[Dreamcast270mhz]

So, my proposal is everyone interested in getting the MG registry reopen should put our heads together and come up with a bill we could lobby our congressmen about. Some ideas I have to make an agreeable compromise:

1. Reopen the registry for civilians

2. Abolish the tax stamp and establish an Automatic Firearms license, which would cost 400-1000 USD lifetime and would allow for unlimited possession of Automatics (not including burst weapons). ( this would be cheaper for people with multiple MGS)

3. Set a new legal designation for 3-round burst weapons, allowing their possession without above license, instead a $100 tax stamp for each weapon.

4. In order to apply or possess above weapons, you will be submitted to a 14 day background check and wait period, in addition to a series of forms detailing penalties for committing a crime with the weapon.

I'm not saying I want to organize this, but I do want to put this out there and maybe something will come of it.

[PTK]

You have some truly terrible ideas;

Instead of being able to own MGs outright for $200 tax each, you want a license that would be yet ANOTHER permit/license on a right.

You're advocating further waiting periods and licensing for a right.

Seriously? No one will support this - except perhaps anti-gunners.

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Think about it, Congress has just as many gun advocates as opponents. Our best route to allowing MGs again seems to make it a viable tax platform.

Also, regarding the license, this would allow an INFINITE number of MGs you could own, and you would only have to send off once for the license, not everytime you get the urge to buy one.

Do you have better ideas? Lets hear 'em!

[Ian]

Much better a tax stamp than a license, ESPECIALLY a license that must be renewed annually.

If we want to get something start, just reopening the registry would be an excellent first step. The background check, fingerprinting, LEO signoff and registration could be well spun to make the proposal sound like a very reasonable proposal (and ignore the trust/Corporation loopholes). We need to open the registry to save war relics that are showing up as WWII and Korea vets pass away, and I'm sure the more PR-minded can come up with other good sounding reasons.

Once the registry is open, a lot more people will start buying machine guns, and open the possibility of a common usage attack on the NFA, like Heller used.

[Ian]

I should add...the problem with a renewed license is that all sorts of additional restrictions can be put on it, and it can be used as a weapon against gun owners. Think about a driver's license - lots of states will suspend a DL for all sorts of reasons totally unrelated to driving. Or what happens when they find some technical reason to refuse a renewal? You lose all your machine guns? What about when they arbitrarily raise the price of the license? What is you lose your job, and can't afford to pay it one year?

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Hmm thats true. We could slip a line into some upcoming bill that is important where we basically say the registry is reopened and then restate the NFA portions pertaining to it, OR we could say that post-NFA gun laws that invalidate portions of it are null and void.

[451 Detonics]

If you want to own all yo can for a yearly fee just become a class e dealer and let the rest of us pay the lifetime $200 tax stamp on each firearm.

I currently own 3 items...taxes are already paid on them...under your bill in 20 years I would have to pay upwards of $20,000 to keep them? No thanks...

I would rate the chance of getting any pro machinegun bill passed to be slim and none and Slim just died. Despite the obviously illegal vote count on the Hughs amendment there is zero chance of ever getting that re-opened unless we do away with out current government thoough a complete failure of our country.

[Dreamcast270mhz]

I see the logic, edited above.

[waterhouse]

Why have any sort of separate designation for 3 round burst? What is to be gained by that?

1. Reopen the registry for civilians

Let's just do that one and leave the rest alone.

[wannasupra]

make sure the penalties for a crime are harsh as hell. i mean, the 10-20-life law is good, but make the penalties harsher for using an auto or burst weapon. maybe 20-40-death row.

[wannasupra]

actually, i take that back, because it'd be putting too much emphasis on the weapon, and not enough on the intent and the perp. perhaps just stiffen up penalties for gun violence across the board.

[2000Yards]

My recollection of political science is hazy - does anyone know if a sponsor for a bill is required? If so, perhaps more important than initial discussion on the laguage, is identifying a legislative member willing to sponsor a bill. Before heading down this road as to what language, how much, etc. it might be worthwhile to make a list of possible sponsors.

[PLRinmypocket]

The easiest way to revise the Hughes ammendment is to use the exact same strategy that Hughes used when he got it passed. add it on to a bill that the majority wants to pass.....Like one raising the debt ceiling, or the next "stimulus" plan perhaps.

[kenny87]

The easiest way to revise the Hughes ammendment is to use the exact same strategy that Hughes used when he got it passed. add it on to a bill that the majority wants to pass.....Like one raising the debt ceiling, or the next "stimulus" plan perhaps.

I agree, the best way to get something passed is to be dirty and sneaky about it, after all its what the other side does.

[Dreamcast270mhz]

As for the 3-round burst question:

Back in the '30s when the NFA was passed, burst mode was not as popular as it is now, and IMHO it should not be treated like a full auto, in fact, if I had it my way it would be treated the same way as a handgun is in VA, before purchasing you get a background check, if it passes you can buy it no further questions asked.

