Who want's a full auto .22? Lets help make a law.


PDA






geolemer
November 17, 2009, 02:29 PM
Let's email a government official, all of us email as many as we can so they get swamped with our emails about an exception to the "Hughes Amendment" of 86, but only for rimfires. For example you could registers a full-auto .22LR or .17 mach 2 but not a 9 mm Uzi. (well work on that later) That way they won't half to repeal any existing laws and we just might make some head way. If your on board with this idea help spread it to other forums. If you chose to email an official (I hope you do) provide them with as many facts as possible.

This is a Website that has a list of some of the senate, if you have others please post them. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

If you enjoyed reading about "Who want's a full auto .22? Lets help make a law." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Demitrios
November 18, 2009, 08:27 PM
I thought full auto .22's were being sold by GSG. If they sell them in the U.S. aren't they legal? Obviously not all over but in some states.

KC9LDB
November 18, 2009, 09:11 PM
Didnt even know GSG made a full auto

hso
November 18, 2009, 11:11 PM
Ok, so what are the details of this plan? What's the argument to present for this? What sort of language would the amendment have? Who are the target CongressCritters so that you'd have a chance of starting the ball rolling? What upcoming legislation could be used to get the amendment introduced?

22-rimfire
November 20, 2009, 06:57 AM
The GSG-5 is a semi-auto 22. Why only rimfires?

I think it would be a very good idea to explain what the Hughes Amendment was.

Blakenzy
November 20, 2009, 08:55 AM
The first step to making legislators hear pleas to eliminating the Hughes amentment is to educate the local citizenry about automatic firearms. Hell, you will probably have to start with your local shooting ranges, most of which probably don't even allow the presence of legal full autos through some misguided thinking. Ignorance an prejudice about MGs is rampant even among us shooters, not to say society in general. As of now, MGs are considered evil and extraordinarily dangerous by most, and are generally associated with criminal activity, even though statistics show otherwise. You are going to have to make some hefty grassroot efforts in the real world to bring the "evil monster" stauts of automatics down to reality. Until a good number of the electorate understands that MGs are not a death sentence to every mall, preschool and church in thier neighborhood no politician(including NRA affiliated) will even touch that poison pill.

So how do we get people to see that MGs are not monsters? Well I guess we ought to start organizing MG shows in our communities(not just wait until the once a year out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere mega shootout), where people can come see the guns and the kind of people that own them(presumably decent, honest and upstanding) and maybe even shoot one at fun targets.

TexasRifleman
November 20, 2009, 09:08 AM
I hate to poo poo activism but I see many problems here. The biggest:

Consider the case of an AR-15. I can make my AR shoot rimfire with the right upper correct?

And, the law now is that the lower receiver is the firearm, regardless of the upper.

So, under this plan I would be able to register my .22 AR as a full auto. On the Form 1 I'd put "22" in the caliber section.

Now, here's the problem.

What if I swapped uppers? I put a .223 upper on my registered lower.

The ATF has always operated that things like that are OK for the most part. To make this work with rimfires only, the ATF would have to reverse their ruling on that.

So, this change you propose would basically break every other legal machine gun owners ability to use different uppers on their rifles.

Unless you propose that lowers registered AFTER 86 can be .22 rimfire only and lowers registered BEFORE 86 can do anything. Or, more likely, ATF would rule the lower itself is no longer a firearm, only the entire assembly is a firearm.

The potential unintended consequences could be a disaster for people that already own pre-86 NFA firearms.

flor1
November 20, 2009, 10:30 AM
As far as having full auto at a range I have to say I'm against it simply because I've seen to many people who can't shoot a semi-auto without destroying everything in sight. It's to bad but thats the reality of it our club has to much torn up by people who couldn't control their weapons.

TexasRifleman
November 20, 2009, 11:15 AM
s far as having full auto at a range I have to say I'm against it simply because I've seen to many people who can't shoot a semi-auto without destroying everything in sight.

That's really no reason to argue against legalizing full auto weapons more. Ranges would still have the option to ban the use of full auto. Most ranges have limitations on that anyway.

Frankly that's a bit of an "anti" position to take, you might want to rethink that. You do know that it's legal to own full auto already right?

Titan6
November 20, 2009, 12:00 PM
about an exception to the "Hughes Amendment" of 86, but only for rimfires

I always wanted an MP5 in .41 short. At least I do now.

geolemer
November 20, 2009, 02:35 PM
I think what I was trying to say was may be we could all right a letter together and send the same letter. A letter that would not make things worse for those who already own legal full autos. A kind of Amendment to the Hughes Amendment, an exception to the law already in place. We all know how these guys hate to repeal laws.

rcmodel
November 20, 2009, 03:49 PM
Why don't we restore the federally funded DCM, and sales of cheap military surplus ammo, bullets, cases, and primers while we are at it.

It stands about the same zero chance of happening.

rc

jimmyraythomason
November 20, 2009, 04:12 PM
I have no need or desire for a full auto anything. If such legislation making them legal were on the ballot I would vote for it but wouldn't work toward getting it passed.

bikerdoc
November 20, 2009, 05:25 PM
The heading for activism says,

A place to coordinate focused efforts for RKBA. Discussions about whether a given course of action is appropriate or not do not belong here -- use the subforum instead.

That said i applaud your thinking but encourage you to expand your focus and yet narrow it to specifics than can be accomplished.


I am heavily involved in lobbying legislatures in person and e-mail.

Join a group, get involved.

God bless and good luck.

LtFrankie
November 20, 2009, 05:31 PM
Eh....getting ONLY .22s opened for the MG registry is just as likely as re-opening it, period. Not only that, it'd mean re-chambering it to a different caliber and possibly say, having a 5.56 upper for your .22 M-16 could be illegal.

It'd also encourage/help open a new avenue on caliber restrictions.

Maybe if we had both houses with a majority, but we DID have that at one time, yet the 'conservative' GOP didn't push for such legislation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Who want's a full auto .22? Lets help make a law." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!