How Can One Get a New Machine Gun?


PDA






ConservativeMetalhead
June 10, 2010, 06:35 AM
OK, so I know I asked a question earlier if the Hughes Amendment would be repealed so don't bite my head off. I'm fairly new to guns so forgive me for asking a simple question, but I'd like to know how one can get a MG made AFTER 1986. I think I heard something about a level 3 Dealer's Licenses? I donno.

Side Question: Will MG after 1986 EVER be legalized?

Thanks,



~Gramm

If you enjoyed reading about "How Can One Get a New Machine Gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pikid89
June 10, 2010, 06:55 AM
join the army

DeepSouth
June 10, 2010, 07:29 AM
Move to Switzerland.


Seriously, there isn't any way to get a NIB full auto gun in the US, unless your the Gov. At least there's no way I know of. If it's full auto it had to be registered before 1986, nothing has been allowed to be registered since, new or old.

Side Question: Will MG after 1986 EVER be legalized?

Very, very doubtful.


EDIT:
Come to think of it, unless I'm mistaken you can get a manufactures license of some type that would allow you to manufacture full auto weapons for sale to Military and police. I'm betting those are few and far between.

I still say there should be a Sticky on this.

Sam1911
June 10, 2010, 07:34 AM
If you were to become a Federal Firearms License holder (gun dealer or professional gunsmith) and then become a Special Occupational Taxpayer, Class 03 (dealer) or Class 02 (manufacturer) you could get your hands on some. Maybe. These would be "Post '86 Dealer Samples." As an 03 Dealer you can only get these with a letter from a law-enforcement agency looking to buy one. (Good luck with that. Most PDs don't see a realistic need for such, don't have much cash, and can get M16s from the federal government for like $25 each or whatever so ... yeah, good luck with that.)

As an 02 Manufacturer you can make your own new MGs for testing and sales samples purposes.

Getting your FFL and paying the taxes (along with rather a lot else) is for someone who will make a profession of the gun dealing business. It is not a route for a hobbiest/enthusiast to play with cool guns.

mrnkc130
June 10, 2010, 07:35 AM
become a dealer or a manufacturer and pay applicable SOT taxes.

My dealer is a regular guy living in a regular house down the road from me, except he has a HK g36! And many others...

jmorris
June 10, 2010, 09:39 AM
Seriously, there isn't any way to get a NIB full auto gun in the US

I purchased a NIB MG last year...but it was made in '76.

become a dealer or a manufacturer and pay applicable SOT taxes.


Thats it.

Bubbles
June 10, 2010, 10:02 AM
Side Question: Will MG after 1986 EVER be legalized?

This question can be better answered depending on the USSC's decision in the McDonald case (due by 6/28/10), and on the outcome of the Heller II case (which will be a few more years).

While I have an 07 FFL / C2 SOT it's not really an inexpensive way, in either money or time, to procure post-86 machine guns.

ConservativeMetalhead
June 11, 2010, 04:52 AM
This question can be better answered depending on the USSC's decision in the McDonald case (due by 6/28/10), and on the outcome of the Heller II case (which will be a few more years).

While I have an 07 FFL / C2 SOT it's not really an inexpensive way, in either money or time, to procure post-86 machine guns.
@DeepSouth: Move to SWITZERLAND? I though European Countries had HIGH gun control.

@Bubbles: Can I watch the McDonald Case and Heller II case on TV?

Bubbles
June 11, 2010, 08:58 AM
Can I watch the McDonald Case and Heller II case on TV?

With the McDonald case everything is done except for the release of the USSC's decision, which will occur on or before 06/28/10 as that is the last date of the session.

Heller II is being appealed, and I don't know how much, if any, of it will be televised.

aggiez28
June 15, 2010, 11:32 AM
Getting your FFL and paying the taxes (along with rather a lot else) is for someone who will make a profession of the gun dealing business. It is not a route for a hobbiest/enthusiast to play with cool guns.
actually there are MANY MANY hobbiest/enthusiast that have small firearms businesses with FFLs/SOTs. they get to have the cool toys and make a few bucks at the same time.

you have to be in the firearms business to be legal, you dont have to have a big business.

earlthegoat2
June 15, 2010, 11:50 AM
Getting your FFL and paying the taxes (along with rather a lot else) is for someone who will make a profession of the gun dealing business. It is not a route for a hobbiest/enthusiast to play with cool guns.

Just another thing for me to do after I win the lottery.

Sam1911
June 15, 2010, 11:58 AM
actually there are MANY MANY hobbiest/enthusiast that have small firearms businesses with FFLs/SOTs. they get to have the cool toys and make a few bucks at the same time.


Good to hear. Please explain for us how the costs and work break down for an "average joe" looking to get into the FFL/SOT2 route. I know that could mean a lot of things depending on where you are, but just do it for your area. I mean, if you've got $10,000 or so to spend on the business stuff (not on guns & ammo) is this workable?

What would it cost in your state/city to establish a business (license, zoning, insurance, etc.), obtain your FFL, become an SOT 02 (or 03), pay all necessary federal, state, etc. taxes, etc. to do this legally? An idea of start up capital needed, as well as an estimate of recurring yearly fees would be very helpful.

Then what are the duties, responsibilities, and liabilities, etc. that the new FFL/SOT has to be aware of and on top of? Some of us forget to mail the cable bill...hate to think that there could be larger repercussions for simple absentmindedness as regards your hobby business!

It may be that the persistent claims that this is not a reasonable way to enjoy an extensive personal collection of Title II toys are just another internet myth. Enlighten us!

PTK
June 15, 2010, 12:50 PM
Sam,

Holding a 02/07 manufacturing FFL/SOT isn't much different than holding a C&R, except instead of JUST doing transfers for yourself, you MUST also do things for others in seeking profit. It's really not too bad.

Now, liability - yeah, that's a huge issue. Workload? Nah, it's fine.


Bottom line, though - if you want a manufacturing license just to play with machineguns, you're going to get caught, and you WILL spend time in jail for tax evasion. Period. If you're a manufacturer, you MUST be in the business of doing R&D, or transfers for people, or SOMETHING in the interest of profit regarding the license. PERIOD.

Sam1911
June 15, 2010, 03:08 PM
Holding a 02/07 manufacturing FFL/SOT isn't much different than holding a C&R, except instead of JUST doing transfers for yourself, you MUST also do things for others in seeking profit. It's really not too bad.


In what ways is it the same, and how is it different? I'd very much like to see the costs broken out like I mentioned before.

Do you need a legal (properly zoned, adequate parking, etc.) place of business? Do you need a business license? Do you need insurance? Do you need to pay ITAR as well as the other yearly taxes? How much do these things cost?