Because a 3-round burst weapon is not anymore dangerous than a semi auto, it should not be lumped with automatics

[PTK]

You seem dead-set on increasing the number of laws, regulations, etc. Why are you so interested in permits, licenses, etc.?

[General Geoff]

Do you have better ideas? Lets hear 'em!

Sure. Repeal the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA.

[Grunt Medic TXARNG]

I don't follow the logic.

Why is a 3-round burst less dangerous than a 5, 7, 10 or 30 round burst?

In fact it is not. All firearms are capable of causing injury and death - even the black powder revolvers that are currently unregulated.

[cpu77]

Having multiple MG's and a sizeable investment. I am not interested in more M16's, 1919's, UZI's ect being added to the registry. I am not alone in this thinking. I would like to be able to replace a M16 for a new billet lower. Maybe allow post 86 guns to be added in small numbers every year. As long as there are no more of the pre 86 models added (replaced yes added no). Then I am for some change. I would love buy a glock 18 or something made after 86. I am PRO GUN. However my machine guns have become my 401k. Just something to consider as you rally the troops. We all want to be with you. BTW I am ok with the waiting and the stamps as they are. Most guys that drop $12k on a M16 and wait 3mos to 12mos to get it aren't committing crimes with it.


LAST note Stamps for SBW's..... well thats just the stupidest thing ever! As if lopping off 4" of barrel makes a gun any more deadly!

[PTK]

You shouldn't have invested in firearms. They are not stocks - and in your thinking of them as an investment, you are very much in the minority; MGs could become completely worthless with the stroke of a pen. Not much of a secure investment. ;)

Seriously, when your 401k is made from MGs, which could be either worth very little (open registry) or completely worthless (no further transfers allowed, ownership allowed still) with a single change in law , you are in a very poor position financially. It's a hard thing to accept, but it is fact.

[General Geoff]

I am PRO GUN. However my machine guns have become my 401k.

In other words, your investment is more important than your (and others') freedom. Gotcha.

[PTK]

I like your thinking more and more, General Geoff. :)

[Animal Mother]

Instead of making a lot of modifications and new laws, which are liable to fracture the pro-gun base, we should make the legislation as straight forward as possible. A simple repeal of the Hughes amendment is as easy as it gets. If you want it passed with the current POTUS, you'll need to attach it to a piece of must-pass legislation. A perfect example would be how we got National Park Carry, by attaching it to the Credit Card Reform bill. Sen. Tom Coburn led that effort, and if a group like GOA could convince him its worth spending the political capital, he could get it done. The message that we'd need to stick to in order to make it politically palatable to people not passionate about MG ownership is as follows: "We simply seek to allow state legislatures the freedom to make their own decision if they would like to allow machineguns to be owned by lawful enthusiasts in their state, as was the case during the Reagan administration."

Then you've got a much better of getting rid of Hughes, especially compared to the idea of Hughes being overturned by SCOTUS.

[GRIZ22]

So if you don't have $400-1000 for the license you're screwed.

Pricing a license out of everyone's reach doesn't seem very American to me.

[Dreamcast270mhz]

@Animal Mother

You're right, I'm thinking about this the wrong way... However we should probably not involve the NRA, just a thought on my part but they seem to be indifferent about this, not that anyone has suggested that to date.

@PTK and anyone wondering

I'm not, I was merely thinking of a way to... compromise with anti-gun freedom politicians. As much as I'd like to pretend they're not here, they are and if we are to get the registry reopened someway we may have to be willing to compromise, as much as I'd prefer not. Think about a stream and suddenly a rock is in the middle of it. Does the stream stop flowing altogether and break the rock apart? No, it goes around it.

[General Geoff]

However we should probably not involve the NRA, just a thought on my part but they seem to be indifferent about this, not that anyone has suggested that to date.

The NRA is not so much pro-gun as they are pro-status-quo.

I'm not, I was merely thinking of a way to... compromise with anti-gun freedom politicians.

Any so-called compromise is simply further infringement of our rights. That's not compromise, that's them winning.


If a guy comes up to you and says he wants to murder you, do you suggest that he just cut up your face a bit as a compromise?

[Ohioan]

I'm not, I was merely thinking of a way to... compromise with anti-gun freedom politicians. As much as I'd like to pretend they're not here, they are and if we are to get the registry reopened someway we may have to be willing to compromise, as much as I'd prefer not. Think about a stream and suddenly a rock is in the middle of it. Does the stream stop flowing altogether and break the rock apart? No, it goes around it.

Dude, your logic is seriously flawed. There is no compromise with these people. They want us to have NO firearms. They're not happy until we have NO firearms. The only compromise they will support is one that would allow them to take a firearms at the drop of a hat, or a swipe of the pen.

No, the stream doesn't just part around the rock. The stream pushes that rock on down the stream bed until the rock is either worn to dust, or spit off on the side of the stream.

