Thoughts on full auto and the Hughes amendment

W

WeedWacker

New member
I understand that there is a possibility there could be a challenge to the legality of the Hughes amendment. I also understand that repealing the amendment is all but impossible due to public view of the status of MG's and also from some possible internal resistance from parties with vested interests (of course they are rumors, so I'm not reading much into them, I'm more concerned with public opinion).

In my reading I am understanding that the unpopular image is mostly due to a lack of physical and actual exposure to the full auto experience. This got me to thinking of ways to amend the Hughes amendment in ways that would assist in giving a positive light to full autos, to at least make them more available.

Most restrictive right now is not the laws but the price. If you can legally afford a firearm and your state permits it you can legally possess a machine gun. However, the nice ones cost an arm and a leg and if you invested that much money in something like an Uzi, as an average Joe you may wince in financial pain if the price of such a firearm were to drop by as much as 50% or more of it's original value if the option for new FA Uzi's were to hit the market. Of course demand would initially help but the overall value will drop.

I have a proposal as an amendment. What if each citizen were allowed to register one receiver as a fully automatic firearm were their state of residence to permit such firearms. You would have your choice: Pistol, rifle, shotgun. But only one receiver. It would still follow the spirit of the 2nd yet would be a small step in the right direction for a proper interpretation of the "well regulated" people.

Now the real question would be, would you get enough support for such a bill that it could pass through the House AND Senate? I don't think the current administration would support it so I would expect a veto. Perhaps a magazine capacity limit with a 10 year sunset as a compromise? (as much as I hate compromise and as foolishly ineffective a magazine capacity restriction would be. Just throwing that out there, little devil's advocate :barf:)
 
My Colt Thompson would probably retain most of it's value because of it's historical significance, rarity and collectors desire to own a part of history, but my M-16 and Uzi would probably loose some of it's value. I think I understand the part of your post about guns dropping in value.

But I don't understand the rest of what you are saying after reading it twice. I own three machine guns and want to buy more, I know there are other people that own dozens of FA guns so what would be the benefit to limiting ownership to only one gun?
 
But only one receiver. It would still follow the spirit of the 2nd yet would be a small step in the right direction for a proper interpretation of the "well regulated" people.
Click to expand...

I think you've got your wording backwards there...

It actually WOULD NOT be in the spirit of the second amendment, but it WOULD be a step in the right direction.

However, I see no more chance for that amendment than I do for a straight out repeal.

Think of it.... "No, no, we don't want FREE REIGN on full-autos.... we just want EVERYBODY to be able to own one!"

That's not very convincing to those prone to oppose full-auto.

Actually, getting the entire amendment appealed would likely be pretty simple. It has been suggested here before. All you need is for one lawmaker with enough, uh, bravery, in each house to insert a single line into one of the enormous, 2500 page, must-pass bills. That one line simply reads "Amendment XYZ of ZYX is hereby repealed." Likely, no one would even see that one line and likely anyone who did would not know what it referred to and would not likely look it up if they didn't know.

Viola. Maybe.
 
It would still follow the spirit of the 2nd yet would be a small step in the right direction for a proper interpretation of the "well regulated" people.
Click to expand...

In the 18th century the phrase "well regulated" did not mean what it does today (controlled by law, etc). It meant, quite simply, "well trained". And there's little debate about this amongst constitutional law experts, at least not that I've seen. I'm not arguing for no regulation of guns whatsoever, just clarifying what the 2nd Amendment actually says.
 
