NFA Amnesty?


PDA






kimberkid
November 13, 2011, 05:43 PM
What say you ... will we ever get another one?

If you enjoyed reading about "NFA Amnesty?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
W.E.G.
November 13, 2011, 05:59 PM
No evil machine guns.

Why do you need one?

kimberkid
November 13, 2011, 06:41 PM
"Need" has nothing to do with it, but it is my right.

I hope I never "need" a machine gun.


.

zignal_zero
November 13, 2011, 07:46 PM
I'm keeping the faith, I believe we will one day be a free country. A lot nay sayers believed the ass ban would be replaced 1 minute after it sunset, I remained optimistic. Never stop fighting, never accept defeat, and never allow them to convince you we can't win because WE CAN and we're going to :-)

hso
November 13, 2011, 07:52 PM
W.E.G. is making the point that we'll hear that phrase any time a suggestion comes up to open the registry.

zoom6zoom
November 13, 2011, 08:02 PM
Let's all call our Congressmen and tell them that we're trying to pay taxes but the government won't accept them.

W.E.G.
November 13, 2011, 08:12 PM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been like 4 whole "crimes" committed with tax-stamped machine guns?

At least one that I know of was arguably a self-defense case, albeit probably avoidable circumstances.

These registered and taxed guns are RUINING America!!!

What's next?

People will be going out and buying lots of ammo from American stores, and paying sales tax and range fees?!!!

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/smileys/zomg-3.gif

barnetmill
November 13, 2011, 08:31 PM
NFA Amnesty?
'For an amestty to be useful you must have an illegal machinegun which is a big no no.

I both want and have a need for full auto weapons. I did not see a need or want prior to being allowed to fire diverse types ranging from an MG34 to MAC 9mm subguns. I certainly see a use for them. Too bad it is not possible for me to own FAs due to finances.

wally
November 13, 2011, 09:29 PM
The NFA situation proves that when the anti's talk "registration" they ultimately mean cap and ban!

lilguy
November 13, 2011, 11:36 PM
We would need a President who is pro gun, a filibuster proof senate and hold our control of the house. A direct bill opening up the registry would never pass
because most voters would freak at the thought and the press would hammer us. A sneaked in amendment to an environmental or some such bill might work. No one will walk the plank on a direct vote.

S.W.G.
November 13, 2011, 11:58 PM
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't there been like 4 whole "crimes" committed with tax-stamped machine guns?

I spent a decent chunk of time researching this a few months back, and the number I kept coming too was whopping TWO.

- A cop (midwest?) uses a M.A.C. style SMG to 'silence' a guy who was planning on testifying against him on, IIRC, corruption related charges.

- A doctor with an M-11 .380 and a Sionics can murders a man on his front lawn, hides the gun in a burlap sack and skips town. There's a scan of a newspaper article on that case out there somewhere.

At least one that I know of was arguably a self-defense case, albeit probably avoidable circumstances.

You are probably thinking of the Heckler and Koch employee who dropped a guy who had been chasing him in a pickup truck for several miles. If so, it most certainly was self defense, and the jury sided with him. Masaad Ayoob did a very good write-up on that case. In case you were wondering, it was a Ruger AC-556.


ETA: Of course, with the press's reputation for getting mixed up, and the fact that the paperwork involved is confidential tax information, I can't be 100% certain about the total.

MIgunguy
November 14, 2011, 12:24 AM
the Heckler and Koch employee.... In case you were wondering, it was a Ruger AC-556
I gotta call balogna on this one... the guy works for H&K and he "carries" a Ruger :scrutiny:

RhinoDefense
November 14, 2011, 12:47 AM
Nope it's real. But it was self defense. H&K had the Ruger on hand for R&D.

Here's the story with that one:

http://www.davehayes.org/2006/02/10/the-gary-fadden-incident

RhinoDefense
November 14, 2011, 12:49 AM
SWG, a cop in 1934 after the law went into effect, used a department Thompson SMG to murder his wife and her lover in bed when the cop arrived home. He retrieved the SMG from his car and emptied the 30rd magazine into both of them.

thorazine
November 14, 2011, 11:59 AM
No evil machine guns.

Why do you need one?