[Ingsoc75]

Any pending legislation this year that is big enough to slip in 922(o) repeal?

[Ranb]

I am not interested in more M16's, 1919's, UZI's ect being added to the registry.

With people like this in the USA, we sure as hell do not need enemies. I wonder if other gun-owners [edited by taliv] will be happy to see similar restrictions being placed on other types of firearms just to help their bottom line?

I have been battling ignorance and fear for the last three years trying to get firearm restrictions eased in my home state of WA. It is the attitudes of my fellow gun owners that are the biggest obstacle.

Ranb

[mboylan]

I don't think anything has a chance with either party unless it includes a big registry fee in addition to the $200 tax. Even a $2000 fee would make an M16 $7000 or more cheaper than it is now.

They just don't trust us with automatic weapons.

PS. I know you can get Sendra RRs forabout $8K. I'm talking about M-16s.

[rogertc1]

State Law will stand in the way...

[CarlosDJackal]

1. Reopen the registry for civilians

- Sounds good to me. Event hough it will bring the price of my one and only Class 3 item down, it will allow me to purchase and own more.


2. Abolish the tax stamp and establish an Automatic Firearms license, which would cost 400-1000 USD lifetime and would allow for unlimited possession of Automatics (not including burst weapons). ( this would be cheaper for people with multiple MGS)

- Not just no, but HELL NO!! Like we need more licensing.


3. Set a new legal designation for 3-round burst weapons, allowing their possession without above license, instead a $100 tax stamp for each weapon

- Why? Do we really need to add another category to F/A firearms?


4. In order to apply or possess above weapons, you will be submitted to a 14 day background check and wait period, in addition to a series of forms detailing penalties for committing a crime with the weapon.

- Not sure that this matters. Most Concealed handgun Permits allow for 30-60 days to process the background investigations. It's not like we are talking about something that you must have now for self-defense. I have no problem waiting the same amount of time to be able to own more Class 3 firearms. I think a maximum of 90-days is acceptible.

If someone where to change the Hughes Amendment, the first step would should simply be just the outright repeal of this illegally-obtained amendment. But in reality, the first step to such an act is to convince non-Class 3 owners to accept these items as they do their own firearms.

Case in point: How many Gun clubs actually allow the use of F/A firearms in their facility? ANd of those who do, how many put a lot more restrictions on their use? Until we are considered "equals" by other gun owners, the chances of the rest of society doing so is pretty much nil. JM2CW.

[clarence222]

Speaking for myself, I would love to lose the value of my current FAs to be able to buy many more

[Zundfolge]

Because a 3-round burst weapon is not anymore dangerous than a semi auto, it should not be lumped with automatics

I would argue that FA and Burst are both LESS "dangerous" than semi auto since we're looking at the difference between aimed fire and spray (and running out of ammo a lot faster). Also note that our soldiers' M4s spend most of their time in SA (which is where they're most effective).

But the bigger problem here is that you're falling for the idea that the NFA is about "Safety" (or even crime).

The NFA was drafted for two reasons:


The Fed.Gov was deathly afraid of being removed forcibly because of the rise of communist labor movement and the problem of thousands upon thousands of angry veterans coming back to finish what the Bonus Marchers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army) failed to do
With the end of Prohibition they didn't want to have to lay off all those ATF agents.


The best tactic would be to simply repeal the Hughes amendment outright ... not make the system more complex.

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Here is a new idea:

Get a pro-MG senator to slip this into an important bill:

All machine guns owned within the United States, manufactured before 1986 are now transferable to civilians and able to be registered If you look at the Hughes, it seems it could be interpreted in that manner anyways.

[kayak-man]

The idea of a one time tax stamp is good if you plan on owning multiple NFA items, but for those of us who are probably only ever going to invest in A supressor, or ONE SBS, I can't speak for everyone, but I feel like I'd be getting the short end of the stick.

I'm fine with the tax stamp for now, because those are the rules we have to play by, but I'm not against seeing it dissapear. If you could have an either/or option - $200 tax stamp for each gun, or $300 for unlimited, that would be allright.

I think the first step would be to get the machine gun registry open, or just repeal the ban. Theres got to be at least one senator/congressman that would sponsor the bill.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

[Dreamcast270mhz]

@kayak-man

Perhaps, but considering most politicians are blood sucking morons (Yes MOST of them) we need some ground to stand on. As I personally do not own any NFA, nothing directly affects me but the fact I may someday (inheritance for example) wants me to get this law changed. So far as gauging the forum here we have some problems:

People don't want their investments to be lost (too bad so sad, all investments carry RISK!)

Many are not willing to support a bill that doesn't do JUST what they want it to. As I said, a river goes AROUND a rock.

Many are paranoid of gun control proponents ( They think they want to take away all their firearms, legitimate concern but not likely.)

Nobody wants the NFA procedure changed.

