[Lord Soth]

Ok I probably do not know what I am talking about here but here goes... Just out of curiosity, do any of you think it is possible to get the 1986 machine gun ban lifted? What would it take? What steps would one need to take to try to get it overturned?

[Standing Wolf]

If every leftist extremist in the country were to move to red China or North Korea, there might be a chance; otherwise...

[chas_martel]

Oh man. I don't see it happening. But you never can tell.

I do wish for it to happen tho.

I don't know why more of a fight is not put up against all the lost rights by the NRA and everyone else.......... ;(

Someone needs to come up with a creative way to attack it. Like, say it descrimates against non-affluent persons. Somehow tie that to other civil issues perhaps. I dunno long shot I guess but that's off the top of my head. Perhaps like the guys in Kalifornia are attacking non-Shall issue - they are tying it to race.

[ctdonath]

The latest best chance of overturning it comes from the disagreement between the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts Of Appeal. Hopefully the Supreme Court will feel obligated to FINALLY examine & rule on the 2nd Amendment's meaning, which if dealt with honestly MUST result in the legalization of standard military arms (which now features the machinegun).

A straight-up attack on the '86 ban won't work now because no lower court will overturn it and no higher court will take the appeal (as we've seen in numerous gun cases); there's ususally SOME loophole they can wiggle through.

I believe the ban WILL be overturned in my lifetime, but doing so will require something more devious (if not downright accidental) than a straightforward rational proper approach.

[Monkeyleg]

We got to the stage we're at by our opponents using incremental steps: a ban on pre-'86 fullauto's; a waiting period; background checks; bans on cosmetic features; prohbitions on ownership by "domestic abusers."

Our problem is that, when we finally gain some high ground, everybody wants to lay back and take in the sunshine. That's fine for a month or two, but when you've got the momentum you should use it. We're not doing that.

Everybody's talking about how we don't have that much to fear under GW, or (insert your favorite governor here). Instead we should be on offense, trying to roll back anti-gun laws or enact pro-gun laws.

It can be done. With the will and force available, we could take ourselves back to 1968 and then some.

Problem is, who's going to do it?

[Justin]

The only way that I would see this happening would be if someone quietly attached it as a rider on some unrelated bill. Even that would be a longshot, though. As soon as word got out, you'd have every Dem in the country blathering on about how their opponent wants to legalize the wanton distribution of high-explosive child-killing machine guns to felons and child molestors.

:banghead: :fire:

[4v50 Gary]

After we're attacked by Al Qaeda again and people scream for more guns, maybe. First, all the other anti-gun nonsense has to go away. Then the obnixous ban. Uzis for everyone!

[NRAdude]

There is actually a way..... The only way I might add. If one were to challenge the 1936 US vs Miller ruling in the supreme court and overturn it, then all of the existing gun bans would fall apart. They are all based on 1936 US vs Miller. The entire argument on behalf of the government at the time was that "the sawn off shotgun that Mr. Miller was in possession of was not used by the military and therefore not used by the militia" and therefore the government could "regulate" guns. Again the overturn of this ruling would dissolve all existing gun bans 1989 import ban, 1986 machinegun ban, California 50-cal ban, etc....

[RedLion]

HA! I can just imagine how many cuss words I'd be yelling at the T.V. when CNN did a report on that case!


I'd have to agree with the idea of small steps, no way is it going to happen overnight.

[yokel]

After we're attacked by Al Qaeda again and people scream for more guns, maybe.

Fear is a great motivator. Nobody moves faster than someone fighting for their life.

Unbeknownst to many Americans, who having seen and experienced mostly the goodness of America, machine guns are an essential element in the modern arsenal.

[Gunnerpalace]

We got to the stage we're at by our opponents using incremental steps.............background checks;

We will get Full-Auto's before that,

We will never lose Background Checks never.

[macadore]

I consider anything else a compromise.

[Kentak]

I believe it's unlikely. But, what do I know?

K

[romeo212000]

If the Heller case rules in our favor it could set the stage for this. It will be up to us as a collective force to begin pushing for other issues if this happnes immediately after.

[alsaqr]

The National Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control act and the 1986 Machine Gun Ban will never be legislated out of existance.

[Robert Hairless]

Would anyone like me to predict what will happen in the last five and one-half years? I can do it with complete accuracy. :)

As a sample of what I can do, since January of 2003--when this thread originated--the Democratic Presidential nominee is likely to be a guy named "Barack Obama." I bet you didn't even know he existed in 2003. But I bet you probably guess that Hillary Clinton wants to be President too.