Need has nothing to do with it. :cuss:

mboylan
November 14, 2011, 04:35 PM
There was an attempt to create an amnesty for war bring backs. WWII vets brought home quite a few illegal machine guns. They are dying off fast. Their heirs are faced with risking a 10 year prison sentence for continuing to hide them or turning them over to be destroyed.

The amnesty went no where fast in the House.

USAF_Vet
November 14, 2011, 05:13 PM
Let's all call our Congressmen and tell them that we're trying to pay taxes but the government won't accept them.
Reminds me of an episode of My Name is Earl.

While it would be nice to have the registry re-opened, or done away with entirely, I'm not holding my breath. Too many places still have an irrational fear of SRS', SBR's, AOW,'s, DD's and silencers. Machine guns are 'teh evil' as they say on the internets.

Still, Michigan allows MG's and now silencers, so anyone want to sell me a supressed full auto?

Carl N. Brown
November 14, 2011, 05:18 PM
Heirs risk a 10 year prison sentence for continuing to hide them, not for turning them over to ATF as discovered contraband.

If there is a wartime souvenir discovered in the property of a deceased vet with bringback paperwork in the name of the veteran, it might be a good idea to contact a lawyer who knows NFA law VERY VERY WELL.

No amnesty is like saying it is better to have unpapered war trophies floating about with no incentive to report loss or theft, rather than allow heirs to register and legitimize a war trophy of a deceased vet.

LHRGunslinger
November 14, 2011, 06:06 PM
I don't really mind the NFA. I just want to see the bloody date restriction removed.

parsimonious_instead
November 14, 2011, 06:19 PM
The NFA situation proves that when the anti's talk "registration" they ultimately mean cap and ban!

You've just alluded to a very important point. When you mention to an "anti" that machine guns are legal to have (which shocks the heck out of them, usually) but are heavily regulated, and that there have been less than a handful of incidents of legally owned, registered MGs being used as murder weapons, what do you think their next thought is?

"Heck, if ALL guns were that heavily controlled, crime would go way down."

Just like when we trot out stats about how much "better behaved" CCW holders are than the general population, aren't we possibly playing into the hands of the "anti" crowd?

I'm personally in favor of constitutional carry, and I'm completely comfortable with the private party transfer of any sort of firearm.
I'm just putting it out there that sometimes our facts become ammo for the other side.

S.W.G.
November 14, 2011, 06:55 PM
I gotta call balogna on this one... the guy works for H&K and he "carries" a Ruger

I should have elaborated. The H&K employee had the AC-556 with the intention of comparing it to their own products. I imagine it was some kind of market research.

He had it on the dash of his truck when the incident happened.

MIgunguy
November 14, 2011, 10:53 PM
The H&K employee had the AC-556 with the intention of comparing it to their own products. I imagine it was some kind of market research.

LOL, I was just giving you a hard time (but really was wondering why a Ruger when you have access to any one of a great number of awesome SMGs???) but that does make sense :)

NoAlibi
November 15, 2011, 01:23 PM
MIgunguy: "...why a Ruger when you have access to any one of a great number of awesome SMGs???"

Since the gun was registered to him, there are several plausible reasons for him to own the Ruger AC-556.

I own an AC-556 and I can tell you that at the time I purchased mine in 1992 there was a big price difference between it and the HK.

My Ruger has a 14" bbl including the flash hider and the factory folding stock (very stable) which makes it very compact when folded- not as compact as the HK, but it is still in the ballpark.

The AC-556 shoots a round that has a whole lot more penetrating ability than any of the HK calibers. That is something I would have wanted in the Adden case in the event that the assailants remained inside the truck when they assaulted him. You can reduce the penetration of the Ruger by using frangible projectiles and/or downloading the cartridge. You can never increase the penetration of those pistol calibers anywhere near the level of the 5.56 NATO round. My Ruger may not have the "cool factor" of the HK, but IMO it is much more versatile.

BTW, bologna is something that goes into your mouth and baloney is something that comes out of it! :D No insult intended! :D:D:D

FIVETWOSEVEN
November 15, 2011, 04:09 PM
You are probably thinking of the Heckler and Koch employee who dropped a guy who had been chasing him in a pickup truck for 22 miles.

Thats the number of miles I remember reading, shows how extreme it was.

