Are you in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughe's Amendment?


PDA






theman838
November 22, 2011, 08:22 PM
Even though it would kill the values of your guns and take away your elite status?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are you in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughe's Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gennro
November 22, 2011, 08:56 PM
Yes

The Lone Haranguer
November 22, 2011, 08:56 PM
:scrutiny:

I'll play. To follow the true intent and spirit of the Second Amendment, we should have the same access to the same personal weapons used by the military and police. And, far from losing value or "elite status," :rolleyes: repeal of NFA would put more of them on the market, bringing the price down so people of more modest means could afford them. Somehow, I don't think this would result in the streets running with blood.

Aaron Baker
November 22, 2011, 09:50 PM
Maybe I'm not the last word on this subject, since I just own 1 SBR, but of course I'm in favor. I'd probably chop the barrels on almost every rifle I own, and throw a few suppressors on them too. All without the hassle and cost of the NFA stamp process.

I'd venture to say that the few people who have a ridiculous amount of money invested in machine guns and might lose out on their "investments" probably also have a lot of money tied up in other things as well.

Even the guy who just paid $3k for his first M11 in full auto would probably not complain too much, since he could just turn around and get a full auto M16 lower as well. And that's probably what he was lusting after in the first place until he saw the $10k+ entry fee.

Aaron

FIVETWOSEVEN
November 22, 2011, 11:16 PM
One guy posted in a thread like this about he would lose his investments in some Machine Guns he had. He would rather the registry to never reopen till he could make a profit.

788Ham
November 22, 2011, 11:22 PM
YES! I didn't realize I had any elite status anyway.

Ian
November 22, 2011, 11:51 PM
I'm all for repealing the NFA. Then I could have a lot more machine guns!

Snowbandit
November 22, 2011, 11:55 PM
There was a poll about this exact question a couple months ago on the White House website. Couldn't even get the 5000 signatures to advance it to the next step. That's pretty sad.

RhinoDefense
November 23, 2011, 12:15 AM
Doesn't mean people are for or against it, a public poll is a horrible way to manage social change, let alone legislative. I've been an SOT for many years and most of my clients that purchase transferable machine guns aren't the type to sign petitions, take polls, or spend much time on the Internet.

Rail Driver
November 23, 2011, 01:52 AM
Yes.

zignal_zero
November 23, 2011, 06:59 AM
I see where someone mentioned "the guy who just paid 3G+ for his 1st M11". I know he meant it figuratively, but I AM that guy :) and yes, I would be all for the repeal of it.

Furthermore, I have spent several years as a police officer, i have seen the effect gun laws have on criminals and law abiding citizens alike, and the ONLY gun law I would ever even consider being in favor of (consider, not even sold on it yet) would be - if you were convicted of using a gun in a violent felony against another person, no more guns for you. That's the only possible gun law I can think of that isn't a blatant violation of the 2A as I interpret it. I support the repeal of EVERY other gun law regardless of how bad it devalues my new M11

Sam1911
November 23, 2011, 07:13 AM
This question has been discussed before, recently. Check out this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7626098

Assuredly there must be some machine-gun owners so heavily invested that they're complicit in maintaining grossly anti-2nd Amendment legislation in order to protect their investment. But that's certainly not the majority of MG owners. (In fact, there are some here who will chew you a new ejection port for insulting their ethics by suggesting that.)

Famquat
November 23, 2011, 08:29 AM
Yes! I would have a problem affording ammo for full auto, forget it when you consider the price for acquisition. Also, wouldn't it be nice to shoot with a suppressor and avoid "ear protection" regardless of the type of gun.

rodinal220
November 23, 2011, 09:19 AM
Yes,and anyone who isnt is an enemey of the Second Amendment.

AlexanderA
November 23, 2011, 10:26 AM
Yes, but it's a moot point. The real question is how to sell repeal to the public. Even most gun owners probably wouldn't be in favor of repeal of the NFA. Good luck getting politicians to spend political capital on this. They wouldn't touch the issue with a proverbial 10-foot pole. The only way to get repeal (of the Hughes amendment or the NFA itself) would be to sneak it through Congress on some other bill, the way the Hughes amendment was added in the first place.