[Gunnerpalace]

The National Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control act will never be legislated out of existence

Fixed it,

I believe It can be overturned through legislative or legal means,

I think if it is legislative Congress will open the registry but will adjust the NFA tax for inflation which would mean, hold on I need to find that inflation calculator..............WOW

$3,186.99
2008

[ilbob]

The National Firearms Act, The 1968 Gun Control act and the 1986 Machine Gun Ban will never be legislated out of existance.
Maybe the answer is to handle it like congress handled the relief provisions for felons and others who want to get their gun rights back. Just don't appropriate any money to enforce these laws.

[brighamr]

I like the "adding it to a non-related bill" venture. Seriously, if some bill (insert whatever you can think of here) seems to have a 100% chance to pass, maybe one of the senators who still has some balls can write in a one liner on the final day (kind of how it happened in the first place).

If not that, then as others have suggested, we have every person on this forum apply for an M4 and get denied, then file collectively?

[yokel]

We must be fully committed to the elimination of all bans and measures that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning legally obtained firearms as the ultimate aim of all we do.

It needs to be seen and said clearly: there are, amongst us, appeasers and apologists and they have to be fought intellectually and politically.

[Zoogster]

There is actually a way..... The only way I might add. If one were to challenge the 1936 US vs Miller ruling in the supreme court and overturn it, then all of the existing gun bans would fall apart. They are all based on 1936 US vs Miller. The entire argument on behalf of the government at the time was that "the sawn off shotgun that Mr. Miller was in possession of was not used by the military and therefore not used by the militia" and therefore the government could "regulate" guns. Again the overturn of this ruling would dissolve all existing gun bans 1989 import ban, 1986 machinegun ban, California 50-cal ban, etc....

I have thought of the Miller case many times. It is contradicted so many times and is the basis of a lot of laws restricting firearms.

Since the entire argument that a sawn off shotgun was allowed to be banned under the NFA is that it was not a military weapon suited for a militia, then arguably full auto "machineguns" used by most military infantry are not covered under the NFA based on that logic.



The time to challenge gun laws is within a few years of them becoming law. That way the average person can recall the streets were perfectly fine and there has been little difference before or since the law.
Over 20 years later many people cannot even imagine such things. You hear "It was a different time" etc It is a more uphill battle because it seems so foriegn.

The same would have been the case for the federal assault weapon ban if it had lasted much longer. Fortunately it ended, and now many people that were just children back when it happened now know the streets have not changed much when such items are legal and widely available. If it didn't have a sunset clause, it may have been permanent, especialy if another 5-10 years had gone by.
Once something "too dangerous" has been illegal for a long enough period of time, the average person will believe the hype about how things would be much worse and more dangerous if it was changed.

We see that in nations that have restricted many weapons. We see that even here. I can recall many posters on this site talking about how things would be much more dangerous if the average person could just buy an affordable machinegun. Now if someone had said such a thing in 1987 or 1988 you could show them that is a bunch of crap with many years in thier recent memory as examples.
If they say it in 2007 or 2008 you cannot simply point to a couple years prior when it was not a problem. In another 10 or 20 years when most of the largest voting segment was not even alive or has memories of years prior to 1986 then it will be even harder to overturn it.

When laws are passed they often placate the current owners with grandfather clauses etc and keep a large number of them from focusing a lot of energy on overturning it. That keeps most of them content for the 5-10 years when they have the best chance of changing things.

[Deavis]

blast from the past!

[bigdaddydan]

probably not but in this day and age I have learned to say never :fire::fire::fire: we all need to get behind dr piazza of frontsight in Las Vegas Nevada and become first family members if you can afford it :what::what::what: pretty expensive but well worth it :eek::eek::eek:

[MD_Willington]

Would be nice.. then I could buy my dream carbine, Russian "Knight" Carbine in 9x19... or a FA Krink

[RNB65]

The chances of getting the ban overturned are slim to none.

The best way would be to challenge the legality of the Hughes Amendment which authorized the 1986 limit. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA was passed by an illegal voice vote late at night after many members of the House had gone home for the evening. It was a carefully orchestrated event by vengeful Democrats and spearheaded by Charlie Rangel. And it was completely illegal.

Attacking the legality of the Hughes Amendment is probably the only chance that the ban will ever be overturned because most politicians from either party could care less.
-

[lilguy]

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." -- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995.

If I remember correctly,the right honorable lady packs heat. It's a dangerous world out there.

[Zangetsu]

If they make a broad ruling in the Heller vs DC case, wouldn't that set the stage to get all sorts of silly bans overturned?

[Limeyfellow]

Fear is a great motivator. Nobody moves faster than someone fighting for their life.