What kind of "huge issue" is liability insurance?

Who will be checking your tax records to prove that you're "in the business of?" And what satisfies them that you are?

Again, "if you've got $10,000 or so to spend on the business stuff (not on guns & ammo) is this workable?"

How do the penalties stack up for minor mistakes with records keeping & such compared to the level of commitment most of us gun-hobbyists dedicate to such things?

And how is this different for an SOT03?

None of this is to be argumentative. I'm very curious. However, I've read a LOT of descriptions of how things are not (or are no longer) favorable for the hobbyist and very few that claim that the "fun" is worth the work -- absent a desire to make a career out of it.

GoingQuiet
June 15, 2010, 03:46 PM
OK, so I know I asked a question earlier if the Hughes Amendment would be repealed so don't bite my head off. I'm fairly new to guns so forgive me for asking a simple question, but I'd like to know how one can get a MG made AFTER 1986. I think I heard something about a level 3 Dealer's Licenses? I donno.

Side Question: Will MG after 1986 EVER be legalized?

Thanks,



~Gramm
Short version: Find dealer that has NIB Transferable machine gun for sale that has never been fired (They're out there!)

Pay appropriately.

GoingQuiet
June 15, 2010, 03:58 PM
Sam, here's what I went through. The FFL application CLEARLY says - are you in business to make money? If no, stop application. Are you becoming a licensee to improve a private collection? If yes, stop application.

The FFL is not a hobbyist license. It is a license for a business. As others have said you can have a small business with selective customers but it has to be a business.

Zoning is dependent on locality. I know 07 gunsmith's zoned in their house. They got a variance from the zoning board or they are zoned agricultural or other category that lets them conduct business. My zoning is commercial, but that's not a requirement.

You need a business license. In FL, if you sell used merchandise you are required to register as a secondhand dealer. Also, the city fire department will make sure you have the appropriate fire prevention equipment.

Insurance is optional. Good idea, but not required to be an FFL.

ITAR goes to the state department for firearm manufacturers. It's around $2250 if I recall.

Insurance is difficult. I called 20 insurance brokers. One called me back and gave me coverage with the stipulation that 15% MAX of my sales are firearm related. I did not clal him back.

Tax records? ATF looks at your business and only ATF. The investigators that visited me are more accountant and compliance oriented rather than heavy handed jack booted thugs the internet loves to preach about. I have nothing bad to say about ATF, all my interactions have been friendly, professional and pretty clear cut.

To clear up a few things that I've learned since becoming an FFL.

Myth #1 - ATF requires you to have an alarm.

False. ATF is looking at zoning and compliance with local laws.

Myth #2 - ATF requires you to have a safe

See above

Myth #3 - ATF requires you to have bars on your doors.

See above.

Myth #4 - ATF can come to your house and kick the door down with a no knock warrant anytime they want whenever they damn well please and you waive your right to privacy by becoming an FFL.

Some FFL's are licensed in their house. I know of one gunsmith who when getting his annual inspection had the inspector say "Where is this integrally suppressed 22?" He said: Give me a minute to get it, it's in my sons room.

My business is zoned commercial. I may store firearms anywhere I please so long as my records are reflective of where they are kept. For instance, if I have a storage unit at Joes Mini Storage - I note that AR15 serial # ABC1 is located at Joes Mini Storage. If I need to take something to the range for testing, I note that. If I say, stored in my home garage hanging upside down covered in cosmoline and ATF wants to come by and look at it, I am required to comply with their request and bring them to my house and show them that firearm. Noncompliance from what I understand is automatic license revocation.

Hope this info helped.


In what ways is it the same, and how is it different? I'd very much like to see the costs broken out like I mentioned before.

Do you need a legal (properly zoned, adequate parking, etc.) place of business? Do you need a business license? Do you need insurance? Do you need to pay ITAR as well as the other yearly taxes? How much do these things cost?

What kind of "huge issue" is liability insurance?

Who will be checking your tax records to prove that you're "in the business of?" And what satisfies them that you are?

Again, "if you've got $10,000 or so to spend on the business stuff (not on guns & ammo) is this workable?"

How do the penalties stack up for minor mistakes with records keeping & such compared to the level of commitment most of us gun-hobbyists dedicate to such things?

And how is this different for an SOT03?

None of this is to be argumentative. I'm very curious. However, I've read a LOT of descriptions of how things are not (or are no longer) favorable for the hobbyist and very few that claim that the "fun" is worth the work -- absent a desire to make a career out of it.

Sam1911
June 15, 2010, 06:28 PM
Thanks GQ! That's some of the kind of information I hoped to get.

Obviously, if someone wants to go this route badly enough, it is eminently possible. But it is important that folks who want to start down this path have a clear view of what a commitment it represents.

On the one hand, no one would choose to devote so much effort and expense to becoming an FFL and SOT payer if they weren't huge Title II weapons enthusiasts. (Well, aside from the vast wealth such a career path brings! ;)) On the other hand, only a very small percentage of folks who are Title II weapons enthusiasts (to whatever degree) are willing to make the commitments to be one.

RyanM
June 15, 2010, 06:39 PM
I guess an option no one's mentioned yet is buying a small island, declaring it a sovreign nation, and then importing machine guns? I think you'd have to transport the guns there via a private plane, though, with the really ridiculous laws on what you can have on a boat.

DoubleTapDrew
June 15, 2010, 06:42 PM
I had heard that the ATF was working to crack down on "kitchen table dealers" who mainly had their SOT for personal collection reasons, based out of their house and not really making any money at it, but don't know if that's true or not. It sounds like from Going Quiet's first paragraph it's at least a concern of theirs.

GoingQuiet
June 15, 2010, 06:45 PM
I had heard that the ATF was working to crack down on "kitchen table dealers" who mainly had their SOT for personal collection reasons, based out of their house and not really making any money at it, but don't know if that's true or not. It sounds like from Going Quiet's first paragraph it's at least a concern of theirs.
Drew, I know a few kitchen table dealers but that may be a function of them actually being able to run a commercial business from their house. Some localities allow it, some do not. Also of concern: Homeowners associations. If you have an HOA or Condo Board, you may have bought into an area that expressly prohibits any business activity. Thats where you get a few sticking points as well.

GoingQuiet
June 15, 2010, 06:46 PM
In what ways is it the same, and how is it different? I'd very much like to see the costs broken out like I mentioned before.

Do you need a legal (properly zoned, adequate parking, etc.) place of business? Do you need a business license? Do you need insurance? Do you need to pay ITAR as well as the other yearly taxes? How much do these things cost?

What kind of "huge issue" is liability insurance?

