Act

T

too many choices!?

New member
Let's start with a simple premise.....A gun is a gun is a gun, period! With this premise in mind, can anyone out there tell me how shortening a barrel to less than 16" magically transforms a gun into something other than a gun. This is one of the many flaws in the logic of the 1934 National Firearms Act(NFA). If we (gun owning law abiding citizens..us,we,our) can punch afew holes into the logic used to draft this piece of useless feel good legislation, then (we) would be well on (our) way to restoring many of(our) stolen freedoms. My understanding of the flawed logic used to draft this is: A short barreled rifle or shotgun(barrell less than 16") only has a use for criminal activity.Oddly enough, in recent years all law enforcement and military branches have been following a trend of using these,"only good for criminal use" weapons for their jobs'! What does that tell (us)? Hmmmm, maybe the drafter of this could have been WRONG!
For those that would like to expound on the constitutional ramifications of the '34 NFA be my guest. Please keep it in context of how we can change to better reflect (us) or how to delete the '34 NFA. The entire NFA of '34 is up for discussion don't limit it to sbr's and sbs's. Like the proveb goes," A journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step".Thanx (We) can do it!!!! :) Now is the time!!!! :) ps I know the () get redundant but (we) is for emphasis because (we gun owing law abiding citizens) really are the same! Peace, happy holidays.
 
Nice idea, but you're tilting at windmills.

The sad fact is that the reality of the low crime rate with NFA weapons is irrelevant to the political ramifications for any member of congress who would support repeal of the NFA. It may be a perfectly correct, legitimate, and completely benign measure, but it would also be political suicide to support it. Unfortunately the debate often isn't about the realities of gun legislation on crime, but rather the political and public relations consequences of such legislation.
 
To me, what should happen is that SBR's need to be taken off the NFA list, and treated as handguns. After all, it doesn't make much sense that rifles with 10" barrels are easier to conceal than a pistol with a 10" barrel and no buttstock.

Other than that, reopen MG registration, keep states from banning NFA guns and work from there.
 
Believe me, I'd love to get rid of NFA '34, but we have to choose our battles carefully. After this election, we should go on the offensive. Has there been any discussion on what to repeal, or what tactics to use?
 
Yes, we do need to pick and choose our battles

That is why I made this thread. A place to brainstorm. That is also why I picked the sbr and sbs laws to go after first. The thought process used to get this made into law doesn't hold water. A rifle must have a minimum barrel length of 16" to be legal, or it needs special permission. This is the same kind of logic used to draft '94 awb. The length of the barrel of a weapon is a cosmetic change and does not alter the mechanism(read action) of the weapon in the least.A shotgun with a short barrel is still a shotgun. Same as a rifle. Another premise used to draft this legislation is that it would give law enforcement a tool to arrest criminals for the mere possesion of an item(not for a behavior that is illegal) that otherwise,would be legal to possess(if we can't catch you in the act or through investigation atleast we got you on the possesion charge)...This was the begining of Americans transferal of our own defense to the police, off topic but true. Where to go next I am not sure but we need to take back some of this given up or taken away power. Help by getting some traffic to this thread where we can figure out a course of action. If all able gunowners provided a small donation(once a course of action was established) I bet Johnny Cochran could get legislators to change their tune :D !
 
Myself I think we should learn from the tactics of the enemy. We should demand all gun laws be repealed and continue to hammer on the repeal of same.

Then we can compromise the laws away slowly by passing "sensible" repeals.

We have to use eastern style thinking here, peck away slowly at the offending laws.

I sense the political climate starting to shift, the pendulum has reached the end of it's swing and is starting to swing back. Political correctness is the butt of jokes, "Red staters" are starting to flex their muscle, some folks have said enough and are starting to act. Witness the several instances of institutions backing down on the christmas issue.

It will take a long time to reverse the current bias towards guns, and it won't be easy. It will take more than the occasional letter to your Congresscritter and $25 to the NRA each year.
 
The length of the barrel of a weapon is a cosmetic change and does not alter the mechanism(read action) of the weapon in the least.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree. I believe that the idea was that SBR are easier to conceal (If I'm wrong, correct me). But the point is that handguns are easier yet to conceal, without the pain of getting a SBR.

Tell me how this makes sense: I can legally buy a pistol. It is short enough that if I put it under my shirt, it can be concealed. If I put a stock on that same pistol, MAKING IT LONGER AND HARDER TO CONCEAL, I become a felon.
 
Repeal NFA with all amendments. Put the batfe f troop on the border with canada to enforce imigration restrictions.
 
Why don't you start by reopening MG registration? That should be easy to prove that it won't cause any problems (to sway the fence sitters).

While I disagree with the 34 Act, it is hard to disagree with its effectiveness.
 
Well, what you need to do is use the anti-gunners' own propaganda against them. You see, with the sunset of the AWB, full auto machine guns and assault rifles are legal to own again and therefore the removal of the NFA poses no additional threat. When you think about, few non-gunners and antis even know about the NFA and believe the AWB banned full auto guns. Therefore, it might be possible to slip under the radar, or at least build enough support before the antis find out what's really going on.
Also, I believe SBR's are a bunch of BS. We know how much velocity bullets lose when fired from barrels significantly shorter than what they were designed to be fired from. A 1911 almost certainly has more knockdown power than an AR-15 with a 10" barrel. The potency of the rifle would be greatly diminished.
Plus I've always thought a 10-12" barrel .22 magnum rifle would be a nice tool to dispatch unwelcome raccoons. It'd be handy but still pack a punch and probably be easier to aim and more powerful than a 22 mag handgun.
 