Unfortantly it can have the complete opposite effect. The fear of communist attacks, gang violence and so on have been used to restrict firearms for over the past couple of centuries now. They could use that fear to restrict firearms even more strongly, such as during the 50s in California with the crack down on gangs because of the Black Panthers and so on being used as an excuse.

[kurtmax]

If they make a broad ruling in the Heller vs DC case, wouldn't that set the stage to get all sorts of silly bans overturned?

That's why there probably won't be a broad ruling. Wouldn't want to upset the status quo now would we?

[BullpupBen]

I think we need to move against these laws bit by bit. The way things are now it isnt likely the 1986 machine gun ban will be overturned (even though no one has been killed by a legally owned machine gun in over 50 years). However, the vast majority of anti-gunners wont understand the reasons for things like the 16" barrel limit, if we could get that changed to 12" or taken out all together it would be a good step in the right direction, and it just might be possible too.

[p2000sk]

I think if it is legislative Congress will open the registry but will adjust the NFA tax for inflation which would mean, hold on I need to find that inflation calculator..............WOW

$3,186.99
2008

Compared to the going rate for the real deal nowadays, I might be tempted
to buy a stamp like that if it was offered for sale.
Think about the merits of the deal, Treasury Department receives money and the good guys get the goods. I might want 2 of those stamps.
Stimulate the governments economy, if only .gov would accept it.
You can lead a horse to water...

As far as action is concerned, I should do nothing until the Heller decision is reached?

[Zangetsu]

As far as action is concerned, I should do nothing until the Heller decision is reached?

You planning on raising some hell? :evil:

[yokel]

Quote:
Fear is a great motivator. Nobody moves faster than someone fighting for their life.

Unfortantly it can have the complete opposite effect. The fear of communist attacks, gang violence and so on have been used to restrict firearms for over the past couple of centuries now. They could use that fear to restrict firearms even more strongly, such as during the 50s in California with the crack down on gangs because of the Black Panthers and so on being used as an excuse.



Indeed, fear can be either a great motivator, or a fierce road block.

Sometimes, however, a road block needs to be knocked down in order for us to grow.

[macadore]

OK, how about this? The government requires a license to own a machinegun the way many states require a license for concealed carry. Having that license would certify that you are not a criminal or under psychological care. People with a license could own any machinegun made and pay no special tax tax. This would allow responsible citizens to legally own machineguns and while not allowing criminals to legally own them. The criminals would, of course, still own them illegally. I realize this is not a prefect solution, but it is better than what we have and might be easier to sell than a complete reversal of the ban.

[ilbob]

The best way would be to challenge the legality of the Hughes Amendment which authorized the 1986 limit. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA was passed by an illegal voice vote late at night after many members of the House had gone home for the evening. It was a carefully orchestrated event by vengeful Democrats and spearheaded by Charlie Rangel. And it was completely illegal.

Attacking the legality of the Hughes Amendment is probably the only chance that the ban will ever be overturned because most politicians from either party could care less.
A lot of legislation is handled that way. Its a terrible way to run a country. A lot of bills get modified in committee, and no one even knows what is in them, but they vote on them the next day and have never even read them, much less know what is in them.

[Gunnerpalace]

Think about the merits of the deal, Treasury Department receives money and the good guys get the goods. I might want 2 of those stamps.
Stimulate the governments economy, if only .gov would accept it.
You can lead a horse to water...

I like that idea, that and the only other option would be the ATF creates a SOT type of MG collector, like the class 3 dealer but your do not have to sell them or get a law letter, at any rate 922o is a huge travesty.

[daskro]

I think if it is legislative Congress will open the registry but will adjust the NFA tax for inflation which would mean, hold on I need to find that inflation calculator..............WOW

$3,186.99
2008

I'd like to see something like this happen, the 86 ban is lifted but the tax stamp for machine guns specifically increases 10 fold. Sure, you'd still have to pay a minimum of 4 figures for a machine gun, but at least then we'd have a greater supply and newer selection of MGs.

[RNB65]

A lot of legislation is handled that way. Its a terrible way to run a country. A lot of bills get modified in committee, and no one even knows what is in them, but they vote on them the next day and have never even read them, much less know what is in them.

True. But it was over the top with the Hughes Amendment.

Are you familiar with what happened with the Hughes Amendment? Around midnight in an end-of-term marathon session, a voice vote was taken on whether to pass the amendment. Charlie Rangel was the presiding House Speaker at the time and many had gone home for the evening. Those present in the House chamber say that the Nay's were clearly louder than the Yay's, but Rangel declared it passed and refused a request by the ranking Republican for an electronic vote.