Who will be checking your tax records to prove that you're "in the business of?" And what satisfies them that you are?

Again, "if you've got $10,000 or so to spend on the business stuff (not on guns & ammo) is this workable?"

How do the penalties stack up for minor mistakes with records keeping & such compared to the level of commitment most of us gun-hobbyists dedicate to such things?

And how is this different for an SOT03?

None of this is to be argumentative. I'm very curious. However, I've read a LOT of descriptions of how things are not (or are no longer) favorable for the hobbyist and very few that claim that the "fun" is worth the work -- absent a desire to make a career out of it.
Sam, when I got my license I knew I had to do paperwork but after my first week of being a bona fide FFL, I signed my name so many times I could have sworn I bought a house.

W.E.G.
June 15, 2010, 06:49 PM
I had heard that the ATF was working to crack down on "kitchen table dealers"

Its true.

But I found a loophole.

I no longer sell complete kitchen tables. I only sell plans and kits. When shipping interstate, I ship the legs and the tops in separate containers. I also include an insert with the tops, in 40-point boldface font, that the tops are for REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT ONLY, and are not to be used to assemble newly-manufactured tables.

I keep my mailbox at a UPS store under a pseudonym.

DoubleTapDrew
June 16, 2010, 12:27 PM
LOL! Well if you have some registered drop in auto hinges it could be used to assemble a newer table.

mtclimber
June 16, 2010, 10:37 PM
@ ConservativeMetalhead "@DeepSouth: Move to SWITZERLAND? I though European Countries had HIGH gun control."
Switzerland may be a unique situation, the Swiss Army is a government organized militia, all (as far as I understand) Swiss Males are required to go through military training, at age 20 I believe, and they are issued full auto SIG 550's that they must keep at home. Once there term of service is up they can keep the gun, but it is sent back to Sig and the full auto capability is removed. Switzerland has one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership in the world.

berrieberrie
June 17, 2010, 02:44 PM
to SWITZERLAND? I though European Countries had HIGH gun control

You thought wrong. This once again shows that "Europe" still (praise the Lord) isn't ONE singular country, and that the huge differences between countries are relatively unknown to US gun enthusiasts.

Apart from Switzerland, FAs are legal in the Czech Republic (which is even a better place for gun ownership than Switzerland) and Finland.

ConservativeMetalhead
June 19, 2010, 01:53 AM
You thought wrong. This once again shows that "Europe" still (praise the Lord) isn't ONE singular country, and that the huge differences between countries are relatively unknown to US gun enthusiasts.

Apart from Switzerland, FAs are legal in the Czech Republic (which is even a better place for gun ownership than Switzerland) and Finland.
Could you tell me about the gun laws in Czech Republic and Finland?

guntrustlawyer
June 27, 2010, 11:17 PM
Civilians cannot own non-transferable post 1986 NFA weapons. The law probably won't change in this regard.

It is not worth the effort to obtain an SOT (Class 2 or 3) (license - to manufacture or sell machine guns) unless you expect a significant sales volume.
I applied for a Class 2 manufacturer's license and had to wait approximately one year before the required BATF interview. Then my San Antonio zoning was not appropriate. I rented another space with the correct zoning but the location was not suitable to BATF. I decided it was not worth it and withdrew my application. Instead of manufacturing class 2 weapons myself, I financed the manufacture by Class 2 manufacturers and accomplished the same result with less overhead but more problems (due to lack of control)

RhinoDefense
July 2, 2010, 09:00 AM
The Hughes Amendment wasn't actually passed.


132 Cong.Rec. H1741-06 Page 16 of 31

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is read, I would like to know if the amendment was one of those printed in the RECORD prior to today. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey whether his amendment has been printed in the RECORD? Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in the RECORD, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has it been printed in the RECORD by Mr. HUGHES? The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it is not required that the sponsor of the amendment have it printed in the RECORD. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES to the amendment as amended, offered by Mr. VOLKMER as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended: Section 102 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking out "and"; (2) in paragraph (8), by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (9) by inserting after the subsection added by paragraph (8) of this section the following: "(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. "(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to- "(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or "(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.". Section 110 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended by adding at the end the following: (c) MACHINEGUN PROHIBITION.-Section 102(9) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request that the amendment be considerd as read and printed in the RECORD. I ask my colleagues, in all fairness and rationality-we only have 3 minutes left-to give me an opportunity to explain why machineguns should be banned. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regular order and reserving the right to object–– The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment. I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machineguns. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey moves that the Committee do now rise? Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey . The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12, as follows:

AYES-124 Ackerman Akaka Anderson Annunzio Anthony Aspin Atkins Barnes Bates Beilenson Bennett Berman Biaggi Boland Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conyers Cooper Coyne Crockett Dellums Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar Edwards (CA) Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Foglietta Ford (TN) Frank Garcia Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez Gordon Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hawkins Hayes Henry Hertel Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee Kleczka LaFalce Lehman (CA) Lehman (FL) Leland Levin (MI) Levine (CA) Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules McKinney Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller (WA) Mineta Moakley Moody Morrison (CT) Mrazek Oakar Owens Porter Price Rangel Rodino Roe Rostenkowski Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Scheuer Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL) Solarz Spratt St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Udall Vento Visclosky Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Wolpe Yates

NOES-298 Alexander Andrews Applegate Archer Armey AuCoin Badham Barnard Bartlett Barton Bateman Bedell Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boggs Boner (TN) Bonker Bosco Boucher Breaux Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron Callahan Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey Coble Coelho Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Conte Coughlin Courter Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer Darden Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell DioGuardi Dorgan (ND) Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK) Emerson English Erdreich Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Florio Foley Ford (MI) Fowler Franklin Frenzel Frost Fuqua Gallo Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gradison Gray (IL) Gregg Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall, Ralph Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon Hiler Hillis Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones (NC) Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kasich Kemp Kindness Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer Lagomarsino Lantos Latta Leach (IA) Leath (TX) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd Loeffler Long Lott Lowery (CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan Marlenee Martin (IL) Martin (NY) Mazzoli McCain McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade McEwen McGrath McHugh McKernan McMillan Meyers Mica Michel Miller (OH) Mitchell Molinari Mollohan Monson Montgomery Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA) Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson Nowak Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Panetta Parris Pashayan Pease Penny Pepper Perkins Petri Pickle Pursell Quillen Rahall Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Roberts Robinson Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Roukema Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer Schneider Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH) Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm Strang Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas (GA) Traxler Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise Wolf Wortley Wyden Wylie Yatron Young (AK) Young (FL) Young (MO) Zschau

NOT VOTING-12 Addabbo Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O'Brien Schulze Stokes Wright

General Geoff
July 2, 2010, 12:01 PM
To the OP:

Convince the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an NFA amnesty (which would allow anyone to register any non-registered machine guns, destructive devices, silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs). Hasn't happened since 1968.

