Regarding the NFA itself...(I think)

[pickpocket]

He doesn't already own his weapons and the gov't passed a law saying he couldn't own it any more... he's trying his hardest to find a LOOPHOLE in the pre-existing law so that he can get around it and purchase new ones. Two different things, the latter being a bit more irresponsible and inappropriate.

No, the law didn't come out last week, so crying about "how restrictive the government is and boohoo they won't allow me to own something I think is fun" is a bit pointless. That's what it's supposed to mean.

Hitler quoters are my favorite...you guys can usually find something that Hitler said somewhere to support almost anything from pro-life to Bill O'Reilly. What exactly was your one-liner supposed to mean? Must be my mistake that the smiley at the end of my comment didn't accurately convey the humor behind it.

There is almost nothing about gun control that I agree with...however, the restrictions on fully-automatic weapons is one that I do support. Why? Because they don't really serve a purpose. The fact that something is FUN is not a basis for legalizing it. If you have them, fine...but to watch people whine and cry about not being able to go buy new ones and that our "oppressive" government doesn't let us really "be free"...come on.

If you really want to experience "not being free" then try living in a few other choice areas of the world and maybe your opinion about not being "free" will change somewhat.

For you people who feel compelled to assume a sort of intellectual superiority and talk DOWN to others (i.e. I'm smarter than you and I'm going to beat you over the head with it) and those who feel it necessary to post pictures of weapons they've fired and thump their chest about it... grow up.

Really..you should take things a bit more seriously (sarcasm)...after all, it IS the internet.

If my response about "what would you DO with a full-auto" hurt your feelings, then please accept my apologies. Didn't realize this was a sensitive area.
My point was that full-autos are generally impractical...so why put all that effort into getting around the law just to own one? For fun? Ok, then that's fine...but it certainly doesn't warrant the over-bloated response from you insulting not only my intelligence and reading comprehension but various other things.
If you're going to insult someone, you should be sure of where they're coming from and where they've been first.

 

[pickpocket]

TBlake -
Ok, that I can accept. That wasn't how I interpreted his post, but I'm open to being corrected.

 

[JohnBrowning]

Pickpocket,

I think you are a bit overly worried about offending people. I was joking about the Hitler thing, just as you were joking about the join the military thing. It is after all the internet, and my theory is that its unnesasary to worry about hurting someones feelings on the web, because if someone is so sensitive that they are offended by your statements, (or mine, which are often much worse), they really shouldn't be on this site.

 

[afsnco]

pickpocket:

As the Supremes affirmed in the Miller case, the whole point to the Second Amendment is that the citizenry have the right to military-type guns. The military have/use fully automatic weapons, therefore the citizenry should have a right to fully automatic weapons, according to the Miller court.

 

[pickpocket]

U.S. v. Miller is one of the most mis-cited Second Amendment cases there is, and is usually cited as proof of the Supreme Court's hostility towards individual rights within the framework of the Second Amendment, not in support of it.

U.S. v. Miller upheld the following and nothing more:

1. The NFA is NOT a usurpation of police power reserved to the states
2. In the absence of evidence that a particular weapon has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, ownership of such a weapon is not protected by the Second Amendment.
3. A short-barrelled shotgun (less than 18") is not part of any ordinary military equipment nor would its use contribute to the common defense.
4. The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied within the framework of rendering effective the militia.

One of the findings from the Miller court was that the 'idea' of a Militia included all males physicall capable of acting in the common defense, not whether or not one was actively engaged in doing so. This is important because the same court also found that these capable men - when called for service - were required to show up with weapons of their own and of the kind in common use at the time.

The end result is that the Supreme Courts decision in U.S. v. Miller was based more on an absence of evidence than on any real inquiry into the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Your statement that the citizenry have the right to own military-type weapons is technically incorrect. The official wording was that the Second Amendment protected only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia...which is the whole point of contention, now isn't it?

The only real ground here for the ownership of automatic weapons is that the military currently uses fully-automatic weapons. However, there are only two shoulder-fired automatic weapons currently in use by the military and those are the MP5 (used by special forces) and the FN M249 SAW, which is a belt-fed weapon. The people who use these weapons are extensively trained, since the MP5 requires hundreds of hours of training for effective (not recreational) use; and there is a whole science behind machine gun employment. If the position is that we should be allowed to use those weapons in order to maintain an effective militia then my belief is that the requirements should be the same as those who recieve their training in the military or law enforcement. But from gunslinger's sig up there it seems he thinks that the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard...and they already have access to those weapons.