CleverNickname
November 23, 2011, 10:35 AM
Of course not. A $200 tax and a prohibitively large price tag keeps machine guns out of the hands of the poors, just like the Founding Fathers intended. Maybe you should spend your time working harder so you can afford one, instead of whining about it on the internet.

BeltFedEd
November 23, 2011, 10:41 AM
I have quite a bit tied up in machine guns and I would be thrilled to have their value go to "zero" if it meant the NFA would go away. No matter how much I paid, I got them for shooting fun not an investment.

Carl N. Brown
November 23, 2011, 11:04 AM
The Hughes Amendment was a last minute attempt to poison pill the Firearms Owners Protection Act. It was useless and unnecessary--registered NFA items are simply not a crime problem; but, it does prove that given a "reasonable regulation", the antis will always propose one step further toward prohibition. It's their nature and we should not forget it and not get conned.

zignal_zero
November 23, 2011, 03:17 PM
CleverNickname - please tell me that was a sarcastic way of saying these law makers have poo-poo'd all over what noble men fought, killed, and died to build for us because the lack of smileys made it a wee bit difficult to tell

AlexanderA
November 23, 2011, 06:07 PM
Carl N. Brown wrote:

The Hughes Amendment was a last minute attempt to poison pill the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Yes, exactly. But once Hughes had been added, it was a great mistake to go forward with FOPA. The tradeoff wasn't worth it -- the improvements regarding Title I firearms were marginal at best. And FOPA could have been re-introduced, and would have passed later. The NRA could have asked its supporters in Congress to pull the bill, or Reagan to veto it. This has to go down as a great strategic mistake on the part of the NRA. But I suppose the NRA was institutionally invested in FOPA, and inertia prevented them from reversing course at the last minute. Now, when are they going to try to undo the damage of Hughes?

FadingSwordsman
November 23, 2011, 07:26 PM
CleverNickname - please tell me that was a sarcastic way of saying these law makers have poo-poo'd all over what noble men fought, killed, and died to build for us because the lack of smileys made it a wee bit difficult to tell

I'm hoping so, as well.

But maybe there's something there for the USSC. A government-enforced 200$ prohibition from poor people owning cool things. Why do anti-gun politicians hate the poor so much? :neener:

Magnuumpwr
November 23, 2011, 08:24 PM
FadingSwordsman, Why do anti-gun politicians hate the poor so much? Change will start with the people who feel they are being oppressed the most. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer!

CleverNickname
November 23, 2011, 09:13 PM
CleverNickname - please tell me that was a sarcastic way of saying these law makers have poo-poo'd all over what noble men fought, killed, and died to build for us because the lack of smileys made it a wee bit difficult to tell
The best type of sarcasm is when the reader can't tell if it's sarcasm or not. :)

Lunie
November 23, 2011, 10:26 PM
Are you in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughes Amendment?

Yes.

WardenWolf
November 24, 2011, 12:00 AM
While I believe the Hughes Amendment should be repealed, along with the vast majority of the NFA, I believe there should remain some restrictions on machine guns. Let's face it: machine guns can do a LOT of damage very quickly, especially in the hands of someone who knows how to use one halfway correctly (and believe it or not, modern video games get it very right, in that you have to use controlled bursts; your average kid nowadays could quickly adjust to the real thing). These things need to be tracked and their owners background-checked.

mnrivrat
November 24, 2011, 01:26 AM
NFA , 1968 Gun Control Act ,& Hughes are all unconstitional .

dogrunner
November 24, 2011, 09:16 AM
I dunno, Warden. Universal enfranchisement can and has done more damage than could have EVER been so accomplished if the original NFA had never seen the light of day.

At what point do we accept the security of patently unconstitutional acts in the guise of necessity? Hell, if the logic you propose is proper, then we OUGHT to severely limit freedom of speech, religion and association. After all, there is damned little more dangerous than a free press!

AlexanderA
November 24, 2011, 09:46 AM
WardenWolf wrote:

While I believe the Hughes Amendment should be repealed, along with the vast majority of the NFA, I believe there should remain some restrictions on machine guns. Let's face it: machine guns can do a LOT of damage very quickly, especially in the hands of someone who knows how to use one halfway correctly (and believe it or not, modern video games get it very right, in that you have to use controlled bursts; your average kid nowadays could quickly adjust to the real thing). These things need to be tracked and their owners background-checked.