So let me approach this as logically as possible:

In order to get the MG registry open again, we will likely have to raise the tax stamp (MG prices will drop however so the effect could be marginal)

The proponents of gun control are not going to go bye bye, they will always be there (One cannot exist without the other, yin yang)

Furthermore they will not take our guns away as it will NEVER pass. Paranoia dispelled.

Finally, by saying a compromise is rights infringement...

That is partially true, but because the bill of rights is a matter of interpretation, and how screwed up the USA is anyway, let me just stop here and quote one of my favorites:

We're not tools of the government or anyone else. Fighting was the only thing... the only thing I was good at, but... at least I always fought for what I believed in.

That is all I will actively contribute to this...

[Rail Driver]

However my machine guns have become my 401k.

This is why people that own more than one or two machine guns will not be very likely to vote for anything reopening the registry or repealing the NFA and GCA. The tens of thousands of dollars they've spent acquiring those machine guns is now worth the couple thousand they can get for "just another used machine gun". While it makes sense if you understand anything about human nature, it's kind of sad if you ask me, especially considering anyone with the funds to purchase more than one or two machine guns is probably fairly wealthy and/or relatively influential.

[Mike OTDP]

On the other hand, most of the big money in NFA is in World War 2 firearms, Thompsons, and the like.

And if someone REALLY wanted to play games, propose that instead of assessing the normal 15% excise tax, full-auto arms pay a flat $1,000 excise tax for manufacturing. (That's in addition to the transfer tax)

[General Geoff]

While it makes sense if you understand anything about human nature, it's kind of sad if you ask me, especially considering anyone with the funds to purchase more than one or two machine guns is probably fairly wealthy and/or relatively influential.
I would venture to say that those who own title II transferable machine guns, are more likely to recognize that freedom is more important than any sum of money. Furthermore, investing in artificially scarce items seems like a poor business decision to me.

[zignal_zero]

Sounds good to me. Event hough it will bring the price of my one and only Class 3 item down, it will allow me to purchase and own more

THANK YOU!!!! this is (what i believe to be) the right attitude!!!!

when the ass ban of '94 was brewing, i knew it stood to double or possibly triple the price of some of my tools. i was still VERY STRONGLY opposed to it. i care more about OUR freedoms than i do the current market value of my equipment. when the ass ban sunset in 04, i lost money and was happy to do so. i consider it a small price to pay, for liberty, compared to what others have sacrificed :)

[-v-]

1. Reopen the registry for civilians
I think that's a solid goal and should be the only thrust for a while.

As the saying goes: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time". If we want the NFA abolished, we got to go about it one step at a time, not a slam-dunk victory. The latter will never happen. As our rights were slowly eroded over time, so we must slowly erode the restrictions and infirngments in turn. Legislative inertia is a bitch.

[alsaqr]

Get a pro-MG senator to slip this into an important bill:


Is there such an animal as a pro-MG senator?

[Justin]

Having multiple MG's and a sizeable investment. I am not interested in more M16's, 1919's, UZI's ect being added to the registry.

With all due respect, you're part of the problem. That you'd publicly admit that causes me to wonder if you're attempting to troll THR, or just so culturally tone-deaf that you have no understanding of the implications of what you've posted.

[Justin]

Dreamcast, you're going about this in completely the wrong way.

1.) You're proposing things for which there is no significant political motivation to change.
2.) You're trying to build in compromises with the anti-rights people before you've even talked to them. Your proposals all negotiate from a position of weakness, and even assuming the political will to modify the laws regarding NFA items did exist your proposals would end up causing more harm than good.

[gyvel]

The NFA was drafted for two reasons:

Actually, there was an unspoken third reason and that was ethnic prejudice. Roosevelt was an elitist and very patrician in his personal life.

[DoubleTapDrew]

However my machine guns have become my 401k. Just something to consider as you rally the troops. We all want to be with you. BTW I am ok with the waiting and the stamps as they are. Most guys that drop $12k on a M16 and wait 3mos to 12mos to get it aren't committing crimes with it.


That's a very risky investment. A swipe of the pen could just as easily (probably more easily) make your 401k worth $0 as it could drop it to pre-ban levels. If your interest in machine guns is mostly monetary I'd get out of the NFA game.
Your statement makes it sound as if your rights are for sale as long as there's a return on investment. How much would you give up your 1st Amendment rights for? Your 4th Amendment?

[tbd1966]

One of the biggest issues with opening up the markets again for MG's is you have a lot of MG owners who would be against it.

The values for MG's have been artificually inflated by the increasing rarity of the weapons themselves. As time has gone on, fewer and fewer of these weapons remain in circulation so the price has gone up. A brand new select fire M4 cost under 1500.00 but if you want a civilian version legally registered it will cost you north of $10,000. If you repeal the laws restricting the ownership then the prices equalize and the current owners of MG's loose their shirts.