The whole point of the Miller case wasn't that people should have access to "milititary type guns"...it was that if a weapon can't be shown to contribute to the rendering of an effective militia then it is not protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[afsnco]

pickpocket:

As near as I can tell, we're almost in agreement.

The unorganized militia is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 years old. That's United States Code stuff, and is probably the basis for the draft, and the basis for the Supremes' definition of militia. The militia is clearly NOT the National Guard, which wasn't created until the 20th century. During WWII the unorganized militia in the form of older guys and younger guys was called up and instructed to bring their own arms in performing checkpoint duty near the coast.

Since, in Miller, the Supremes recognized the right of the militia to have military arms, and didn't call them the National Guard, which then existed, it's obvious they're referring to the unorganized militia, which is the people described above.

Interestingly, Miller could've probably gotten the sawed off shotgun charge dismissed if he'd have shown up for the Supreme Court hearing. All he had to do was prove a military use for such a weapon, which could've easily been done using trench warfare for example. IIRC Miller didn't make the hearing because he was in jail somewhere, and unrepresented.

Our entire Constitution is comprised of checks and balances because our Founders believed that power can easily corrupt a man. I'm convinced that they intended for the 2nd Amendment to be the ultimate check and balance, ensuring that the people may never be disarmed via governmental tyranny. This was clearly enunciated by people like Madison, who talked of the value of all Americans being armed in Federalist #46.

I also think that "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment context had a different meaning back then. It meant disciplined, drilled, and armed with military weapons. For several decades after our founding, all able-bodied men would meet on the village green for target practice and drill. We've fallen out of that habit, but that still doesn't change the fact that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment more appropriately should read "A population trained to effectively carry arms, being necessary to the security of a free state..." The meat of the Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Just because we don't meet on the village green anymore doesn't mean we can't effectively train ourselves. I already know how to march, being retired military, but I want to keep my shooting skills honed.

My final point is that hundreds, if not thousands of Americans currently have Class III/NFA full auto weapons. They didn't receive any special training. They trained themselves, and there's not been any knee-deep bloodshed in the streets by any of them. The only difference is that they can afford the $15,000+ for a full auto M16, and the only reason those weapons are so expensive is because the government has artificially limited the number of these weapons to a dwindling supply.

 

[gunslinger555]

If you really want to experience "not being free" then try living in a few other choice areas of the world and maybe your opinion about not being "free" will change somewhat.

i agree some places are more free than others we are one of the countries that are more free than others what im saying is i along with other americans want more freedom the gov does not have the right to tell me what i can or cant own if its not hurting anyone

But from gunslinger's sig up there it seems he thinks that the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard...and they already have access to those weapons.

have you ever heard of sarcasm? read it again and you will realise its making fun of ppl. who say that "the second amendment is only for the national guard"

so crying about "how restrictive the government is and boohoo they won't allow me to own something I think is fun" is a bit pointless.

you say its pointless why because you think it wont do anything because we dont have a say? and you imply that we are free?

A short-barrelled shotgun (less than 18") is not part of any ordinary military equipment nor would its use contribute to the common defense.

http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh17-e.htm
just because the suprime court sead it doesent make it true
look at the "Auxiliary weapon" something i would want if i was in a combat zone

The only real ground here for the ownership of automatic weapons is that the military currently uses fully-automatic weapons. However, there are only two shoulder-fired automatic weapons currently in use by the military and those are the MP5 (used by special forces) and the FN M249 SAW, which is a belt-fed weapon.

uhh i think you for got the m-16 its 3 shot burst and used by the us military

There is almost nothing about gun control that I agree with...however, the restrictions on fully-automatic weapons is one that I do support. Why? Because they don't really serve a purpose. The fact that something is FUN is not a basis for legalizing it. If you have them, fine...but to watch people whine and cry about not being able to go buy new ones and that our "oppressive" government doesn't let us really "be free"...come on.

well if they dont serve any purpose then why put hevy restrictions an them in the first place? what im trying to say is the nfa is pointless. what criminals does it stop?