As an owner of machine guns, I have to say this: in most scenarios, machine guns are not particularly more deadly than their semiautomatic cousins (especially considering the rate at which they consume ammo). By your rationale, then, semiautomatics should be controlled like machine guns. In an ideal world, I'd rather that neither be controlled.

jmorris
November 24, 2011, 10:17 AM
Yes, and I would be the first guy on my block to have a form 1, 50 bmg minigun. Oh, and a bunch of other stuff.

jmorris
November 24, 2011, 10:20 AM
By wardenwolfs account, shotguns should be controled too.

Further, if hughes was gone machineguns would remain NFA devices ("controled").

S.W.G.
November 24, 2011, 11:48 AM
Would you like to see a repeal of the Hughes Amendment?

Absolutely!

Would you like to see a repeal of the entire NFA?

No. But hear me out.

I think we should deregulate SBR's, SBS's, Suppressors, and redefine AOW's to exclude handguns and shotguns with a fore grip.

We should also simplify the licensing and registration aspects of it. No more Class III's licenses or the like. If you have been deemed trustworthy enoughy to sell Title I items, you should be able to deal in any kind of firearm.

Only two types of Forms. A Form 1 to manufacture, a Form 2 to possess.

Add all Post Sample NFA items are moved the general registry, and repeal the section of the 1968 GCA that bans importation of Title II items for civilian consumption.

Destroy all records related to the now-deregulated SBR's, SBS's, Suppressors, and pistols with fore grips.

I disagree with a full repeal of the NFA because that would be completely impractical from a political standpoint. We've won when it comes to 'assault weapons', but I cant see the public embracing Title 1 hand grenades or completely deregulated machine guns.

Just re-opening the MG registry would make me ecstatic.

dovedescending
November 24, 2011, 12:12 PM
I would love to see the restrictions on SBR/SBS/AOW/suppressors done away with. But when it comes to FA, I don't much care about the $200 stamp. If we could just get the registry reopened, I would be content.

AlexanderA
November 24, 2011, 05:47 PM
jmorris wrote:

By wardenwolfs account, shotguns should be controlled too.

Yes, that's what it boils down to, when you consider that a single 00 buckshot blast is equivalent to a 9-shot burst from a 9mm submachine gun. This tells me that, for use as weapons, submachine guns are overrated while shotguns are underrated.

AlexanderA
November 24, 2011, 06:01 PM
dovedescending wrote:

But when it comes to FA, I don't much care about the $200 stamp. If we could just get the registry reopened, I would be content.

How would you feel if the registry were reopened, but the $200 stamp were increased to, say, $2,000? Because that's a fairly likely scenario, and that's the problem with having a registry at all. The purpose of the registry, and the tax, from its beginnings in 1934, was to be practically prohibitory without saying so in terms. The "permissive era" of FA ownership, in the 70's and 80's (between the erosion of the tax through inflation and the slamming door of the Hughes amendment), was a historical anomaly.

mboylan
November 24, 2011, 07:06 PM
Carl N. Brown wrote:



Yes, exactly. But once Hughes had been added, it was a great mistake to go forward with FOPA. The tradeoff wasn't worth it -- the improvements regarding Title I firearms were marginal at best. And FOPA could have been re-introduced, and would have passed later. The NRA could have asked its supporters in Congress to pull the bill, or Reagan to veto it. This has to go down as a great strategic mistake on the part of the NRA. But I suppose the NRA was institutionally invested in FOPA, and inertia prevented them from reversing course at the last minute. Now, when are they going to try to undo the damage of Hughes?
The improvements from the FOPA were more than just marginal. Many shooters on this forum don't remember the days when all of your personal information was recorded for each handgun ammo purchas, when the sale of ammo through the mail was prohibited and when you could go to prison for driving through the wrong area with the wrong gun.

Justin
November 24, 2011, 07:16 PM
Speaking as someone who plays modern FPS video games and has some experience with shooting real full-auto guns, I have gto go on record as saying that warden wolf is incorrect.

Regardless of how "right" modern games have gotten, WRT the use of full-auto firearms, they still don't do much to prepare you for the real thing. There's a massive difference between hitting the trigger button on your XBOX 360 controller, and actually firing a fully automatic gun in real life.