I'm for repealing the laws but the politicians will never want to weather the emotional firestorm associated with its repeal and the current owners of MG's will dread the losses they will incur.

[Ranb]

Ironic; the anti-gun machine gun owner.

Ranb

[swwyo]

1. You must get a sponsor, either in the house or senate.
2. It must pass committee, probably judiciary - look at the some of the fruit loop names on that. Remember committee can add to it, take away or change the wording.
3. It must pass three readings in the house or senate before it goes to the other side.
4. After passing the house or senate it goes to the other judiciary committee, where they can kill it, change it, or add to it. (none of those things are good for gun owners)
5. Then it must pass three readings, before it goes to you know who.
6. Obumer get's it and checkmate the bill is vetoed.

Not likely to happen this year!

If you want to pass a law get rid of the stupid tax, background, etc., etc.,

And if your afraid of losing an investment because MG's become transferable and no longer cost $10,000 plus, well that's kind of like giving up freedom for security, now isn't it.

[bobbo]

There's going to be four groups of people against this:
1) Anti-gunners. They have lots and lots of money (but then again, so does the NRA, and the Brady Bunch doesn't run the House anymore). You won't persuade them.

2) Regular people who don't like the idea of machine guns in private hands, but who might be in favor of hunting or SD firearms. Why would they be afraid? Think of it this way: More machine guns in private hands means there's more for criminals to steal. You probably won't persuade them.

3) Casual gun owners who don't want machine guns or don't really care. You MIGHT be able to persuade them. I'm in this group. I really don't care one way or the other, but a bunch of idiots hunting with full-auto during deer season doesn't sound like a fun day in the woods to me. More bullets means the higher the probability of injury or death (check Army reports on bullets fired to casualty ratios from WWII)

4) People who've invested in machine guns and don't want to lose their money. You won't persuade them. Money has that effect.

The first two and the last will derail this effort.

However my machine guns have become my 401k.

Unlike some here, I won't bash you for that comment. You invested in something you care about. It's just economics, and if something came along and wiped out your savings, you wouldn't support such a measure, would you? Everyone saying this person should give up his money just so they can get a full-auto gun cheaper is, well, slightly on the socialist side... don't you think?

[taliv]

speaking as an owner of multiple machine guns, including belt-fed, i would gladly lose a bit of value on the current ones i own, if it meant i could buy a new dillon minigun. (not that i could afford to shoot it more than 6 seconds / year or so) most of the folks i hang out with feel the same.

[Rail Driver]

Everyone saying this person should give up his money just so they can get a full-auto gun cheaper is, well, slightly on the socialist side... don't you think?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't contain a proviso stating "But only if you're rich."

It's not an issue of "redistribution of wealth", it's an issue of unfairly regulated and INFRINGED rights.

[tbd1966]

In my opinion, the law forbidding ownership of any machinegun made past 86 is unconstitutional. Over the course of time, as these weapons become more and more rare, their cost continues to rise making it almost impossible for anyone to own them. Soon these "legally transferable weapons" will be no more and citizens will no longer be able to own them at all.

The 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution for one reason; to resist and remove a tyranical government. Civilian ownership of Machineguns is an important aspect of having the ability to do this should this day ever come.

[bobbo]

It's not an issue of "redistribution of wealth", it's an issue of unfairly regulated and INFRINGED rights.

Yes, it is socialism. You want one group to give up their investments in expensive arms just so you can have a range toy (let's face it, that's all full-auto guns really are. Why do you think the army doesn't even have M16s on full auto? You can't control it, even in a real war zone. If there is a time to rise up against the government, you better have surface-to-air missiles and nuclear warheads stockpiled, because a machine gun will do you no good against an A-10).

Besides, if you can't afford one now, how do you expect to be able to pay for the ammo necessary to fire it? A 500-round case of ammo is less than a minute's worth in most full-auto firearms.

Civilian ownership of Machineguns is an important aspect of having the ability to do this should this day ever come.

By that logic, I should be able to purchase a nuclear bomb and keep it in my apartment, because nuclear weapons will be a far more "important aspect."

[PTK]

Ad hominem, strawman, ad nauseaum. You won't last long on this forum.

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Bobbo, I think you mean communism as there has never been a "true" socialist gov't. Socialism, is actually pre karl marx and so far all proclaiming to be socialist are actually communist. And no, democrats are not socialist.

Sorry Thread hijack.

Going back to the topic at hand, I'm in the interested group a you said Bobbo. I feel I should have the right as this country is dreadfully close to insurrection and I feel I will need to defend myself. The point is 2A says two things:

we can possess guns (up to interpretation as to how this extends, in the day of the document there were few is any repeaters much less MGs)

States can operate militias (Arbitrary nowadays)

I do support however reasonable firearm restrictions, such as register MGs, no MGs under 21, no hunting with full auto arms, no shooting of full autos in a dangerous manner.