 

[pickpocket]

Yes, you and I are mostly in agreement.
The NFA doesn't prohibit the ownership of these weapons, it simply restricts the ability to purchase weapons covered by the Act. If you want to purchase one of these weapons, all you need is to submit the necessary paperwork and pay the $200 tax. The government understandibly wants to keep track of where these weapons are going, at least as much as they are able.

One thing to consider is that the restrictions DO make it more difficult to get your hands on a full-auto weapon, whether your intentions be innocent or not. And I'm fairly happy that the odds against me having to use my carry weapon against someone with a full-auto are pretty slim.

You're right, I think the Second Amendment was indeed meant as the ultimate check or balance. A well armed society is a polite society, after all.

 

[gunslinger555]

One thing to consider is that the restrictions DO make it more difficult to get your hands on a full-auto weapon, whether your intentions be innocent or not. And I'm fairly happy that the odds against me having to use my carry weapon against someone with a full-auto are pretty slim.

if they whant it bad enough then they will get it. criminals usually dont want to go to gun shops to buy thair wepons they go to thair buddys trunk.

 

[afsnco]

But that "simply restricts the ability to purchase weapons covered by the act" is the rub. This artificial restriction causes the laws of supply and demand to kick in because of a dwindling supply of weapons. Hence $15000 for an M16, THE current military weapon. The $200 tax is nothing. If that was the only issue, there would be no issue.

And it's possible that you may have to face a full auto weapon at some point. Criminals don't bother with the $200 tax. On the other hand, I don't think there's ever been a single Class III/NFA who's ever used a full auto in a crime.

Do you see my point? Criminals have them. The police have them. The military has them. Law abiding citizens generally can't, because of artificially inflated cost.

 

[pickpocket]

For one, and again, the NFA does not say that you can't own a particular firearm. It allows for ownership and transfer of regulated weapons with the caveat that you have the Federal Government's permission.
What does it take to get permission? Why, simply a written request, a set of fingerprints, and your friendly local PD signing off that you have no criminal record or mental instability on record. It's not as though there's some power-hungry bureaucrat behind a desk giggling maniacally as he denies NFA requests..

I say that complaining about it is pointless because an activity being FUN isn't a criteria for legality, and that's what nrgetik's whole position was...that it was just FUN. It's one thing to take a position on the subject having some research under your belt...it's completely another to complain that the "man" is keeping you down after realizing that there's no loophole in the law that you can wiggle through to get what you want.

About the Supreme Court - on the contrary, what the Supreme Court says actually is truth, at least until the come back and change their minds. They are the highest judicial body in the country, and their job is to interpret the laws set forth by the other two bodies of government. Their point of view IS law.

I looked at the "Aux weapon" and I have to say I'm not impressed. I wouldn't want it in combat any more than I would want various other crap hanging off of my weapon. I spent two years in a combat zone and I have a healthy list of weapons I would want before we started talking about hanging a shotgun off the bottom of my M4.
I didn't forget about the M16..I didn't include it for two reasons: 3-round burst is not considered (except by civilians) to be in any way full-auto, and in my two years in Iraq the only time I EVER used 3-round burst was clearing houses. Close in, less than 10 meters, P&S. Clearing block after block of hostile houses is not something I'd think you guys here in the real world have to worry much about.

So my point is that it's not the NFA that is pointless. If you want a full-auto, then just comply with the regulations and buy one. So what if the gov't knows you have one? If our intentions are as innocent as we proclaim then does it really matter? After all... what are they going to do? Come take it away from you?

 

[OJ]

I think it is a mistake to assume the BATFE uses anything like logical thinking about anything.

IIRC, the NFA was passed in 1934 primarily to limit possession of Thompson submachine guns - because those guns were considered the "weapon of choice" for bootleggers - never mind prohibition was repealed the year before in 1933 when the 21st amendment was ratified.

Being able to get that law passed, they felt free to include all kinds of things such as silencers and such for which there was no logical reason to restrict.

I am well acquainted with those "other things" because I had an H&R Handy Gun - .410 pistol with 12" barrel, single shot, chambered only for a 2 1/2" shell. Now, that gun was no threat as an offensive or defensive weapon but it had to be registered and the cost was $200.00!!! A fair piece of change in 1934.