If anything, the supposedly higher levels of realism in video games only goes to reinforce the delusion of many players who think that gaming translates to real-world experience.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk

S.W.G.
November 25, 2011, 12:12 PM
(and believe it or not, modern video games get it very right, in that you have to use controlled bursts; your average kid nowadays could quickly adjust to the real thing).

As a 'kid' who plays a lot of video games, I can tell you from first hand experience that it's not even close.

I have had the pleasure of firing three machine guns, an M2 Carbine, an HK SP89 with a sear pack, and an HK53 with the same sear pack.

Aside from the technical details like rate of fire and muzzle climb, (which video games never get right) there is the aspect of noise. That HK53 was loud enough that I had to get my bearings together after a few bursts. And that was just shooting off into a mound of dirt. A moving target? Not a chance.

The decade of video games may have helped me learn how to line up the front and rear sights, but that's about it.

They don't teach you trigger discipline, burst control, or the proper stance.

I'll say it again, not even close.

P5 Guy
November 25, 2011, 01:39 PM
How about we repeal the GCA 1934.
That's the infringement that started it all. It gave the ATF something to do after Prohibition got justly repealed.

MasterSergeantA
November 25, 2011, 02:20 PM
Back to the original question...I do support repeal of the Hughes Amendment. I think it was illegally passed and should never have been included in the FOPA. On the other hand, I don't have a particular problem with the NFA except perhaps the additional tax, which was included to be punitive (at the time) and should have been declared unconstitutional.

I don't have a problem with controls on NFA firearms...or any others. My problem is that every time something hideous happens and involves a firearm, the immediate, knee-jerk reaction is to blame the firearm. The second amendment provides my right to keep and bear firearms; filling out a 4473 to get the firearm is just a formality. Having someone check my background to verify that I am not a 'prohibited person' makes a certain amount of sense. Back in January we had a nut case here who shot a number of people, some of whom died. The immediate response was "ban handguns" and "ban high-capacity (normally not well defined) magazines"! But the "alleged" shooter had illegally purchased the handgun because no records existed to document his insanity and the danger he presented to both society and himself. He could just as easily have driven a car into the crowd and gotten the same box score. So he should have been locked up as a threat to society in general; but we can't do that in this day and age.

Warden Wolf thinks the automatic weapons should be 'restricted'. They already are, but here in Arizona, if you can meet the legal requirements to own a handgun, you can own an automatic weapon. Don't need more restrictions than that. As I already said, I don't have a specific problem with the NFA and the registry. If my automatic weapon was stolen and showed up at a crime scene, I would like to think that the authorities could track it back to me and maybe even return it to me at some point. Again, the tax was originally created to make it nearly impossible for the common citizen to afford a legally procured firearm (and was supposed to have included handguns) and that is just the wrong use of governmental power. We could drop the tax and retain the registry as far as I am concerned.

It is nice to see that Justin and S.W.G. agree that FPS and real world shooting are not the same. With almost 43 years in uniform, I have a lot of experience with real automatic weapons and none with games. But I run into a lot of younger people who think that their marvelous scores on Call of Duty make them naturals for the three-gun matches out here. Makes me laugh...a lot. Even the real range doesn't give you real experience unless someone is shooting back at you. Makes all the difference in the world.

Just my two cents.

FIVETWOSEVEN
November 25, 2011, 02:35 PM
Yes, and I would be the first guy on my block to have a form 1, 50 bmg minigun. Oh, and a bunch of other stuff.

With a .50 BMG gatling gun, you'd fire one 2 second burst and then all your gun funds for that year are gone.

Zach S
November 25, 2011, 02:48 PM
You nay-sayers should do a little research on how many form 4 weapons have been used in crimes, and who used them...

Justin
November 25, 2011, 09:40 PM
It is nice to see that Justin and S.W.G. agree that FPS and real world shooting are not the same.

In general, FPS games have gotten better about some things, like driving home the fact that using the sights will actually increase your accuracy and some of the other basic mechanical functions of guns, like the need to fire in short bursts or reload once in awhile.

Certainly some FPS players will make the leap from the gaming world to the real world, and I certainly welcome them. If anything, video games have been a huge factor in the mainstreaming of gun ownership in the last decade, especially for EBRs and the like.