I'd call that WAY over the top.
-

[DoubleTapDrew]

I like the "adding it to a non-related bill" venture. Seriously, if some bill (insert whatever you can think of here) seems to have a 100% chance to pass, maybe one of the senators who still has some balls can write in a one liner on the final day (kind of how it happened in the first place).

:D Paper-clip it to the back of a "minature American flags for children" bill and pass it late at night, after the anti-gun politicians have gone home/passed out, by a voice vote.
Just getting rid of an obscure 28 year old unconstitutional restriction folks, nothing to see here, move along.

I was under the impression that the reason the $200 tax stamp price hasn't increased was because there was some regulation that forbid doing that? I wouldn't mind paying $200 on top of a new M4 for $1200, but would really like cheaper things like suppressors to move to title 1, and construction of SBS/SBR/AOW either moved to title 1 or reduced to $5.

If you want to really zap the country out of a recession, re-open the NFA registry. Manufacturers and machine shops start adding shifts, hiring more workers, and running 24 hours/day. ATF has so many $200 checks coming in it looks like a confetti factory. Ammunition manufacturers soil themselves. Millions of Americans get perma-grins as they rip off a FA burst for the first time in their lives. And the bell of liberty rings loud and clear across the country.

[p2000sk]

Quote:
As far as action is concerned, I should do nothing until the Heller decision is reached?

You planning on raising some hell?
In a rational, diplomatic sort of way.

I was 6 years old in 1985. My dad drank beer and played horshoes, caring nothing about registering MGs to "pass down". $15,000 or whatever for a civilian transferrable Colt M16 is a bit steep for me, thusly preventing me from buying at the present time. Who does that hurt? Me.

[p2000sk]

What if the topic came under a debate during transit atop Capitol Hill?
Pros: "I want affordable & equivalent firepower, for all legal purposes. I am being denied that, and that is unfair."
Cons:"You want firepower, and you want us to think that is fair?"

[jlbraun]

Paper-clip it to the back of a "minature American flags for children" bill and pass it late at night, after the anti-gun politicians have gone home/passed out, by a voice vote.
Just getting rid of an obscure 28 year old unconstitutional restriction folks, nothing to see here, move along.

That's what I've asked here before: "Why can't we pro-gunners fight dirty?" and the answer was "Because we don't do things that way." :banghead::banghead::rolleyes:

That attitude is what got us here now.

[Zangetsu]

That's what I've asked here before: "Why can't we pro-gunners fight dirty?" and the answer was "Because we don't do things that way."

That attitude is what got us here now.

So the question is, I believe, who's currently in office that would be willing to fight the good fight, even if it means getting a little dirty?

[p2000sk]

I enjoy this topic and would like to see its survival.
We need to keep this about "legal",
without going "political".
Thinkers block, I'm gonna try to sleep it off.

[ctdonath]

Methinks the problem is that nobody actually wants to go after it in court, personally. All are either scared by the alleged money involved, or by the fear that it's for all the marbles.

Screw that. We should ALL be filing "I WANT MY M16/M4" lawsuits - I mean every single one of us who would like to see 922(o) gone. Show the powers that be that it's not just a few freaks, but a whole lotta upstanding citizens. Get enough cases ruled on to get lots of conflicting results, forcing SCOTUS to take the issue head-on. Costs aren't that high, at least at the lower levels. Every citizen is to have access to "redress of grievances" - which they're not going to get if they don't file some paperwork and pay the price of a mere case of ammo.

My only real hesitation at this point is, indeed, waiting for Heller to shake out, as machineguns were clearly a concern and will undoubtedly be addressed in the final verdict.

Come June, I hope to see a LOT of people submitting Form 4s & 1s. When they get their "no" back, follow the paperwork trail accordingly. By the thousands.

[macadore]

Screw that. We should ALL be filing "I WANT MY M16/M4" lawsuits


Any chance the NRA will start pushing that in the next year? I would join and participate if they did. The people who do not want the machinegun ban overturned are like some hunters I have known who thought handguns should be banned. They don’t see the bigger picture. As Franklin said, “We will hang together or we will hang separately”. Ignoring the Bill of Rights is a very dangerous precedent.

[Hardware]

The mere thought of a lifting of the ban gets me thinking about the CMP selling M-14s. Oh please let some good law come from the Heller case.

[ctdonath]

Any chance the NRA will start pushing that in the next year?
It's a third-rail issue. NO organization will push for overturning 922(o). This can ONLY happen by "grass roots" action.

[Gunnerpalace]

Any chance the NRA will start pushing that in the next year?

The Shrike will come out before that happens,

It would take 2/3 of the member body to motivate them to do something like that.