I had to list a reason for owning such a weapon and I stated I was a gun collector.

I was almost 8 years old!

Attempts to get that gun off the list over the past 72 years have not been successful - even though the BATFE reclassified it as a "Curio & Relic".

Never mind that T/C produces a similar gun which is OK because it has a rifled barrel.

The BATFE is probably the worst of government agency arrogance and, as far as I know, has never been found to be reasonable or rational in their actions.

Yesterday, I was at the range zeroing new sights on my M1A and the gentleman beside me was shooting his fully automatic weapons. He had his 14 year old son along to teach him to shoot. He helped me put up some targets and was as fine and upstanding a gentleman as you could meet anywhere and not the kind a lot of people usually claim the kind are who shoot such weapons. Just think how much he contributes toward supporting our ammo producers.

Rant over.

 

[pickpocket]

True...and it's exactly that artificial lack of supply and resultant increase in price that keeps a large majority of people from buying them - even underground.

There will always be exceptions, there will always be the guy who bought his illegal full-auto on the black market and killed people with it. But the NFA is the 80/20 solution.

 

[OJ]

The $200 tax is nothing. If that was the only issue, there would be no issue.

Today it's not but, it was pretty steep in 1934. That was a respectable monthly income for a family then and a new Chevy then cost $350.00!!

 

[Hkmp5sd]

One thing to consider is that the restrictions DO make it more difficult to get your hands on a full-auto weapon, whether your intentions be innocent or not. And I'm fairly happy that the odds against me having to use my carry weapon against someone with a full-auto are pretty slim. -pickpocket

And the drug laws make it more difficult to get your hands on some crack cocaine, heroin, pot, or any other drug, eh?

I don't know where you live, but if I desired an illegal machinegun, I could obtain one within 12-24 hours. That is a factory manufactured machinegun, not some converted piece of junk. It took about 60 days for each of my legal machineguns.

Are you aware that there is absolutely no difference in your opinion of gun laws and those of Sarah Brady? You both support restrictions on classes of firearms based on your fear of them. The only difference is you draw the line at full-auto weapons and she draws the line at semi-automatic weapons.

 

[pickpocket]

Do you see my point? Criminals have them. The police have them. The military has them. Law abiding citizens generally can't, because of artificially inflated cost.

The only hole in your logic is that it costs criminals a pretty penny as well because of the huge vacuum in supply due to legislation and the ATF. A fully-auto AK is not as easy to get as many people make out. It's really not as though all you have to do is walk down the street to your local drug dealer and fork over $400. If anyone has an experience to the contrary, I would welcome a refute. If you want to buy a full-auto on the black-market, you're STILL going to spend several thousand. Why? Because the people who sell weapons underground know that full-autos are a high-value commodity and that they're only used for one purpose. Add to that the fact that only certain types of criminals are more likely to have several thousand to spend on a weapon - esp. if they're shopping underground. Your everyday thug isn't going to have the money to carry around a full-auto AK.
So we're talking about percentages, just as with everything else: Car crashes, smoking deaths, stabbings, chopsticks in the eye....whatever. There are going to be people out there who have full-autos illegally. They are not as prevalent as some doomsday theorists would have you believe...that's why things like this:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/264709_shootmotive29.html
And Columbine - and a hundred other shootings over the past several years - aren't worse.
If you really want one, you're going to do whatever you can do find one. If your intent is just to go shoot someone, then chances are you're going to take whatever you can get and aren't going to spend a lot of effort in getting a full-auto on the black market. It's all percentages, people. The increased cost and decreased availability have impacted both sides of the legal line.

We already have enough of a battle keeping the bliss-ninnyies from taking our right to carry away. I don't wish to try to justify a desire to own a fully-automatic weapon without registering it in the same breath.

 

[pickpocket]

I don't fear them. I simply don't believe that arguing for the right to own one is productive when we're already fighting off people wanting to take away what we DO have. I support the law because it's already in place, and it doesn't PREVENT you from getting a machine gun if you want one. If your intentions are innocent and responsible, then 60 days shouldn't bother you too much...especially since many states take that long to approve a CHL. There are CCW holster makers that take that long to deliver a holster, so again...shouldn't be a problem to wait, right?