But the bottom line is that all FPS games, even the ones that are supposedly the most "realistic" are designed first and foremost to be fun, and realism is a distant second or third. On top of that, there's a whole universe's difference between running a real gun in a dynamic environment vs. using a controller to play a game.

Furthermore, as someone who avidly played FPS games starting with Wolfenstein 3D on a 386SX, up to the latest version of Modern Warfare, I can tell you that if all of the hours I've wasted on those games translated to actual real-world skill, I'd have placed near the top of the heap at some of the biggest 3 Gun matches in the country.

Unfortunately, that didn't happen, as being good with a gun means you have to actually put the time in with real guns in order to be good.

DoubleTapDrew
November 25, 2011, 11:01 PM
I'd be all for it as well. It's a perfect example of the government meddling in areas where they are strictly forbidden (2nd Amendment) and screwing up the supply side of the market.
Anyone who buys and sells MGs for profit rather than the joy of shooting them has no sympathy in my eyes. That's an incredibly risky investment and if they weren't prepared to loose it all when they got into it they should stay away from it.

but with the mayhem one MG can unleash, there ought to at least be some sort of control network for them.

Do the criminals abide by the controls that are in place? After seeing some demonstrations of a full auto "hosing down" targets versus controlled semi auto shooting I'm not too afraid of them.
If this were WWI and we were soldiers charging trenches it may be an issue.

gyvel
November 26, 2011, 12:16 AM
I think it would be appropriate to publicize the fact that the NFA of 34 and 35 (as well as the Sullivan Law) were largely ethnically biased laws. Specific mention was made by elected officials that the laws would be highly useful in keeping weapons out of the hands of the Italians and Irish.

Mike OTDP
November 26, 2011, 03:19 PM
You sell the repeal as a tax increase. A $1,000 excise tax on the manufacture (not transfer) of a new MG. Soak those MG purchasers!

The fact that you just reopened the registry is a side-effect. :-)

Chemistry Guy
November 27, 2011, 10:34 PM
In addition to automatic weapon restrictions, a lot of the NFA is obsolete. Limitations on barrel length, suppressors, foregrips, etc. were made in a different era. Current knowledge of hearing loss, the popularity of modular designs, interchangeability of pistol/rifle calibers etc. all show how the NFA laws are a mess. Politics are so tight right now that no one wants to take the risk and expend the political capital to open it back up for reevaluation, though.

zignal_zero
November 28, 2011, 01:58 PM
I already made it clear where I stand - u should b able to walk into a convenience store, at 2am, and buy a shortbarreled selectfire AK with no ID except for age verification.

I'm just back here cause y'all started talking about FPS video games. I actually go from shooting online to shooting in my backyard, within minutes. In fact, Call of Duty normally ends up in me wanting to go shoot my rifle lol. I can tell ya, there are darn sure some similarities. No, its not the same thing, but it definitely gets u prepared for live fire.

RX-178
November 28, 2011, 02:18 PM
Am I in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughes Amendment?

Yes.

That is all.

fixrspazz
December 18, 2011, 05:20 PM
Absolutely. I don't have a machine gun, but I would surely get one.

crazy-mp
December 18, 2011, 05:43 PM
Nothing like poking a sleeping dog. Repeal the Hughes Amendment, the 1934 GCA, no problem, oh by the way we noticed that our tax stamp has not been keeping up with inflation, by today's monetary value your new tax stamp price is 3200.00. Thank You for using the ATF, NFA System and have a nice day.

So instead of getting that new silencer co sparrow for 650 with your stamp it would cost 3650.00 for a .22 suppressor. Leave it alone...

I guess that put me in the "no" category

Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege, if you really want one you will find a way, if you don't you will find an excuse.

BK
December 18, 2011, 06:51 PM
-your new tax stamp price is 3200.00.
I guess that's a different and more difficult question.Repeal it all and keep or do away with the $200 tax stamp, yes please. Repeal most all of it, open the registry, but tax stamps are now $3,000+, I don't know. I'm buying another suppressor this week, and I'm getting a good deal on it. Changing the tax stamp to over three grand would keep me from ever having bought the first one.

Lunie
December 18, 2011, 07:42 PM
Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege, if you really want one you will find a way, if you don't you will find an excuse.