I gotta call balogna on this one... the guy works for H&K and he "carries" a Ruger

He bought the gun for R&D, it was his personal weapon and the first time he fired it was the first warning volley before leveling it to the the man charging.

CapnMac
November 15, 2011, 05:37 PM
No amnesty is like saying it is better to have unpapered war trophies floating about with no incentive to report loss or theft, rather than allow heirs to register and legitimize a war trophy of a deceased vet.

Which is exactly what Hughes does, and with no, zero, none, not ever fingers-crossed, way to "legitimize" anything, even WWI or Span-Am or KW or VN bring-backs.

Which, to my thinking, is the answer to OP's question.

We will see an amnesty only after some highly decorated war hero passes, and the heirs of that hero are clapped into irons for merely trying to sort through the estate.

Further, to really bite into "modern" newsthink, it will be the veteran heirs of a passed war hero tossed into jail. "[War] Vet Jailed for [Relative's] Machine Gun" would be a "selling" headline.

However, given the lily-liverred nature of our modern congress-creatures, I'd not be surprised if the Amnesty would only allow for transfer to museums and not to the 'general' NFR.

gyvel
November 15, 2011, 06:55 PM
I gotta call balogna on this one... the guy works for H&K and he "carries" a Ruger

Just coz a guy works for H&K doesn't mean he can afford one.:D

BobTheTomato
November 15, 2011, 06:58 PM
If there is an amnesty I'm registering every electric motor I can find to build me some miniguns.

Prince Yamato
November 16, 2011, 06:37 PM
I have a hunch that it can be snuck in as a poison pill in any bill.

HavelockLEO
November 16, 2011, 06:46 PM
I dont even think the so called "pro-gun" politicians would give it a thumbs up, but thats just me

Jim K
November 16, 2011, 07:33 PM
The only reason for an amnesty would be if the law were made more restrictive (to include handguns, maybe) so I am not sure that is what you folks want. The amnesty in GCS 68 was to allow registration of DEWATs, which previously had been considered "non-guns" and some of which had been "rewatted" or made serviceable.

Jim

Ar180shooter
November 28, 2011, 10:32 PM
Doubtful...

Mike OTDP
November 28, 2011, 11:15 PM
I think it's do-able.

There are a substantial number of MGs brought into the country legally...in 1946. 1951. 1967. But the ATF internally admits a 50% error rate on registrations prior to 1968. And when Grandpa passes away, the kids are left trying to figure out what to do with the MP-40 he had in the trunk in the attic. Is it a valuable part of the estate, or an instant felony conviction?

The answer is to use the amnesty power not for an 'amnesty", but for a "re-registration". No questions asked - if the gun could have been owned legally, the assumption is that it IS owned legally but the paperwork is missing. Get the paperwork and records straight. Give people access to valuable assets that can be sold to cover bills.

I can see this being done, easily.

MasterSergeantA
November 29, 2011, 01:11 PM
I would offer that the NRA is not on the side of NFA owners. From what I have seen, we are sort of like the crazy old uncle that everyone wishes would not show up at Thanksgiving. We seem to embarrass them. So I would expect little or no support from the NRA.

NRA Life Member

AlexanderA
November 29, 2011, 02:04 PM
The answer is to use the amnesty power not for an 'amnesty", but for a "re-registration". No questions asked - if the gun could have been owned legally, the assumption is that it IS owned legally but the paperwork is missing. Get the paperwork and records straight. Give people access to valuable assets that can be sold to cover bills.

That sounds like an excellent idea. It's fairly well known (from congressional testimony, even) that there are errors and omissions in the NFA registry.

A while back, I got a letter from the Virginia State Police (Virginia has its own MG registry) asking me to check the list they had for MGs that I own. Well, it turned out that they still had me down for two MG's that I had sold years earlier, and regarding which I had notified them at the time of the sale.

If the ATF's list is at all like this, it definitely needs to be refreshed.

Sebastian the Ibis
November 29, 2011, 11:57 PM
S.W.G. - Do you have a citation for the total number of NFA prosecutions? I have been keeping my eye out for something quotable for years.

Also, the Blackwater guys who shot up Nisour square were charged in a United States District Court with using a machine gun to commit crime. I would assume that those MG's were legally supplied by the Department of State. Arguably, this would count as well.