Current restrictions on full auto guns are clearly unconstitutional. That does not mean that you can chalange the laws or get them overturned any time soon. The Supreme Court has allowed these laws to stay in place by not allowing these cases to come to court. Police and prosecutor are careful about who they go after and use these laws sparingly. The general public likes these laws and don't want free access to full auto weapons.
Personally, I don't find full auto to be all that useful in almost all shooting situations. Gun test have shown that selective fire is better than full auto 95% of the time. That leaves the only legitimate use for full auto in civilian life is to shoot the gun at a range....just for fun.
Misuse of full auto weapons has lead to the deaths many innocent people over the years. The original 1934 NFA legislation was spurred by criminal use of full auto weapons. The Saint Valentine's Day massacre and the death of an 11 year old girl by stray machine gun fire was the last straw. In 1984, the first President Bush signed a bill prohibiting the manufacture of any new full auto weapons for civilan use. Because of supply and demand, the price has steadily gone up.
FYI - In 1934 a Thompson SMG sold for about $50. The NFA tax was $300. Six times the cost of the gun! Today, an AR-15 sells for $1000. An M-16 with the tax stamp sells for about $6000. Pretty much the same.
Given these facts, I don't see the current ban on manufacture of full auto weapons being overturned anytime soon. Unconstitutional or not, these laws are in place, enforced and not likely to go away any time soon.
 
FYI - In 1934 a Thompson SMG sold for about $50. The NFA tax was $300. Six times the cost of the gun! Today, an AR-15 sells for $1000. An M-16 with the tax stamp sells for about $6000. Pretty much the same.
Given these facts, I don't see the current ban on manufacture of full auto weapons being overturned anytime soon. Unconstitutional or not, these laws are in place, enforced and not likely to go away any time soon.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are off, the tax stamp has always been $200 and the Thompson never sold for $50, and unless the prices have dropped due to the poor economy the M-16 number is off
 
Plus, how do you compare the tax stamp to the gun price and then one gun price to another gun price and then claim some sort of correlation, even if the numbers are right?
 
Your numbers are off, the tax stamp has always been $200 and the Thompson never sold for $50...
Click to expand...
Correct, IIRC the original price for the Thompson in the late 20s to early 30s was in the $200-$250 range depending on options, which would be around $2,500-$3,000 in today's dollars. :eek: In fact, one of the reasons why it took over 15 years for most of the world's military forces to widely embrace the SMG concept was the high cost of the Thompson; it was understandably hard for military leaders to justify equipping lots of troops with an unproven and really expensive gun. It wasn't until WWII-era gun designers were able to design SMGs that could be produced cheaply using mostly stamped parts (notably the Sten and PPSh-41) that the concept really took off.

IIRC the cost of the Thompson to the US military did in fact drop to around $50/unit, but that really doesn't mean very much in relation to the retail price to prewar consumers.
 
Not just your numbers are off....

In 1984, the first President Bush signed a bill prohibiting the manufacture of any new full auto weapons for civilan use. Because of supply and demand, the price has steadily gone up.
FYI - In 1934 a Thompson SMG sold for about $50. The NFA tax was $300. Six times the cost of the gun! Today, an AR-15 sells for $1000. An M-16 with the tax stamp sells for about $6000. Pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

The Hughes amendment was "passed" in May, 1986, by voice vote only (and there is some interesting information coming to light that it might not have been passed legally according to proper procedure) and was intended to be a "poison pill" for the Firearms Owner Protection Act. President Reagan signed the FOPA, with the Hughes amendment, into law, considering it to be the greatest good for the greatest number of people, accepting the harm it did to FA enthusiasts, rather than seen the FOPA killed.

The NFA tax has always been $200. A Tommygun sold for about $200 back in those days. About 4 times (or more) the cost of a good rifle, and nearly 10X the cost of a budget shotgun. It was never "cheap".

ARs sell today for around $1000, BUT were less than half that as little as 20 years ago. NFA guns sell for outrageous prices because the supply is fixed, thanks to the Hughes amendment. There can be no more (until/unless we get the law changed, and that ain't happenin'). The $200 tax, each time the weapon is sold drives the price up, and always did. That was the intent of the huge (for the era) tax. FA guns were never cheap, and the NFA made sure that each time they got sold, they got more expensive!

The price today of legally transferable FA guns is sky high, and not going to come down. Some models are hugely expensive, because there are only a handful of them that exist as legally transferable guns. A vintage Tommygun can run $20-40,000 on the civilian market. The same gun, legal to transfer only to the police or military, is worth only a few hundred $, as the cops and military don't want them these days. The same gun, never registered, cannot be registered today, and is an illegal weapon, and is worth 10 years jail time!