What I see is many people that seem to think that laws altogether are useless. We need order, we need to stop crazy people from getting guns yes and gangbangers yes and laws can aid in that.

[atblis]

Yes, it is socialism.
Nope. Interesting ploy though.

[Davek1977]

but a bunch of idiots hunting with full-auto during deer season doesn't sound like a fun day in the woods to me. More bullets means the higher the probability of injury or death

I am not aware of a single state that allows full-auto weapons to be used for big game hunting, so your fears are exaggerated and unfounded, and based primarily on hyperbole. Like many 'on the fence" you show little understanding of why most people interested in full-autos have such an interest. You blame 3 of the four groups you listed as being to blame for the continuing illegality of full autos, but conveniently leave out the group you personally belong to. yet, if everyone "on the fence" thinks that the woods will be full of"idiots" (nice way to classify mg owners, btw :banghead: :eek: :banghead: ) hunting Bambi with Uzis, they are EVERY BIT THE PROBLEM as any of the other groups you mentioned. Largely, simple ignorance is behind the continuation of the MG ban.....a lack of understanding by just about everyone aside from those interested in owning, shooting, or collecting machine guns.....

[BeerSleeper]

Yes, it is socialism. You want one group to give up their investments in expensive arms just so you can have a range toy (let's face it, that's all full-auto guns really are.
There's nothing socialist about it. Repealing the MG ban isn't going to tax someone to buy MGs for someone else.
Presently, MG's have an artificially inflated cost due to governement action. If the MG ban went way, so would that. Then, Americans would be free to purchase MGs for whatever price the market will bear, (capitalism, not socialism).
Yes, you have a point, that those with large "investments" in MGs will lose value. "Investments" can and do lose value all the time, again, a perfect example of capitalism.

Why should all the rest of us Americans have to sacrifice one of our constitutional freedoms for the benefit of your bottom line?

[Ingsoc75]

How about getting on board behind some of these lawmakers who have introduced bills to "open the books" for WW1, WW2 and Korean War war trophies?

Sure it's a long shot as all these bills have died but this may be the best approach to hacking away at 922(o).

[tbd1966]

Bobbo, you comment is so wrong on so many levels. I realize its fun to throw emotional rants at a serious topic just to try and make your mark but it serves no purpose and frankly detracts from the real issues at hand.

With all issues their is common sense applied to real solutions. Common sense tells us that nuclear bombs should not be owned by civilians. Whats more, if combat comes to the US waged by our own military I can gaurantee you it won't include the nuclear option because at the end of the day, what will be left to have once you've won? They will use bombs but look at what that got us in Iraq. We never had full control of that city and most of that population was forbidden to have arms before our moving in to try and restore order. What do you think that will be like here in the States with over 300,000,000 privately owned firearms.

The Military, both Army and Marine Corp issue a variety of semi auto and select fire small arms. The role of the MG is not one of precision fire but tactically its value is suppressive fire. If a unit needs to move and is under fire, the MG applies appropriate pressure to allow the good guys to win the fight. I see a MG as a reasonable firearm to be owned by responsible, law abiding citizens. I have no problem with a legal process to ensure the individual is law abiding and sane. I have a problem with a process that was designed at its creation to rob us of our ability to resist should our Government ever take us there. This was the origional intent of the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

As far as the ammo goes. it will be available when its needed. Frankly when you think about it, so will machine guns. In times of military conflict arms and supplies end up flowing freely in both directions. The reasons for this are obvious. The goal is to preserve Freedom and Liberty in such a way that it never comes to this.

Ben Franklin said it best; Those who wish to surrender liberty for temporary security deserve niether.

[Zombie_Flesh]

I would like to see one of the Pauls insert this into a HUGE bill burried on page 295,573 where the registry is just simply re-opened.

Leave the rest alone, allowing MG purchases OTC (like pistols are today) would scare people too much, allow bangers to steal them easier and I feel end up hurting us in the long run. Maybe come back later and allow them OTC after people start getting used to them again.

[tbd1966]

Agreed, by opening the registry you keep all other rules in place. It's a great way to start.

[Ingsoc75]

Zombie_Flesh pretty much summed it for me.

[Dreamcast270mhz]

I never said allow OTC purchase of MGs, basically just reopen the registry and cancel parts of the GCA of '68.

[macadore]

Bobbo, I think you mean communism as there has never been a "true" socialist gov't. Socialism, is actually pre karl marx and so far all proclaiming to be socialist are actually communist. And no, democrats are not socialist.

This is what I like about this forum. A lot of people know what they are are talking about and have thought deeply about the issues. Thanks to you and others who have expressed the same sentiment. It will take much more than poorly thought though through emotional statements to defend the RKBA.

[NMGonzo]

What license?

Please ...

[jerkface11]

I would like to see one of the Pauls insert this into a HUGE bill burried on page 295,573 where the registry is just simply re-opened.