DoubleTapDrew
July 2, 2010, 03:29 PM
The Hughes Amendment wasn't actually passed.
So the Hughes Amenedment is actually null and void? It was attached to the signed bill as I understand but if it wasn't eligiable to be there it should be voided.

RhinoDefense
July 2, 2010, 03:34 PM
Yes that's correct. The Hughes Amendment never passed therefore could not legally be on the bill that President Reagan signed on that fateful day. 922 (o) is completely BS from a legal standpoint. It wasn't passed therefore the signature of President Reagan makes no difference and means nothing. It's not a "cleanser" that all of a sudden makes something legal and it most certainly cannot be mandated by and Executive Order.

Sam1911
July 2, 2010, 03:41 PM
922 (o) is completely BS from a legal standpoint. It wasn't passed therefore the signature of President Reagan makes no difference and means nothing.And how does this "fact" work to our advantage? Is there a strategy we can use here to get the Registry re-opened?

RhinoDefense
July 2, 2010, 03:47 PM
If you have enough money (ie contact Stephen Halbrook) and use the official vote count (posted above but available from the US Library of Congress for free) as your affirmative evidence, the Supreme Court has no choice but to rule it unconstitutional (doesn't follow the lawmaking rules set out in it) therefore null and void.

Then if you're still rich, you can use the precedent set forth in Murdock v PA 1943 to tackle the actual tax portion of the NFA of 1934 ("No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, tax it, nor charge a fee therefore.") State has been held to mean any form of government, be it chartered state of the United States of America or the federal government itself.

Two things holding it back:

money
drive of the American gun owners as a collective group

If every member of any gun rights type organization, from the NRA, GOA, the little state clubs, etc gave $1 to the cause, there's your funding.

Sam1911
July 2, 2010, 03:54 PM
Cool, then! Post this in Activism with a plan of action and some contact info for whomever will be spear-heading the effort. You couldn't have found a more enthusiastic group of supporters than the membership of THR.org!

(It might help to have a credentialed attorney critique your battle plan and claims that this is a "sure thing" as it will help deter the nay-sayers.)

razorback2003
July 2, 2010, 06:32 PM
How is the Hughes amendment then enforced the past 25 years if it never actually passed? Is there some other procedure that makes it valid? Are there some good lawyers that are pretty good with this stuff? It would be nice if the Post 86 ban did not exist for machine guns...thus driving down the price....but if you own a pre 86 machine gun you may not be too happy b/c they are good investments.

The best way to own a machine gun is pay the pay the piper the 200 bucks...and get a pre 86 one right now....expensive but about the only practical way to do it as an individual.

The manufacturer and dealer ways are VERY expensive...you're talking liability insurance, zoning, 'business' purpose, incorporation w/ the state, lawyer & acct fees, maintaining a business and all the headache that goes along with it. That will cost you more than a Post 86 machine gun....UNLESS you really want to be a manufacturer or dealer.

RhinoDefense
July 3, 2010, 11:04 AM
I'm a class 2 manufacturer and it's not that expensive.

It's been enforced because it was on the bill that Reagan signed. However, no one questioned its passage to be on the bill in the first place. It was put on there despite the vote result. It should not have been on the bill because it didn't pass. Neither did the 16th Amendment but we still pay income tax.

ThePunisher'sArmory
July 3, 2010, 11:07 AM
Im sure you can get a machine gun on the streets of Compton or East St Louis.........sorry could not resist.

chaplain tom
July 4, 2010, 10:44 AM
Except to say you have one, what could you possibly want with a machine gun?

RhinoDefense
July 4, 2010, 12:29 PM
Recreational shooting, shooting competitions, research for firearms development, and defense of country (defense is about preparation, not playing games of probabilities. Proper defense is such that we make the country so well prepared, an attack upon it is folly to our enemy.)

Ever since the enforcement of the Hughes Amendment, development of fully automatic small arms has seen a drastic reduction in occurrence. Now instead of the private sector of individuals making improvements for a mere $200 a piece tax, it is left to the private sector manufacturers which is an investment just to be legal. Now the suppressor industry has seen many innovations as their use is regulated to the $200 tax upon making or transfer. The private (non-government, non-military) sector of the country has brought such excellent innovation and design such that the military is now using silencers more than ever. When you limit industry and limit the free mind of a people to innovate, you are limiting the power and technological strength of their country.

And before you state the "blood in the streets" and "needs" mantra, there has been a total of ONE case where a machine gun that was legally possessed was used in a crime. It was a police officer that killed his wife and her lover in 1935 with a personally owned and properly registered machine gun.

North Hollywood shootout? Those were illegally converted.

I have quite a respectable collection of machine guns (plus a supply of machine guns made under my company's Class 2 status) and none of them have been used in a crime.

Mr.Davis
July 4, 2010, 03:24 PM
Except to say you have one, what could you possibly want with a machine gun?
A "good reason" doesn't have to be demonstrated for one to exercise a right. However, there had better be a darn good reason for infringing on the rights of a law-abiding individual.

What reasons can you provide justifying elitist rules that allow only to the rich and the police to own machine guns?

chaplain tom
July 5, 2010, 11:16 AM
First of all, I was never concerned with the "blood in the streets" thing. And I agree that private "civilian" owned industry WILL be as it always has been the leaders in inovation of ANY technology not just weapons. But I fail to buy the "recreational shooting" argument for a private citizen owning a fully automatic weapon. I personally would not want to see a large market of machine guns for sale to the generaly public. I believe that would be like throwing gasoline on a fire in many ways. The anti-gun idiots already think that those of us who love guns and more than that wish to be able to protect our families or just hunt for game are blood thirsty and itching to "kill" someone. As I said they are the idiots, not us, but claiming a right to own a machine gun (right or wrong) only strengthens their argument in the press and to congress about why we shouldn't have any guns. Not to mention the FACT that most crimes involving guns are commited with STOLEN once LEGALLY owned guns. I wouldn't want to face a more powerful criminal element armed with fully automatic weapons. The way I see it, the more legal machine guns there are in the private sector, the more illigal machine guns there would then be on the streets because of the theft of those guns. Most law enforcement agencies in this country are in favor of law abiding citizens right to carry a conceled hand gun for self defense, those same law enforcement agencies are staunchly opposed to legalizing fully automatic weapons. They learned the hard way in the roaring 20's that gangsters with machine guns were not a good thing and back then the gansters could get them legally. I respect your opinion on this and I agree with your thoughts the government infringing on our constitutional rights. I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use. The collecting of rare old guns is one thing, even machine guns, but I just think that legalizing machine guns is a can of worms we shouldn't open.