I have no idea why you would choose to draw an arbitrary line at MG's. If that's the line, then semi-auto's need to fall into "privilege" too. Come to think of it, levers, pumps, and bolt actions can be fired pretty fast too... Heck, ANYTHING that fires fixed cartridges might just be too reliable, too fast, and too deadly.

The U.S. Constitution is very clear. It's either a right, or it's nothing. If there was something magical about the distinction of a machinegun, there certainly could have been an amendment saying as much. However, no such amendment exists. Instead, we have laws and regulations that violate the Constitution.

The 2nd still stands. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

NOLAEMT
December 18, 2011, 08:30 PM
Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege, if you really want one you will find a way, if you don't you will find an excuse.

I cant believe someone here would say that...

Guess I learn something new everyday.

41
December 18, 2011, 08:50 PM
Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege
Some people would like to make it a privilege, but owning any type of gun you want to is a right, according to the constitution.

fireside44
December 18, 2011, 09:34 PM
Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege

Machine gun ownership is a given under the 2nd amendment, no "privilege". You sound like a politician.

Felons should be able to buy guns legally. Mentally incompetent people should be able to buy guns. Drug addicts should be able to buy guns. I have sane arguments to back these talking points that no one can defeat so I thank you all in advance for trying.

henschman
December 18, 2011, 09:47 PM
I would say the ownership of fully automatic firearms and other weapons is a right we all have, which is true whether the Constitution or any other legal document says so or not; but it is a right which is currently being infringed upon by our government.

So of course I would like to have illegitimate laws like the NFA and Hughes Amendment repealed... it would certainly make it a lot easier and safer to exercise that particular right without having to jump through the feds' ridiculous hoops.

AlexanderA
December 18, 2011, 10:44 PM
There is absolutely NO correlation between (a) repealing the Hughes amendment, and (b) raising the price of the tax stamp, except in the minds of those who would use such a supposed correlation as an argument for keeping the Hughes amendment, and thereby keeping the price of machine guns high. It all boils down to simple greed -- those who want to keep the Hughes amendment want to protect their so-called "lucrative investment" in their machine guns. The fact of the matter is that if there's a political will to repeal the Hughes amendment, there's also a political will to keep the $200 tax stamp where it is, or even reduce it.

As a machine gun owner, I deeply resent those of my fellow owners who have the attitude of "I got mine, so screw the rest of you." They're cutting off their noses to spite their faces, because in the long run such an attitude will ruin the machine gun market for future generations, and thereby make their temporary gains illusory.

RX-178
December 18, 2011, 11:24 PM
Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Hughes Amendment.

The NFA as a whole is slightly more troublesome because it's where all our definitions of firearms come from. Before the NFA, there was no legal definition of a rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun, or any gun. A gun was just a gun.

I don't necessarily agree with any of the NFA's definitions, but I personally think it might be a little confusing if all of a sudden there was no definition for different categories of firearm. That might not be a bad thing, but I just am not sure where I stand on that.

Now, the NFA's categorizing of short barreled weapons and machineguns as restricted items, I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Sam1911
December 18, 2011, 11:43 PM
Before the NFA, there was no legal definition of a rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun, or any gun. A gun was just a gun.


Er... before the NFA, there was no need for a "legal" definition of either. They simply were whatever they were.

The "need" for a legal definition has lead to such absurdities as a shotgun without a buttstock being legally not a shotgun at all, but an "other Firearm" (which ... of course ... is exactly the same thing as a tripod-mounted semi-auto, belt-fed .50 BMG rifle... of course :rolleyes:). Or a shotgun below a certain length being a short-barreled shotgun, but the same shotgun without a stock being NOT a shotgun at all, but an "Any Other Weapon."

Outside of taxing and making possession of items UNCONSTITUTIONALLY illegal, there is no need to legally define them. A malum in se crime committed with (or without) any of them is a crime, period. Malum prohibidum "crimes" of possession of an item should not exist (and such prohibitions when applied to arms are contrary to the written letter of our founding document) so we should no have no need for a specific legal definition of one vs. another.

I think I'll still be able to identify my rifles, handguns, and shotguns without any help from Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Section 921.

crazy-mp
December 18, 2011, 11:55 PM
Some people would like to make it a privilege, but owning any type of gun you want to is a right, according to the constitution.