Not like congressmen read the bills anyway. Rand Paul should insert this into the next stimulus plan then tell the anti-gunners they can find out what's in it after they pass it.

[happygeek]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7148932&postcount=55

Why do you think the army doesn't even have M16s on full auto? You can't control it, even in a real war zone. If there is a time to rise up against the government, you better have surface-to-air missiles and nuclear warheads stockpiled, because a machine gun will do you no good against an A-10).


You do realize the number of choppers that have been brought down by small arms and RPG fire, right? Shooting at vehicles and low flying aircraft are a few of the scenarios when auto in an assault rifle would be useful.

Auto isn't just for assault rifles either. There's light machine guns like the M249 (unit price $4,087 according to Wikipedia) which most definitely have their uses. Not being an infantry officer or NCO, I won't attempt to pontificate on what exactly the tactics are.

Also, I'm not sure how getting rid of a government imposed artificial scarcity is socialism. :confused:

[AlexanderA]

I think you'll find that most current owners of machineguns, in spite of having a lot of money tied up in them (much of which, to be honest, is unrealized paper gain), would be in favor of opening up the registry. They probably didn't originally buy their guns for "investment" purposes (in spite of what they might have told their wives), and they would rather have an opportunity to add to their collections than to sit on wildly inflated, and therefore frozen, assets. What good does it do to go to your grave with a gun that you can't afford to shoot (both because of the cost of ammunition and the fear that wear would diminish the value) and can't afford to sell (because of the huge capital gains tax on the appreciation)? At least if you die owning the gun, your heirs will get a stepped-up basis and can sell without paying income tax on it.

[Sgt.Saputo]

I am not interested in more M16's, 1919's, UZI's ect being added to the registry.

You're being quite selfish aren't you?

My father had to work and save for several years before he had the money for his title II Sten MkII. Even Though he had to save for years to get it I doubt he would care if everyone else could suddenly go out and get get Stens for $400 instead of $4,000. I'd be quite pleased because by the time I have enough money saved up to buy a nice MG it will probably cost twice as much as when I started saving. I'll be lucky if I can afford a M10 in several years when I have money saved.

MGs shouldn't just be for the rich...

[Dreamcast270mhz]

^ post is very true

[mboylan]

Small steps at a time. I would love to see an amnesty for World War II bring backs. The old vets are almost gone. Their families are faced with turning in these historic weapons for destruction or a felony and 10 years in prison for hiding them.

[Eukatae]

Make it part of a "manufacturing revitalization" bill. "We are doing this to make manufacturing in this country profitable again". "We are not making machine guns legal or easier to obtain by anyone". All could be "true" if all we did was open the registry. "It's for the jobs, to strengthen unions!"

[atblis]

We could always pitch this as requiring the registration of machine guns. I bet we could even trick the antis into supporting it and doing all the leg work for us.

[announcer voice]Call or write your congressman and tell him you support XX bill requiring that all machine-guns be registered[/announcer voice]

[gatorjames85]

[QUOTE]Everyone saying this person should give up his money just so they can get a full-auto gun cheaper is, well, slightly on the socialist side... don't you think? [/QUOTE

Nothing screams laissez faire to me like the government artificially inflating the price of something by strongly limiting supply.:rolleyes:

[miner1436]

I hope, that in my lifetime, the Hughes amendment will be repealed. 0.01% chance but still hoping.

[pjlaw1]

I would love to see it done. Unless you have some heavy weights backing it (NRA) I dont see much movement. I already contacted my (R) Representative and he chose not to comment on this subject. I think it would be political suicide to introduce this bill. Unless there was a huge movement.

[MagnumDweeb]

It's not going to get repealed I believe. Yes the 2nd Amendment crowd is getting its balls back there are still lots of folks who will say that Machine Guns are dangerous to own, especially if owned by the average person. Now yes you can own an MG now if you are prepared to pay bookoo bucks for one and so the anti argument holds no weight, and yes it is relatively easy to make an MG from a parts kit illegally but still logic and reason are useless against those who have none such as the antis.

If it ever happens it'll have to be a challenge to amendment made in the Supreme Court and even then we'd need some more pro-Heller cases saying that the right to own a gun is protected absolutely for the individual and that the government has no right to regulate such property but then you go back to the Commerce Clause and the argument that it empowers the government to regulate those goods which could be a part of the national system of commerce.

I hold little optimisim, I'll support those seeking to do away with the Hughes Amendment, but I think we must work to create firearms that are still legally semi-auto but almost full-auto i.e. Gardner Guns, Gatling Guns, etc. so as to frustrate the purpose of the Amendment. Then turn around and lie to the people, much like the Bradys, that the law must be rewritten to protect the american people and register all machine guns(Gardner and Gatling guns are not machine guns lol).