Sam1911
July 5, 2010, 11:44 AM
Tom, a lot of people believe the way you do, or have believed so in the past. A lot of people feel, or felt, that it was socially accpetable to own long guns, but that handguns were just too dangerous and what sort of person needs a gun they can carry around in public anyway? Mobsters and criminals, that's who!

Now, it is the recognized right of every law abiding citizen in nearly 40 states to carry a sidearm with them in public every day. How times have changed!

Later, many people believed that owning a hunting rifle or shotgun was a reasonable right to request from the government, but military "assault weapons" had no place on "our streets." Who needs a bullet hose that has no purpose but to kill people?

Now, military style carbines are the most popular kind of firearm in the U.S., for training, for competition -- even for hunting. The most common face of gun owners many people see is of average folks owning and using substantively the same weapon carried by our combat soldiers. Who would have believed that 20 years ago?

The same goes for the idea that assassins and hit men were the only folks who would ever want a silencer. Now the market is flooded with innovative and effective silencer/suppressor designs available to to common shooter (with the required paperwork) to keep down range noise complaints and protect hearing.

The fear of (or ABOUT) machine guns is just another iteration of this kind of unfounded assumption about what society will do -- or think -- if we gun owners dare to take the next step.

When you consider that a) there are lots -- make that LOTS -- of legally owned machine guns in this country already; and, b) there are plenty of illegal conversions in the hands of criminals already -- and we don't really suffer a noticable social impact from either -- the argument against collapses utterly.

[Edited to add: In your defense (I'm assuming, here) -- it really helps to have some hands-on expereince with machine guns to arrive at the more enlightened viewpoint. From the movies and/or "from a distance" a machine gun appears to be an overwhelming tool of mass destruction. Once you've done some practical shooting with them you start to realize both how powerful -- and how oddly limited -- they are. When you understand that a person holding up a 7-11, or even attempting a mass murder in a public place, is not really any more dangerous with an M-16 than they are with an AR-15, your opinion starts to shift.]

chaplain tom
July 5, 2010, 12:03 PM
I'm NOT necessarily against machine guns. Nor am I afraid that there will be blood in the streets because of them. I just think that a little give and take would get us a lot further with our argument for our right to own and carry a practical self defense weapon. I don't believe for a minute that crimes by law abiding citizens using machine guns would increase either. However the number of machine guns on the streets would increase to some degree and the cops would have to deal with that. With the right (I hate to cuss like this but) control measures on LEGAL machine guns crime against the average citizen would probably not change that much at all. I don't know maybe pushing the machine gun thing right now is maybe stirring the pot a little too much at this time. Those are my real concerns. Not an increase in violence on John Q. Public.

And I've always been in favor of silencers for public use. We are not a nation of "Hit Men" or silent stalkers as some would have us believe.

RhinoDefense
July 5, 2010, 12:03 PM
Fine. You don't like machine guns, don't buy one. But don't you dare tell me it isn't my right to own one. I don't care what law enforcement thinks and I certainly don't need their permission to own or carry a firearm.

With the proliferation of carry permits and handguns in the last 20 years, theft of handguns has NOT increased. In the last 10 years firearms ownership has grown exponentially yet crime has gone down and the theft of firearms has gone down despite the ownership numbers increasing. Why would you think the case would be with machine guns? Criminals don't follow laws. They will make their own. Theft of firearms isn't as frequent as some make it out to be.

sv51macross
July 5, 2010, 12:12 PM
What is the theft rate for NFA items actually? I know that guns get stolen, but how many NFA items are stolen every year?

RhinoDefense
July 5, 2010, 12:53 PM
I think in 2009, there were less than a dozen NFA weapons stolen. A few of those were like 2-3 silencers from a guy at a range. Think he's a member here by the name of PTK. Few more NFA weapons were taken by the former president of Anvil Arms when he went AWOL on the creditors. NFA theft is extremely infrequent and quite rare.

General Geoff
July 5, 2010, 01:14 PM
I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use. The collecting of rare old guns is one thing, even machine guns, but I just think that legalizing machine guns is a can of worms we shouldn't open.

We've been playing defense since 1934. It's time we finally go on the offensive. I say we push, and push hard, for NFA reform and deregulation. Not just for machine guns, but for destructive devices, SBSs, SBRs, silencers, and AOWs.

Ingsoc75
July 5, 2010, 03:54 PM
There have been a few bills introduced in congress over the years that would of opened up the registry for NFA class vet bring backs but they never went anywhere.

Probably the easiest way to repeal the Hughes amendment would be to "sneak in" a change as part of a larger bill.

RhinoDefense
July 5, 2010, 11:46 PM
Like the budget bill or education bill.

Sebastian the Ibis
July 6, 2010, 02:20 PM
There is actually a government program that gives out Machine Guns and all sorts of NFA stuff. You can sign up here (http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp).

RhinoDefense
July 6, 2010, 03:28 PM
They don't give them out, you have to earn the privilege.

chaplain tom
July 8, 2010, 02:28 AM
Fine. You don't like machine guns, don't buy one. But don't you dare tell me it isn't my right to own one. I don't care what law enforcement thinks and I certainly don't need their permission to own or carry a firearm.

With the proliferation of carry permits and handguns in the last 20 years, theft of handguns has NOT increased. In the last 10 years firearms ownership has grown exponentially yet crime has gone down and the theft of firearms has gone down despite the ownership numbers increasing. Why would you think the case would be with machine guns? Criminals don't follow laws. They will make their own. Theft of firearms isn't as frequent as some make it out to be.
Rhino, I would NEVER infringe on your right to own a LEGAL firearm. I'm sorry you got that impression. If you like machine guns gor for it. I wouldn't stand in your way. I'm just giving MY opinion on the usefulness of a machine gun. Other than the fact that they ARE a blast to shoot, can't personally see much use for them in the private sector. That doesn't mean however that YOU don't see a use for them. Like MANY others who post here, I fought a war to defend YOUR and MY right to buy and own ANY LEGAL firearm. We should at least be able to disagree on ANY topic EXCEPT our inalienable rights. And I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what those are except the paper the Word of God is written on which tells me all I need to know about my God given rights. One of those rights is our right of opinion. SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT THAT RIGHT IS. As far as what the police THINK...I couldn't care less. What I was referring to is their concern about MAYBE having to face one when responding to a call. I wouldn't want to face one either. I've used them in battle and they are nasty. Will they have to face them when responding? Absolutely! It WILL happen some time or other. Will it happen often? I doubt it. Will allowing the private sector to own them increase the number of machine guns out there? How could it not? Will those numbers be significant? Only time will tell. Neither you nor I can see the future. BUT I AM ALLOWED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, just as you are allowed not to be.