Ingsoc75
December 2, 2011, 02:31 PM
Most likely the only way Hughes is going to get repealed is by compromise on both sides and this is even after it gets "snuck" into a larger bill and it found out by anti-gun legislators who try and kill it.

Something like this: "Okay we will repeal this so you can have more machine guns but we're gonna raise that $200 stamp tax to $800 or $1000."

Even at $1000 a stamp, it's cheaper than $16,000 for a FA AK-47 right now.

AlexanderA
December 2, 2011, 04:28 PM
The $200 tax stamp is not the serious impediment to FA ownership. The serious impediments are, in order: (1) the high cost of the weapon itself, (2) the hodgepodge of state laws and prohibitions, (3) the need for a CLEO signoff, or, alternatively, the complexity of setting up a trust or corporation, and (4) the inordinately long wait for the paperwork to be approved. If the cost of the stamp is increased (and I'm not in favor of that), the increased revenues should at least be dedicated to hiring more examiners in the NFA Branch in order to expedite the paperwork processing.

kimberkid
December 2, 2011, 06:14 PM
The $200 tax stamp is not the serious impediment to FA ownership. The serious impediments are, in order: (1) the high cost of the weapon itself, (2) the hodgepodge of state laws and prohibitions, (3) the need for a CLEO signoff, or, alternatively, the complexity of setting up a trust or corporation, and (4) the inordinately long wait for the paperwork to be approved. If the cost of the stamp is increased (and I'm not in favor of that), the increased revenues should at least be dedicated to hiring more examiners in the NFA Branch in order to expedite the paperwork processing.
1) The cost of the weapon is only high because of the limited supply.

2) State laws really have nothing to do with it ... either they are allowed or they are not.

3) I spent $10 for software and set up my own trust ... as long as its signed and notarized its legal ... maybe there is a state difference on this.

4) I can't believe its still $200 ... back in 1986 that was a good chunk of money ... in 1965 it was a months wages for a lot of people. Even if it was a $1,000 now, thats only a case or so of ammo ... but 30 day processing would be nice.

AlexanderA
December 2, 2011, 09:40 PM
kimberkid wrote:

1) The cost of the weapon is only high because of the limited supply.

Repeal of the Hughes amendment would go a long way towards solving that problem. Even C&R's (the supply of which would still remain fixed) would be indirectly affected as to price.

2) State laws really have nothing to do with it ... either they are allowed or they are not.

It's more complicated than that. For example, in Connecticut, you can own a full automatic but not a selective-fire weapon. (That's just crazy.) In other places, you have to have an FFL to own a full automatic. Several states have what's known as the "Uniform Machine Gun Act," which introduces more red tape and complexity. I'd like to see federal preemption of laws regulating NFA weapons -- that is, that the federal NFA would represent the full scope of regulation, and state laws to the contrary would be disregarded. (This could be drafted under the Commerce Clause so as to be constitutional.) As it is now, state laws can be more strict than the federal law, but never less strict. Gun owners have nothing to lose with this change.

And the CLEO signoff requirement has got to go. This serves no purpose since the feds are well aware of local laws, and conduct their own background investigation anyway. Maybe just notify the local law enforcement, as a courtesy, once the approval has been granted.

3) I spent $10 for software and set up my own trust ... as long as its signed and notarized its legal ... maybe there is a state difference on this.

This is very dangerous. A boilerplate trust may not be suitable for the special circumstances of NFA weapons. It's well worth the $300-500 that a local lawyer versed in the this area would charge.

4) I can't believe its still $200 ... back in 1986 that was a good chunk of money ... in 1965 it was a months wages for a lot of people. Even if it was a $1,000 now, thats only a case or so of ammo ... but 30 day processing would be nice.

In 1934, $200 was about what a Thompson would sell for, so it was a 100% tax, thought to be all but prohibitive. By 1975 (when I bought my first Thompson), the tax stamp represented about 20-25% of the cost. In 1986 (just before the Hughes amendment) it had fallen to 10-15% of the cost. (These figures would vary depending on the specific gun, etc.) The tax stamp has been a relatively token amount for a long time now.