YOU can get one within 24 hours? You are an exception....I would also be interested to know if that could REALLY be done or if that is simply an assumption that you can walk down to the crack dealer's house at the end of the street and order one at the drive through. Many people assume it can be done...few can actually do it. An interesting consideration would be how much would it cost you, and that's if your "source" is even legit.
If you actually can, then you are an exception. I have known unsavory people my entire life and I can tell you in my experience it's not as easy as you imply for EVERYONE...and I live in Houston, not Smallville USA.

The difference between weapons and drugs is the difference between supply and demand. There are a LOT more drugs in this country - and a LOT more willing importers - than there are for illegal weapons.

 

[nrgetik]

I do not have time to read everything that was posted since my last post, unfortunately.

One statement caught my eye however...

he's trying his hardest to find a LOOPHOLE in the pre-existing law so that he can get around it and purchase new ones.

This is NOT what I am trying to do and WAS NEVER my intention. I take GREAT offense to this statement, so pickpocket: you are officially an a*shole.

I don't know the law NEARLY as well as some of the people on this forum, and I realized that, so as different ideas and notions came to me, I simply ASKED if they were legal or not; if they would work. Following some of that, I privately messaged a couple people and straight out asked them what the BEST route for me to take would be in LEGALLY OBTAINING A FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARM. Because, I knew there was more than one and I didn't have the time to research it myself, so I thanked those that gave me their input. I attached a screenshot of one such PM.

Again, pickpocket is a certified ass.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

...shouldn't be a problem to wait, right?

What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do you not understand?

....I would also be interested to know if that could REALLY be done

I'm well known as a gun fanatic among friends and co-workers. I get guns offered to me all of the time. Occasionally, that includes machineguns. So I know who has some and/or someone that can get them. The last one offered me was a .380 MAC for $250.

And Columbine - and a hundred other shootings over the past several years - aren't worse.

Have you ever fired a machinegun? It is my opinion that had the idiots at Columbine been using full-auto weapons, fewer people would have been killed. Why do you think the military did away with full-auto M16s and use 3-round bursts? Without extensive practice, hitting anything with a machinegun is very tough with sustained firing.

 

[pickpocket]

What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do you not understand?

None. What I obviously missed was the part in the dictionary where "infringed" was exchanged for "inconvenienced".

I'm well known as a gun fanatic among friends and co-workers. I get guns offered to me all of the time. Occasionally, that includes machineguns. So I know who has some and/or someone that can get them. The last one offered me was a .380 MAC for $250.

Then, as I stated, you are a statistical exception.

Have you ever fired a machinegun?

Actually, yes. And there are probably only a handful of people here who have as much experience.

It is my opinion that had the idiots at Columbine been using full-auto weapons, fewer people would have been killed.

Or maybe their tactics would have changed. What do you think a full-auto would have done in the hallways between classes? Or in the crowded cafeteria during lunch?

Without extensive practice, hitting anything with a machinegun is very tough with sustained firing

Thank you for arguing my original point for me. So you're saying that without extensive training that people wouldn't be able to effectively employ the fully automatic weapons that you're all vehemently arguing about? What would you do with them then? Use them ineffectively? Some argument for repeal of the NFA that makes.


And for nrgetik:

This is NOT what I am trying to do and WAS NEVER my intention. I take GREAT offense to this statement, so pickpocket: you are officially an a*shole

Additionally, are there any loopholes that I should know about that WOULD enable me to own such things, legally and practically? I live in Florida.

What if I went to another country, procured an automatic weapon of some kind, took it COMPLETELY apart, and shipped every individual piece back to the United States? What would happen then?

what if i purchased a fully automatic firearm in/from another country that was produced before the ban went into effect in the U.S. and had it shipped to a class 3 dealer in the U.S. or something?

Obviously it is more important to you that you do your best on every shot, but I wouldn't necessarily say we're on other ends of the spectrum. Although, I'm extremely glad I'm not like you. Extremely.

Yes, it is important to me. In my world people get killed if you're an idiot, choose fun over practicality, or make stupid decisions. We most definitely ARE on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I've been called much worse, and by people whose opinions I hold in higher regard.