RhinoDefense
July 8, 2010, 03:07 AM
I'm not debating your right to opinion, I'm debating your opinion itself. It seemed like you were questioning the right to own a machine gun, which I took offense to. My apologies.

There are a lot of gun owners that don't hunt and simply like shooting. Some like machine guns so they buy them and shoot them. I dig it. My company is a Class 2 SOT and can make whatever we want. For many new hires, the novelty wears off quickly. Torture testing our silencers with 10,000 rounds of full auto fire will do that to a guy.

There are more machine guns in the country than you can imagine. The citizens that have them take great care to not let them be stolen (wish all gun owners were like that). Every decade where firearm ownership increased, firearm theft didn't rise proportionally. I just don't see it happening with machine guns or any other NFA weapon.

mrnkc130
July 8, 2010, 03:16 AM
Rhino, I would NEVER infringe on your right to own a LEGAL firearm. I'm sorry you got that impression. If you like machine guns gor for it. I wouldn't stand in your way. I'm just giving MY opinion on the usefulness of a machine gun. Other than the fact that they ARE a blast to shoot, can't personally see much use for them in the private sector. That doesn't mean however that YOU don't see a use for them. Like MANY others who post here, I fought a war to defend YOUR and MY right to buy and own ANY LEGAL firearm. We should at least be able to disagree on ANY topic EXCEPT our inalienable rights. And I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what those are except the paper the Word of God is written on which tells me all I need to know about my God given rights. One of those rights is our right of opinion. SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT THAT RIGHT IS. As far as what the police THINK...I couldn't care less. What I was referring to is their concern about MAYBE having to face one when responding to a call. I wouldn't want to face one either. I've used them in battle and they are nasty. Will they have to face them when responding? Absolutely! It WILL happen some time or other. Will it happen often? I doubt it. Will allowing the private sector to own them increase the number of machine guns out there? How could it not? Will those numbers be significant? Only time will tell. Neither you nor I can see the future. BUT I AM ALLOWED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, just as you are allowed not to be.

Really? wow man...I don't even know how to respond...not sure if you are serious or just trying to play the devils advocate...better stay in the fudd section of the forum...or whatever it is you are into...

chaplain tom
July 8, 2010, 03:27 AM
Really? wow man...I don't even know how to respond...not sure if you are serious or just trying to play the devils advocate...better stay in the fudd section of the forum...or whatever it is you are into...

I thought this forum was open to anyone and their opinion, not just a place for single mindedness?

mrnkc130
July 8, 2010, 04:54 AM
But I fail to buy the "recreational shooting" argument for a private citizen owning a fully automatic weapon. I personally would not want to see a large market of machine guns for sale to the generaly public. I believe that would be like throwing gasoline on a fire in many ways.

It's not about "recreational shooting". Owning a machine is our right as a citizens of the United states, if you dont support it you are no better than the anti's.

As I said they are the idiots, not us, but claiming a right to own a machine gun (right or wrong) only strengthens their argument in the press and to congress about why we shouldn't have any guns.

Pandering to them is not a solution, we already have the right to own machine guns.

The way I see it, the more legal machine guns there are in the private sector, the more illigal machine guns there would then be on the streets because of the theft of those guns.

replace machine gun with handgun and you could have cut and pasted that from the brady website

I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use. The collecting of rare old guns is one thing, even machine guns, but I just think that legalizing machine guns is a can of worms we shouldn't open.


Sure... you dont like machine guns so why should anyone have them right? Machine guns are already legal, the 2a is not just about hunting or being able to own a handgun for self defense.

I just think that a little give and take would get us a lot further with our argument for our right to own and carry a practical self defense weapon.

If you know anything about the fight for 2a rights you would know it doesnt work that way, they will take ,take, take until everything is gone. You may only be concerned with "personal self defense weapons" but there are many people who are concerned with more than that, please stop advocating giving away others rights because they of no interest to you.

I thought this forum was open to anyone and their opinion, not just a place for single mindedness?

You are free to post what ever you want, but you posted "I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use" here in the NFA section of gun forum. Thats like posting you hate lance armstrong because you think he is gay on bike racing forum.

chaplain tom
July 8, 2010, 06:09 AM
You are free to post what ever you want, but you posted "I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use" here in the NFA section of gun forum. Thats like posting you hate lance armstrong because you think he is gay on bike racing forum.

As I have stated, I'm not against your right to own a machine gun. I only have opinions on it's use. Stop twisting my words just because you don't agree. I'm all for recreational gun use in any way that doesn't endanger someone else. And no I'm not accusing you or anyone else who owns a machine gun of being unsafe. There are many people who have strong dissagreements with me about my choice of a derringer for a CCW because they strongly believe it's of no use as such. Fine, but it's my choice. Just like it's your's to own and fire a machine gun for fun. I wouldn't choose that weapon myself, but like I have said, it's your choice just don't try to force that thought on me. I'm only voicing opinion, you seem to be accusing me of being anit gun because I don't see it your way. Don't be so forceful about your beliefs while denying me of mine. You seem to be a little thin skinned when someone disagrees with you on anyting. It seems I read somewhere on this forum that it was intended for discussion and we should be able to agree to disagree.

Sam1911
July 8, 2010, 06:47 AM
We absolutely have the right to express our opinions here, to be right, to be wrong, and to disagree -- as long as we do it in a civil, gentlemanly fashion.

Calling another member an anti-gunner (or a "Fudd!") is getting close to insulting and isn't o.k.

On the other hand, pointing out how close a member's rhetoric is to that of our enemies is certainly appropriate.

Tom holds what is likely to be a pretty unpopular opinion, but it isn't a terribly uncommon one out in the world. We must be able to argue against that opinion forcefully -- decisively, even -- without stooping to personal attack and negative emotional appeal.

The facts and logic are on "our" side. Use them persuasively. Don't create enemies through needlessly accusatory language.

Ingsoc75
July 8, 2010, 07:49 AM
Here is the exact text of section 922(o) of US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect toŚ

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Would it require only a re-wording of paragraph (2)(B) to repeal this?


I saw some references to section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in other sections of 922 but have no idea if that matters.

