What parts of the 1934 NFA and/or 1968 GCA do we have a realistic chance to repeal?

M

MasterPieceArms.com

Moderator
I'm asking because it's not apparent if the NRA is asking this question or even looking at the issue.

Are gun owners so comfortable with the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA that it's now "settled law?"
 
I would say some of these have a chance

1. Moving the date of manufacturer of recievers that require an FFL from 1898 to something probably closer to 1918. Even better would be to make it a rolling date. So every year, more guns can be bought without an FFL. Criminals are not likely to use a Mauser to rob a liquor store.:rolleyes:

2. Moving the date that guns become C&R from 50 years to perhaps 40 years. (We have to start somethere.)

3. The Full-Auto Ban of 1986 (Yes I know you can still buy "Old" MG made before 80. But for the average person it is effectivly a ban since very few can aford a $15,000 weapon that should cost $2000 at most.)

4. Import ban of 1989.

The following would be nice, but will probably not happen for awhile.

1. Suppressors, Short barreled weapons become deregulated.

2. There gets to be a Class 1 FFL "lite". This is so people like us can get guns dirrect from suppliers like we do with C&R guns. To make everyone happy it would cost $100 for 3 years and a person could buy as many guns as they want, sell a limited number of guns, and can do a very limited number of gun transfers. The limits listed do not apply if one uses a dealer with a "regular" Class 1 FFL.

These are just some of my ideas.
 
Crosshair, just reading about your ideas made me feel good (I would like all of your ideas to pass also), but no one is proposing any of that in congress (not that Hastert or Frist would bring it up for a vote anyway). For some reason the NRA can't even get the house to VOTE on the D.C. PPA (a speaker of the house who is just a shill for the establishment and the white house for starters). The house leadership refused to vote on the CLEAN immunity bill despite mountains of cosponsors. A tiny limit on D.C.'s gun bans was stripped in committee by a supposedly republican congress.

It just doesn't look good, which is why I used the phrase "realistic chance" and wondered if the NFA and GCA are now "settled law."

I'm not fishing for wish lists, I'm wondering if anyone has seen evidence that I've missed that constitutes a means to chisel away any part of the NFA or GCA.

I've noticed that people have a tendency to slip into either denial (making wish lists) or despair (doing nothing). I'm stubborn and a tad frustrated at seeing so many gun owners get comfortable in the denial and/or despair camps.

If the NFA and GCA are "settled law" then we're in big trouble. Partially because the republicans have squandered 10 years in congress, and partially because they are in real danger of losing some control in less than a year, putting open anti gunners in higher places.
 
You want a realistic answer in today's climate with today's set of members of the GOP and Democratic party.

The answer is none. The Dems have no interest and a Republican candidate is too worried about soccer moms and undecided to come near this issue.

Remember GWB repeatedly said he would sign the AWB if it got to him. I can see no one in real time who would go near these issues.

Sorry :o
 
I've got to agree with Glenn. Even the NRA's best friends in Congress and the Senate are not going to risk political suicide on an issue like repealing the NFA or any part of it.

The NFA and GCA are settled law, and if you had any doubts, just reconsider Raich v. Gonzales. The best we can hope for at this point is that the republicans can prevent any further loss of our rights. The antis have intruduced bills to create NFA classifications for title I firearms such as .50's and handguns, and we still need the republicans to counter these efforts.
 
I think the best chance at present would be to attempt to remove the "sporting" clause language from the '68 GCA. It is a "minor" wording change that opens us up to imports again.
 
Until we change those in charge, I would give any gun control laws being repealed as zero to none.

It's too much of a control factor. Once the government gets some to more control, they wouldn't let go of it, the control, for anything.

Just the way it is.

As it only took a handfull of men to go against the grain and throw tea into the harbor, most to all American's now days are the ones on the docks, shaking their heads and mumbling about how what is being done was/is a bad thing. Never lifting a hand to help create what used to be, a great Republic.

Wayne

*sorry to be so gloom on the issue, but no one is going to do anything.
 
Best hope? Status quo.

What do I think could even be changed?

1) Silencers. I hear all the time how we need to move towards European gun laws, well, many places require silencers. Lets move towards them :)

2) SBR's treated as handguns. There is no reason why they shouldn't be anyways.

3) MAYBE repeal the 86 MG ban. Be fun to see the Dems explaining how now that this time, we are really allowing MG's :)

4) MAYBE reduce handgun/handgun ammo and FFL age to 18. About as likely as reducing the drinking age.
 
I think that, with a good supreme court ruling, we can move the ball pretty far towards invalidating a lot of bad laws.
 
1934 and 1968 Gun Control legislation repeal

I don't think there is any chamce of the 1934 and 1968 Gun Control legislation repealed.
What I am waiting on is for Congress to completely repeal all the 1993 Clinton Gun Control legislation. Mostly the FFL requirements.
 
It would appear that the NFA Register re-opening is attainable. Gun Control Advocates are having a terrible time selling the "blood in the streets" approach any more. The sunset of the AWB, the issue of shall-issue permits, were all met with this cry, and nothing happened.

My personal opinion is that this could be a good time to introduce legislation for this issue. It could also be a good time to remove the "sporting uses" phraseology from the 1968 GCA, for many of the same reasons.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top