I must have missed the clause about being able to afford what you want, because in that case I want a Quad 50 with a 5 ton to pull it around.

Nobody took the right to own a machine gun away, well at least in most states, but you could become a FFl/SOT and get them anyways. The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away. NFA is an expensive game to play, once you start looking into machine gun ownership.

Kush
December 19, 2011, 12:15 AM
I must have missed the clause about being able to afford what you want, because in that case I want a Quad 50 with a 5 ton to pull it around.

Nobody took the right to own a machine gun away, well at least in most states, but you could become a FFl/SOT and get them anyways. The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away. NFA is an expensive game to play, once you start looking into machine gun ownership.

Then tell me where I can legally buy a fully automatic FN f2000, FN p90, HK UMP, or other fully automatic guns that were manufactured after 1986 without having to be licensed by the government. There is a lot more than paying to play involved in getting a class III FFL.


I cant believe someone here would say that...

Guess I learn something new everyday.

You didn't see the thread in the legal section(could be wrong about the section) where people where saying if you are legally blind you shouldn't be able to own a gun then did you?

crazy-mp
December 19, 2011, 12:23 AM
Then tell me where I can legally buy a fully automatic FN f2000, FN p90, HK UMP, or other fully automatic guns that were manufactured after 1986 without having to be licensed by the government. There is a lot more than paying to play involved in getting licensed by the government.

Somalia, and Pakistan off the top of my head. Sorry to break it to you but civilian ownership of any post 86 H&K machine guns will never happen, even if the Hughes is repealed.

crazy-mp
December 19, 2011, 12:36 AM
There is a lot more than paying to play involved in getting a class III FFL.

There is no such thing as a class III FFL. You are referring to a FFL/SOT. Special Occupational Tax. There are 3 different tax classes manufacturer, importer and dealer.

41
December 19, 2011, 01:18 AM
The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away

That would occur if the supply curve met the demand curve. When the government significantly reduces the amount of supply, the supply does not equal the demand, and therefore the price is driven up because a few people can and are willing to pay a higher price for this limited quantity. Therefore the government reduced the amount of people that are able to own full autos, not a free market system.

If there was a free market on full autos more manufacturers would enter the civilian full auto market. This would increase the quantity, which would drive the price down to the level where quantity equals demand.

Rail Driver
December 19, 2011, 01:27 AM
I do see one probable outcome of repealing the NFA, and that's a skyrocket in ammo prices when demand suddenly increases.

Lunie
December 19, 2011, 01:35 AM
Nobody took the right to own a machine gun away, well at least in most states, but you could become a FFl/SOT and get them anyways. The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away. NFA is an expensive game to play, once you start looking into machine gun ownership.

No, FA firearms aren't somehow magically more expensive. In fact, they can be simpler to design and manufacture than their semi-automatic brethren, and cheaper to produce. :banghead: Just how much do you think it would cost to crank out M3's or Sten guns today? Heck, LE pricing on new MP5's is less than many people pay for semi-auto handguns.

The only thing pricing most people out of ownership is unwarranted and unjust government interference with supply. And then there are still unnecessary legal hindrances to ownership, transfer, and use.

Sam1911
December 19, 2011, 07:27 AM
Sorry to break it to you but civilian ownership of any post 86 H&K machine guns will never happen, even if the Hughes is repealed.
Hard to say what the factory may do (if it became legal to sell their products here...they are in the business of selling things, but of course we suck and they hate us), but patents exprie, and lawful conversions by SOT2s happen every day. In that case, the only difference would be that the SOT2 could make a new transferrable conversion instead of a dealer post sample.

Deus Machina
December 19, 2011, 08:34 AM
Repeal something that could inject money into the US economy through taxes and business? Now that doesn't sound like a good idea at all... ;)

Heck, I would be happy with simply allowing newly-manufactured FA's to be sold to the public, and keeping the taxing, registration, and trust requirements in place.

Until we can repeal those, too.

BeerSleeper
December 19, 2011, 09:12 AM
I'm going to respond to the original question,"Are you in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughe's Amendment?"

Yes, and no.

I would like to see them go away, but I would prefer to see them found unconstitutional by the supreme court. It's better precedent down the road, than if "congress simply changed their mind". It more firmly establishes it as a constitutionally protected right, than if it's repealed by congress.