45bthompson
July 8, 2010, 07:56 AM
Hey Tom,
I think it is great that members here have differences of opinion. It gives people a chance for dialog rather that everybody just chirping along with the same ideas. It is true that people get a little out of their lane on the internet sometimes. When people are not looking into the face of another man it is easy for them to express rude behavior. That is what makes THR so great. Its not tolerated here.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from reading your posts that you are not so much against machine guns but that you personally don't see a need for them. It also seems that your opinion that we should not pursue the legal availability of post 86 NFA items stems from the idea of keeping the anti gunners from having leverage on us.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I don't foresee a problem with allowing the American people the rights that they have already been given. Plus the anti's are not going to stop fighting. They are losing ground and I think this would be a great time to take on new ground.
By the way I do agree with your decision to carry a derringer. I carried an American Derringer model 1 for years.:)

RhinoDefense
July 8, 2010, 11:13 AM
Would it require only a re-wording of paragraph (2)(B) to repeal this?
No, just a sentence attached to any bill stating "18 USC Chapter 44 922 (o) is hereby struck and repealed" would suffice.

A is the "cops and government only" provision. This statement would be eliminated.

B is the "civilians" provision. This statement would be eliminated.

Doing A and B would turn the NFA back to it's original form (except the changes of the definition of a silencer [to include parts of such] prior to 1986 and would allow civilians to own any machine gun, new or older, except with respect to imported machine guns after 1968 (as banned by the GCA of 1968).

rscalzo
July 8, 2010, 11:31 AM
theft of firearms has gone down despite the ownership numbers increasing.

Data does not support that.? UCR stats:

Year Value/Stolen Value/Recovered Percent Recovered

2008 Firearms 142,215,920 12,207,052 8.6
2007 Firearms 116,746,215 10,151,048 8.7
2006 Firearms 103,559,485 9,475,233 9.1
2005 Firearms 93,487,243 8,107,822 8.7
2004 Firearms 95,487,885 9,068,485 9.5

RhinoDefense
July 8, 2010, 12:14 PM
142 million guns stolen in 2008? Riiiight.

rscalzo
July 8, 2010, 12:23 PM
STOLEN VALUE..... not number of stolen.

DoubleTapDrew
July 8, 2010, 01:27 PM
What are the number of stolen guns? Value just shows guns are getting more expensive, it may not be more guns stolen.

Either way, restricting the number of MGs to the law abiding doesn't affect criminals, and if full auto so effective and devistating someone should tell the US Military to stop shooting semi auto.

KBintheSLC
July 8, 2010, 02:16 PM
What are the number of stolen guns? Value just shows guns are getting more expensive, it may not be more guns stolen.

Ditto. Comparing gun prices from 2004 and 2008 is misleading. At the end of 2008 people were asking 600+ for a lousy used Romanian WASR. Back in 2004, you could get brand new one for less than half that.

rscalzo
July 8, 2010, 02:34 PM
Ditto. Comparing gun prices from 2004 and 2008 is misleading

Not necessarily. Many of today's firearms are much cheaper than in past years. The popularity of the Keltec's and others can have a big influence on the total cost. The firearm's industry Representative such as the NSSF might be a better indicator of what is being sold in what quantity. UCR values are far from accurate and simply an estimate of the item's value in most cases.

Yet the OP has not stated where his data came from determining that the number has dropped. The UCR reports only value, not the number removed from the location. I'm not aware of any national data on that type of theft.

rondog
July 8, 2010, 03:00 PM
I always thought I'd love to have an MG of some kind, until I rented a few at an MG shoot and realized just how quickly they burn through ammo (and cash). Lots of fun for sure, but those things sure like to eat! I thought feeding my Beagles was expensive.....

rscalzo
July 8, 2010, 03:12 PM
Feeding is a bit pricey. But they are are fun when someone else is picking up the tab for the ammo.

My concern is that many ranges have little margin for error in their construction. In own case FA is not permitted as even a slight rise would possibly have rounds passing over the tops of the berms.

JTW Jr.
July 8, 2010, 11:29 PM
paraphrase something I personally witnessed years ago at SHOT Show.

One of the groups , might have been one of the 50 cal groups , was asking passerby's to sign a document to shoot down an assault rifle bill ( or some time of selective anti-assault weapon legislation ).

One old boy walking by stopped and said " Nobody needs assault rifles , they just end up in the wrong hands ".

When the person attending the booth asked the gent what he hunts with he replied " Remington 700 ".

" Well sir , you might want to know , that model Remington 700 is on the list , its considered a Sniper Rifle , as are many other hunting rifles , so you might want to start looking for something different ".

Old buy read the verbage , and quickly signed the doc....

So while some may not have the urge to own and shoot full auto , remember , we are all in this together , rifle , handgun , shotgun , smg and belt fed shooters.

Make no line in the sand , we stand as one , or we fall as one.... ain't no middle ground for the anti's.

me , I love SMG's and belt feds , suppressors and SRB's :)

Respect everyone's right to choose what they want to own & shoot , and save the disrespect for those who feel we shouldn't own any of them.

JTW Jr.
July 8, 2010, 11:37 PM
I'm NOT necessarily against machine guns. Nor am I afraid that there will be blood in the streets because of them. I just think that a little give and take would get us a lot further with our argument for our right to own and carry a practical self defense weapon.


And I've always been in favor of silencers for public use. We are not a nation of "Hit Men" or silent stalkers as some would have us believe.

So in your opinion , sir , what reason can you be for suppressors but not for full auto ?

Many choose a full auto for the simple reason to master the trigger control , attend a subgun match , and see for yourself. If you are ever in Vegas , the 2nd Sunday of each month , stop by and check out the longest monthly SMG match in the US of any club.

Anywhere from 20 to 60 shooters will gather to have a friendly safe competition , feel free to read and view more on our local site ( mods I hope this is ok ) at:
http://www.vegasshooters.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?14-Monthly-Subgun-Match&s=&pp=20&daysprune=-1&sort=lastpost&prefixid=&order=desc

chaplain tom
July 9, 2010, 02:09 AM
Hey Tom,
I think it is great that members here have differences of opinion. It gives people a chance for dialog rather that everybody just chirping along with the same ideas. It is true that people get a little out of their lane on the internet sometimes. When people are not looking into the face of another man it is easy for them to express rude behavior. That is what makes THR so great. Its not tolerated here.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems from reading your posts that you are not so much against machine guns but that you personally don't see a need for them. It also seems that your opinion that we should not pursue the legal availability of post 86 NFA items stems from the idea of keeping the anti gunners from having leverage on us.
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I don't foresee a problem with allowing the American people the rights that they have already been given. Plus the anti's are not going to stop fighting. They are losing ground and I think this would be a great time to take on new ground.
By the way I do agree with your decision to carry a derringer. I carried an American Derringer model 1 for years.:)
You have hit the nail exactly on the head. I DON'T want any right we have taken away. I just personally (just me mind you) don't see a NEED for a machine gun. Like I said, If you like 'em shoot 'em. I was just expressing not only MY concerns, but the concerns of thousands of Americans, most of whom ARE gun owners themselves. Education is the key to this subject, not name calling or personal attacks.