Abuse of full auto firearms by their legal owners has been virtually nil for nearly 80 years. There is one crime documented (that I know of) done by the legal owner with their FA, and that owner was also a police officer! There may be another crime, or two that I am unaware of, but even so, so few crimes with so many (thousands) of guns, over so much time (since 1934) shows pretty conclusively that the people willing to follow the laws to own FA firearms are not the criminal type.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again, what we ought to do is have a legislator insert a line in one of those multiple thousand page "must pass" bills, making an "editorial change" to line xxx of public law XXX.xxx, to re-open the registry. Just take us back to the law as it existed in 1985. And do it without public hoopla or fanfare.
 
If you want to open the FA registry, I think the only politically expedient way in the next fifty years is to wait until more court cases go our way in the scotus, hope we get strict scrutiny, and then sue the feds claiming that FA is in common use in our own military and LEO agencies. I cannot envision a time in which the house, senate and president will all agree this is something worth doing, and taking the political beating to do it. There are still waaaaaay too many gun owners that still think FA firearms are of the devil.
 
I think Hollywood has ruined any chance at all for the loosening of ownership of automatic weapons for the foreseeable future.
 
Even in the likelihood I'll be scrutinized for this opinion, here is what I believe. As much as I would love to see the 2nd Amendment respected, honored, and cherished as much as it should be, I sadly believe that instead of focusing on ways to get things such as full auto rights, we should be focusing on protecting and securing what rights we have right now. From what I see, the view on guns and accessories is very frowned upon by many places in this very country. I live in the south. The part of the south where nearly everyone has a gun, I'd say 75% estimate. However, there is a lot of "negative" thoughts about certain types of guns, especially accessories. The view of the so called "assault weapons" is very negatively thought upon as a whole. Even though some people recognize the need for defensive firearms, most people see the exact same firearms as "offensive only". As in, why do you need that unless you are participating in violent actions. I once presented the argument to my public speaking class that we, as American citizens, should be allowed to possess any type of small arms as the military can. I was openly supported by one other person, and while there may have been a few other that agreed with part of or all of what I was saying, they were not vocal or apparent in their agreement. In order for us to "win" our full auto rights back, first we must assure the rights of "high capacity feeding devices", the color black on all firearms, the ability to change the LOP on a rifle via a small lever on the underside of the stock, things such as flash hiders and pistol grips, and all the other things that people say are "evil". Unless an amendment was "slipped in" to a large bill, we have just about as much change right now legalizing full auto weapons as we do legalizing shoulder fired SAM launchers. Also, one of my thoughts, and it's just my opinion, it would probably be best not to slip in such an amendment for a single, very big reason:

If an amendment were slipped into such a very large bill, and passed, eventually it would be noticed (evident, I know). The problem with this is, as I see it, as such. For one, it would overall bring vast negative public image towards the politician/s that did so, as well as their political party. Jackie Jorge in California probably hates the idea of civilians easily obtaining full auto firearms. So would most of the other people in the country. In my opinion this would make it easier for the other side to politicize things, and very quickly gain support for an anti-firearms bill. Something worse than the previous AWB. In such as situation, I also see that it could pass. Because once you get many politicians speaking of the "evils" of such weapons (full auto), and the media starts displaying images of random shootings and comparing full auto weapons to those crimes in various ways such as "this crime was committed with ONLY a semi-automatic weapon, imagine what it would have been if it had been full auto", I believe it would be very easy to rally enough support to allow such a ban to pass. First we much establish certain principles and values, those that the 2nd amendment were meant for, gain public support, and after we have tackled many of the smaller battles, then we can go towards the larger battles.
 
It meant, quite simply, "well trained"
Click to expand...

I know. How can you train with something if you do not have it? I certainly couldn't afford a pre-'86 Colt lower. If we were to keep the NFA and the sily registration scheme that goes with it and make any lower registered non-transferable... I suppose it's all wishful thinking empowered by impatience.

If an amendment were slipped into such a very large bill, and passed, eventually it would be noticed
Click to expand...