BTR
December 24, 2011, 04:09 PM
Deleted

kimberkid
December 24, 2011, 05:16 PM
Well for those of you that are interested, the reason I asked about the possibility of another NFA Amnesty is I was considering making a purchase.

Back in 2008-2009 when the stock market crashed ... like a lot of people we took a beating and to this day are still way down. Due to the current uncertainty of the current market, the wife and I decided to pull almost completely out of the stock market, pay off the house and rental property and be debt free except for monthly bills ... as we were making our plans I mentioned that "machine guns" nearly doubled in price between 2004 and 2008 and are still climbing, and now they are legal in Kansas. She said if I find a good deal, go for it ... I told her that even if the value drops 90% it will never be zero like all of our GM stock ... so in another 6 months or so when I get my stamps I can bring home my new to me toys.

Bubbles
December 24, 2011, 06:00 PM
I wouldn't purchase a machine gun as an investment in anything but freedom.

giggitygiggity
December 25, 2011, 10:24 AM
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the $200 tax or the paperwork and wait is the big issue... I mean $200 is nothing compared to how much I am willing to throw down for some guns.

However, the issue for me is the 1986 date. There are so many machineguns made before 1986 and that date is getting further and further away and those pre 1986 guns are getting older and more used and abused and more expensive with each passing day. If they lifted the date restriction, those individuals selling their pre 1986 machineguns would no longer have the finite supply of machineguns and wouldn't have as much leverage to sell them for inflated prices (ie a mac for $5000 that probably costs about $100 to make).

I never plan to commit a crime with my NFA weapon so I don't care if they register it and charge me $200 for it. I would just like to be able to go into a gun shop and see a AR15 in semi-auto and an M-16 or M-4 in semi/burst/auto in the same price range. If that M16/M4 requires me to pay the government $200 and do some paperwork, so be it; it's better than having to pay $20,000+ for an M-16/M-4.

AlexanderA
December 25, 2011, 11:41 AM
Bubbles wrote:

I wouldn't purchase a machine gun as an investment in anything but freedom.

I agree -- not at these prices.

An amnesty will happen, but maybe not in our lifetimes. Or, better yet, Congress will come to see that the NFA was based on an arbitrary and meaningless distinction (why are full automatics any more deadly than their semiautomatic clones?) and repeal it, or the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.

In the meantime, if you want an investment, stock up on machine gun parts. The originals are getting more difficult to come by every year. They're going to be needed if the ban is ever lifted.

SharpsDressedMan
December 25, 2011, 07:40 PM
Add a double domestic homicide in Akron, OH back in the late 70's by the Class III dealer, who was despondent over a divorce. His son ended up killing him with a shotgun when he went after his wife and her friends at the friends residence. I know, as it tied up the delivery of my first MG for a year or more in probate (I had purchaed from the ClassIII). My gun was released by the local sheriff about 15 months after the incident.

Quaamik
January 8, 2012, 04:43 PM
Personally I doubt we will ever see another amnesty and I wouldn't want one anyway.

To explain the second part of the statement first:
- An "amnesty" is a limited time offer for someone to admit to an illegal action and have it forgiven. There has been one at least and I believe there were several. Many who could have applied for it did not for fear it was a trick to catch them and prosecute them. With our current BATFE I would believe that more than any news reporting of an amnesty. In addition, an amnesty would only cement the concept of machine guns being banned. It would result in people (who trusted the amnesty) registering old war relics and any frame they could convert within the time limit. Many of those would no longer support a repeal of the ban.

As to why I doubt we will ever see one:
- The BATFE is on fecord as saying that an amensty would jeopordize ongoing investigations. In addition, the average non gun owner doesn't understand NFA weapons and woudl be easily convinced that this would allow "terrorists" to legaly own machine guns. No politician (Ron Paul being a possible exception) would support it. Lastely, if it was added as a "poison pill" to legislation going through it would likely kill that legislation.

Quaamik
January 8, 2012, 04:47 PM
As a note: The anti's would point out there are "amnesties" run all the time for people who want to get rid of illegal machine guns. They are called "Gun Buy Backs".

That would be used to discredit any one prosecuted for grandpas war bring back. They would just say they could have disassembled it and brought it to the next gun buy back.

If you enjoyed reading about "NFA Amnesty?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!