As for silencers, some of us live in areas where noise restrictions prohibit us from having any ranges to shoot ANY gun at. The silencer would help a lot in that situation. That's all I was saying there.

Alecbh
September 19, 2010, 10:02 PM
I don't know all of the specifics, but don't ammo sales contribute a pretty good chunk of tax money to the parks services, and related departments? Can we not imagine the increase in ammo sales, if FAs were legal? And, would that not "stimulate" the economy, like everyone seems to want? AND, it would create jobs.... What about those angles, to convince our reps to pursue this?

RhinoDefense
September 19, 2010, 10:36 PM
The amount of ammunition sold would not have a large or measurable impact on the economy.

thorazine
September 21, 2010, 03:38 PM
There is actually a government program that gives out Machine Guns and all sorts of NFA stuff. You can sign up here.

Will the army give me a MG that I can take home and play with whenever I want?

desidius
October 3, 2010, 11:32 PM
I've been trying to find the answer to this question, I hope someone can explain.

What would be a legitimate use for a FA rifle for civilians to own?

Are there any uses for self defense?

JTW Jr.
October 3, 2010, 11:57 PM
As with other firearms , it is pride in ownership , mastery in control.

It does take skill and practice to master control and hits with a FA firearm , unlike TV you don't hammer the trigger and hit everything in sight , in reality that isn't how it works.

One reason , competition. Other reason , because in some states you can :)

devildog32713
October 4, 2010, 01:46 AM
the 2nd amendment is my legitimate reason. Exactly JTW, exactly, haha. The reason the Japanese didn't invade our homeland in WW2, is because they knew civvies we're armed to the gills, not with bb guns and .22 crickets, but many of us had high powered rifles, shotguns, and some FA's.

Sam1911
October 4, 2010, 07:13 AM
I've been trying to find the answer to this question, I hope someone can explain.

What would be a legitimate use for a FA rifle for civilians to own?

Are there any uses for self defense?


Not sure exactly what you are asking.

Are you filling out a Form 4 and you're looking for the best answer for the "reasonable necessity" question in box 15?

Most folks seem to like, "Sport shooting," "Collecting," or some variation, but the most comprehensive answer I've seen is, "All Lawful Purposes."

...

Or are you just asking in general -- sort of a "why would you ...?" kind of question?

In that case, the answers are things like adding valuable pieces to a collection, sport/competition shooting, the belief that "civilians/citizens" should have something approaching parity with the powers that be, practice for mastery of the skills involved in using those kinds of weapons, etc.

The best answer is the simplest: I don't need a reason. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "If they've got a good enough reason..." :)


[ETA: There have been one or two self-defense cases with legally-owned full-auto weapons. Not many though, as their value makes it awfully hard to face sending one off to the police evidense locker for a lengthy (perhaps permanent) stay. Further, there are many types of full-auto weapons. Only some of them are useful/effective for home or personal defense.]

desidius
October 4, 2010, 09:26 AM
Hi Sam, thanks for answering.

Basically it was more of a general question. I mean if the government wants you to go jump through hoops and pay extra fee's to purchase a full auto pre-ban rifle. Aside from sport shooting or gun collecting. I'm assuming there are real self-defense applications for owning a full auto firearm.

I guess I'm speaking for most people my age (30 and below) who never had the chance to own a fully automatic rifle, or who has never served. So most of the reference material we have are either from movies or TV. And we all know how accurate that is.

Sam1911
October 4, 2010, 09:45 AM
I'm assuming there are real self-defense applications for owning a full auto firearm.

From a "Strategy and Tactics" point of view ... maybe.

Certain full-auto firearms are very effective and appropriate for personal or home-defense. Small, compact submachine guns, and maybe even true assault rifles -- if the user is familiar with the best practices for their use -- could serve that purpose very well. It would be VERY arguable to maintain that they would be BETTER for self-defensive purposes than a repeating shotgun or a semi-auto carbine -- or even a more maneuverable handgun. All that would depend greatly on the situation, setting, and user.

But those are just a small sub-set of what the National Firearms Act recognizes as "machine guns." When you consider select-fire main battle rifles (FALs, G3s, M14s, etc., etc.) you're probably pretty far past the point of diminishing returns. Even the militaries that fielded those guns found little use for the average soldier running them on "full auto." They are difficult to control for almost all shooters. And, your home is not a war zone where suppressive fire is acceptable and "collateral damage" comes with the territory. And a large number of transferable machine guns are crew-served, belt-fed weapons (M-60s, M-2s, M-1919s, PKMs, Lewis guns, Maxims, etc., etc.). No place for those in home defense for 99.99% of us.

And, it all comes back to the question of value. If you can defend your home perfectly well with a $200 shotgun, why would you use a gun that cost five or ten times that -- knowing that if you ever have to shoot it at an attacker, it will probably spend years in a police locker, and you might never get it back at all?

mboylan
October 5, 2010, 10:42 PM
From a "Strategy and Tactics" point of view ... maybe.

Certain full-auto firearms are very effective and appropriate for personal or home-defense. Small, compact submachine guns, and maybe even true assault rifles -- if the user is familiar with the best practices for their use -- could serve that purpose very well. It would be VERY arguable to maintain that they would be BETTER for self-defensive purposes than a repeating shotgun or a semi-auto carbine -- or even a more maneuverable handgun. All that would depend greatly on the situation, setting, and user.

But those are just a small sub-set of what the National Firearms Act recognizes as "machine guns." When you consider select-fire main battle rifles (FALs, G3s, M14s, etc., etc.) you're probably pretty far past the point of diminishing returns. Even the militaries that fielded those guns found little use for the average soldier running them on "full auto." They are difficult to control for almost all shooters. And, your home is not a war zone where suppressive fire is acceptable and "collateral damage" comes with the territory. And a large number of transferable machine guns are crew-served, belt-fed weapons (M-60s, M-2s, M-1919s, PKMs, Lewis guns, Maxims, etc., etc.). No place for those in home defense for 99.99% of us.

And, it all comes back to the question of value. If you can defend your home perfectly well with a $200 shotgun, why would you use a gun that cost five or ten times that -- knowing that if you ever have to shoot it at an attacker, it will probably spend years in a police locker, and you might never get it back at all?

Who in their right mind would want a $12,000 M16 or a $16,000 MP5 sitting in a police locker.

If you enjoyed reading about "How Can One Get a New Machine Gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!