We need to repeal (or at least lower) the additional tax places on class 3 weapons in addition to the other fire arm taxes, and stream line (or better yet remove) the registration process.

I honestly think the pro gun people make a bigger deal out of class 3 hardware than the antis do, to them they are just another type of firearm in their list of every extra evil firearm. No one cared about the AWB, so why would they care about class 3 stuff?

jefnvk: Red cars get more speeding tickets than cars of any other color. If we banned new cars from being painted red, and required people to go through heck and high water to get pre ban red cars would it reduce speeding? (not that I think a little speeding is a bad thing :) ) Or would it just shift speeding to cars of different colors, and make red cars the safest cars around?
 
dustind - I agree with you. I am just more looking at a realistic way to do it. If you march into congress demanding a full repeal of the NFA, I don't think you are going to get far. Maybe you will, and that would be good. I just simply think that moving backwards in small steps is a better plan.

Start by reopeneing MG registration. It shouldn't be that hard to sell, only one or two legal MG's have been used in crimes in 70 years. Maybe drop the registration costs down. Paying a $200 tax on a (hopefully) $300 gun is pretty stupid. JUST make sure antis and the public know that (for now) the background check will still be in place.
 
Where does the money from the tax stamps go? You may be able to get some support by restricting that money to BATF and company. Then, when it comes time to get rid of the tax, you can say that it won't hurt, becuase the sole point of the tax was to enforce itself, and since you no longer need the agency it pays for, it'll be easier there.

Logic doesn't work on the people we need to convince. Money and power do.
 
Not meaning to be an iconoclast here, but I have come to 2 conclusions over the past few decades of studying this issue.

1) The ruling class will always have guns.

2) We need to do all we can to assure ourselves that we, the people of the United States of America remain the ruling class and the government minions remain our servants while 'outside agitators' such as George Soros, the British contingent and the UN remain outside.
 
I've had a thought relating to chipping away slowly at current legislation. Why not start with trying to pass legislation legalizing "slow-firing" automatic weapons? A slow-firing automatic weapon would have a fire rate of 360 rounds/min or less.

Why, you ask? Isn't that just bowing to the anti's you say? As far as bowing to the anti's, having even a brand-new, slow firing auto weapon is better than what we can own easily now, right?

And why 360 round/min? Isn't that a bit arbitrary? Maybe a little, but the logic here is based on how a semi-auto weapon can be fired.

Why ban full auto weapons if there are semi-auto's that can fire just as fast by simply pulling the trigger repeatedly? About the fastest I've seen someone fire a semi-auto is around 5-6 rounds/sec or 300-360 round/minute. So the question is, how is a full auto 300rpm gun more dangerous than someone firing a semi-auto at 300rpm? And of course, if there's not much difference between semi-auto's and slow-fire auto's why not regulate slow-fires the same as semi's?

And now why would this be helpful? Because it would become a stepping stone. If we can show that slow-firing auto's are safe in civilian hands then maybe it will become easier to repeal the other restrictions on other auto's.
 
I think a problem with that would be BATF being finicky about beign able to increase the rate of fire. I'd imagine that preventing that is a bit harder than keeping a semi-auto semi-auto.
 
Thanx guys all great ideas!

But keep in mind my original premise. A gun is a gun is a gun. Even a machinegun is still only a fast firing gun no matter how you slice it.Just like with the '94 Clinton gun ban (aka Assault weopons ban) we need to make the enforcers and proponents of this law prove that it does some good. Yes I know that the '34 nfa act does not have a sun-set clause, but it should be held to the same scrutiny as the "94 AWB aka Clinton gun ban. The Clinton ban could not stand up to the truth and neither can this piece of feel good legislation. I don't believe our beloved democratic republic has fallen to the point of keeping laws on the books solely for the sake of appearances. From my understanding the machinegun portion, sbr, and sbs portion of the '34 act were included to add another tool for prosecution of organized crime. This was during prohibition and gangsters were either cutting down full length rifles and shotguns, creating sbr's and sbs's, or some where stealing automatic tommy guns from police stations. The wording of the law was designed to leave these weapons legal for civilians but requiring registration or be in possesion of a felony. Possesing not committing a felony still sounds funny to me but anyway. I don't like the idea of registering this firearm over that one for any reason because it sends the wrong message. This item(not the action) is dangerous is the message that sends. Next how about the constitutional claim law abiding citizens have. As long as a gun is an arm it should be protected by the 2nd. Now, by what strecth of the imagination does the commerce clause allow the fed. government to restrict or prohibit any fireARM. If someone will help me understand this then we can tackle that next. Because to do what this thread was intended to do it will take a total disassembly of this crap legislation. I didn't think anybody cared about deleting this dark spot on american history,but thankfully I was wrong. Keep the ideas coming it can be done. :cool:
 
I still say that if you can trust someone with a gun, they can be trusted with any gun. From a 17 single shot to a 155mm Howitzer to an M2.

And if gun grabebrs can get away with just making up numbers to support their cause (10 rd mag, how'd they come up with thtat?), why can't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top