[AlexanderA]

This is where Justice Scalia's reasoning in the Heller decision was not particularly helpful. He held that the RKBA was an individual right, not tied to service in the militia in any way (in other words, that the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment was just excess verbiage). Now, if the reasoning in Heller had been that the militia clause applied, but that the militia was defined as traditionally including most of the general population, we'd be on stronger ground when it came to things like machine guns. It would be hard to deny people (the unorganized militia) access to any standard military-issued weapons.

[gatorjames85]

I don't think NFA is getting repealed any time soon because the NRA doesn't appear to have any interest in it. The way Washington looks at things, if even the NRA isn't pushing it, they won't touch it. Whether the NRA's approach of picking their battles is the right way to go is up for debate, of course.

[AustinGirl]

I was wondering about the rules for carrying or having guns for students. I found a few stories about students getting shot. Pretty scary.

[outerlimit]

Most of us have enough "licenses" to renew, I'm not in favor of having more.

I don't think NFA is getting repealed any time soon because the NRA doesn't appear to have any interest in it.

The NRA's main interest over the years seems to be in towing that fine line which produces the largest amount of revenue.

I'd honestly be surprised if the majority of NRA members were interested in overturning a MG ban. How many are just worried about their duck/deer hunting? The majority in my experience.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment is about deer hunting after all..

[Ole Humpback]

Remember, the 2nd Amendment is about deer hunting after all..

Bear in mind though, there are SEVERAL hunting rifle cartridges out there that are either ex-military or far superior to anything any military has EVER fielded. But I do understand what the 2A was wrote for and preserving hunting with a gun wasn't its primary objective.

Just read through the whole thread. Great amount of info in it and great food for thought. As for those who say FA firearms & hunting don't mix, thats true but if everyone followed the law there would be no worry about it. All states that I've hunted in state that full auto firearms can't be used to hunt with and that all firearms carry less than a certain number of rounds. However, that didn't stop the guy who shot 7 people with his semi-auto AK/AR style gun while deer hunting a few years back.

This fellow had climbed into a stand that wasn't his, and when the owner of the stand and his hunting buddies came up on the stand and asked him to leave, he fired 17 rounds into the group before one of the group members killed him.

[kingcheese]

i think i might have a better compromise
at least allow the production of civilian mgs in 22 lr and allow them to be owned and baught in america

that way i can afford to buy and shoot a automatic

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I was wondering about the rules for carrying or having guns for students. I found a few stories about students getting shot. Pretty scary.
This is off topic but I'll chime in. The only times I've heard of a student being shot was from someone that was mentally deranged and was definatly breaking the law. No matter how strict the law was, students would still have been shot until he ran out of ammo or the Police finally showed up after many students have been shot.

[gun lover 18403]

I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People,
a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your
name to mine? If this petition gets 25,000 signatures by May 26, 2012, the
White House will review it and respond!

We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the Obama
Administration to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets
enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

You can view and sign the petition here:

http://wh.gov/Eru

Here's some more information about this petition:

allow new machine guns to be manufactured and sold to
civilians
Machine guns have been banned to manufacture since 1986 .This petition
will make it legal to sell new machine guns to civilians . citizens can
already buy a machine gun but it has to be made before 1986 ,and they very
expensive ,often $18,000. the law that made machine gun illegal to
manufacture was unconstitutional because the second amendment says you have
the right to same weapons the military has .

[Sambo82]

I would like to see one of the Pauls insert this into a HUGE bill burried on page 295,573 where the registry is just simply re-opened.


Yes yes yes. I've actually written Ron Paul about this, but alas I'm not a Texas resident so I doubt it will even be read. I've also written my own Tea Party Congressman (Rick Crawford) about repealing the Hughes, and just today I got a pre written letter back in the mail reaffirming his support of "American sportsmen to hunt and fish". I'm VERY dissapointed to say the least. Maybe a Kentucky resident could hunt up Rand Paul at a campaign stop and grill him on the question. He seems he's a "no questions asked" type of guy when it comes to Constitutional rights. As another poster said, get him to slip a reopening of the registry into a 200,000 page spending bill...

Also as another poster brought up, it could be spun as a reasonable safety measure if it came to light. Something like; "We need to make sure all these machineguns are properly registered"! You could probably get antis behind it. If there is one thing they don't understand, it's firearms and firearms laws.

One more thought, didn't Heller affirm that firearm ownership is an individual right open to reasonable restrictions? As such couldn't one argue that as NO crimes are committed with lawfully registered machineguns, that closing the registry is completely unreasonable? It's entire purpose, supposedly, was to stop crime that didn't exist. I really believe this could be a winning argument, and I'm suprised someone hasn't used these grounds to challenge it in court. That would be as simple as filling out a Form 1, having it denied, and starting a challenge. If I had the funds I would certainly do it.

It's impossible for a guy like me living from paycheck to paycheck to challenge something like this, but maybe we could convince one of our more affluent posters who may be considering dropping tens of thousands of dollars on an NFA weapon to instead work for all of us to enjoy the right...:o You could be the hero we all need.