This also got me thinking as to what would happen to said amendment if the bill into which it was inserted were repealed. Like the health care bill which the Republicans would like to repeal this upcoming session. Would it go away as well? My recollection of government process is a little fuzzy on this topic

ETA: Peetza, I mention in the spirit as in putting modern arms in the hands of the people as it is an infringement to restrict what types of arms the people have.


And by the way, has anything come of the video's from the '86 vote?
 
I don't believe that many people understand that the second amendment was adopted as a counter weight to the power of the federal government. In 1791 many of our greatest leaders did not believe that the US would stand for more than a generation. This nation had just freed itself from the tyrany of a king. In order to preserve the power of the states and the people; a guarantee that the people would be armed was made.
The last ruling by the Supreme Court on gun rights upheld that this is both a state right and an individual right.
The clear implication is that the people should be armed with what ever small arms the armies of the world are currently using. Any restriction is unconstitutional. Thus, the government could leagaly ban hunting arms of all types, but not M-16's or AK-47's. Any small arm with potential military use should be protected. States, on the other hand, can and should keep their own armies. It is also clear that this is not just a right, it's a reponsibility.
That said, the reality is very different. People demand that their government maintain law and order. The fear of crime is simply higher than a fear of an out of control government.
Can the public be convinced that free access to military small arms is worth the price of misuse by the criminal and insane?
 
Governments have killed more people that all the crimes ever committed (by them regular folks like us) put together.

Not an actual statistic, but I just don't see how it couldn't be true.
 
Oh, that's true. But it's a matter of who is dying. 9/11 killed 2752 people. Almost all were involved in business, bankng and trade. Not all were US citizens and some in the trade center were Muslims.
The Iraq war has killed over 100,000 *; mostly Iraqies. With 4432 US deaths.
Afghanistan has 1360 US deaths and over 20,000 * Afghani civilians dead.
(note * : True figures are hard to come by. These are low end estimates. Some groups claim over 900,000 Iraqies dead.)
Six dead in Tucson seems small by comparison but most people feel a connection to these people.
We come to the key questions:
Is our right to bear arms worth the price?
What is the cost of abridging or deleting that right?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
 
If an amendment were slipped into such a very large bill, and passed, eventually it would be noticed (evident, I know). The problem with this is, as I see it, as such. For one, it would overall bring vast negative public image towards the politician/s that did so... In my opinion this would make it easier for the other side to politicize things, and very quickly gain support for an anti-firearms bill.
Click to expand...
+1. My main fear is that any amendment to reopen the registry would not only be noticed, it could reopen public debate about the NFA in general. Since the "hot button" political issue at the moment is the budget deficit, a clever opponent of the amendment could use this as an excuse to insert a provision raising the "Machine Gun Tax" (catchy tagline, isn't it?) to, say, $3,000. :eek: Then what have we gained?

IMHO this particular issue would be better tackled in the courts.
 
Just an idea....
I had once thought that anyone with an honorable discharge from the military would be eligable to purchase firearms. No limits. Anyone else would have to prove their fitness (at their own expense) to own a firearm. A graduated system might be used. Thus a shot gun might be easy to get, a handgun might require 100 hours of training and a background check, a machine gun might require the same as a hand gun and a one year wait with a mental fitness check.
If we had universal military service, this would work even better.
Any thoughts on this?

Keep in mind, this would not have stopped Timothy McVeigh.
 
I've been a shooter since 1970 and an NRA member since '71 or so. Had a chance to shoot a MG a couple of times but could never hope to have the $ to buy the one I'd want. That said, I couldn't imagine the government loosening up on any regulations constraining ownership.

Public opinion would be so against it. Images of cocaine cowboys, drive by shootings by gangs in LA would dominate the conversation. Since the recent shooting in AZ we will be lucky to keep the high caps for our pistols and the semi-auto assault rifles. The antis and general public perception would never allow for easing of the the laws applying to MGs. Just IMHO.
 
Well according to the anti-gun groupes full autos are legal. They continually fail to tell people that there it a difference between semi and full. IE. on CNN it was reported that the AZ shooter used and "automatic" glock. I think it would be funny if these groupes had to explain to their supporters that there is a difference so that they can oppose the legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top