That said, I'll settle for anything that makes it go away.

CoRoMo
December 19, 2011, 09:47 AM
I'd like .. registering MG's ... they pose a risk.
Inanimate objects are just that. They are no more inherently evil than another.
It is the user... who poses a risk, not the object that he holds in his hands.
I'm very strongly pro gun ..., but...
Yes, that one again. I see.
...there ought to .. be .. control...
You're for gun control. That's terrific.

camar
December 19, 2011, 02:22 PM
I agree with what The Long Haranguer, mnrivrat, and P5 Guy posted. I think some of you need to take a step back, sit down and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

crazy-mp
December 19, 2011, 05:34 PM
Heck, LE pricing on new MP5's is less than many people pay for semi-auto handguns.



Yes and H&K knows people will drop 1K on a handgun, so why would they drop the price to say that of a Hi-Point? The big AR manufactures know that people will give 10-20 thousand for a M16, even if the Hughes was repealed they would not start selling M16's overnight for 599.99, they would start out as high as the market would bear to pay, who knows what that would be, it might be 6 thousand dollars, or it might be 1500.00.

In 2004, H&K was awarded a major handgun contract for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, worth a potential $26.2 million for up to 65,000 pistols. This contract ranks as the single largest handgun procurement contract in US law enforcement history. That brakes down to around 407.08 per gun. But if you were to order 20,000 pistols I am sure they would cut you a deal too.

Not all guns are "cheaper" to produce in full auto either, yes you can make a 10/22 full auto in literally seconds, but its not safe or controllable. You can make one select fire and that cost around 800.00.

Hard to say what the factory may do (if it became legal to sell their products here...they are in the business of selling things, but of course we suck and they hate us),

No not really, H&K has a very carefully worded contract that states what they will and will not sell inside the United States. Why do you think there are no semi-auto only mp5's or H&K factory SBR's?

Lunie
December 19, 2011, 06:18 PM
Yes and H&K knows people will drop 1K on a handgun, so why would they drop the price to say that of a Hi-Point? The big AR manufactures know that people will give 10-20 thousand for a M16, even if the Hughes was repealed they would not start selling M16's overnight for 599.99, they would start out as high as the market would bear to pay, who knows what that would be, it might be 6 thousand dollars, or it might be 1500.00.

Not all guns are "cheaper" to produce in full auto either, yes you can make a 10/22 full auto in literally seconds, but its not safe or controllable. You can make one select fire and that cost around 800.00.

No not really, H&K has a very carefully worded contract that states what they will and will not sell inside the United States. Why do you think there are no semi-auto only mp5's or H&K factory SBR's?

I'm not sure you have a firm understanding of economics... :scrutiny: Demand would stay very low at current prices. It wouldn't take long for a very competitive market to develop to meet the demand for lower cost FA's. An M16 has no reason to be a $20k item. And if unlawful restrictions were removed on these items, they would no longer suffer from such incredibly inflated prices.

And when I said cheaper and easier to make, I mean from an engineering/manufacturing standpoint.

H&K can go rot for all I, and a lot of other people, care. I used the MP5 as an example of a more contemporary SMG that is relatively inexpensive to make.



But this is all running in circles around the topic of repealing the NFA et al. They are unconstitutional regulations. Period. Any others issues and considerations are secondary to that.

So other than "It won't help", "It may make things worse if we bring it up", and "OMG! Machineguns!", what reason do you have to oppose the repeal of these infringements?

Sam1911
December 19, 2011, 06:29 PM
The big AR manufactures know that people will give 10-20 thousand for a M16, even if the Hughes was repealed they would not start selling M16's overnight for 599.99, they would start out as high as the market would bear to pay, who knows what that would be, it might be 6 thousand dollars, or it might be 1500.00.
The only reason anyone will pay $10-20K for an M16 is because the have to, because of Hughes. Repeal Hughes, and every AR manufacturer out there will be selling LLs, DIASs, full-auto drop-in trigger packs, and registered lowers within the month.

Absent an enormous conspiracy among all the makers to artificially inflate prices, competition for full-auto guns would be just as fierce as for semis. If Colt can't command more than $1,600 (or whatever it is this month) for a semi-auto 6920 because of competition from other top end manufacturers, then they won't command much more for one with the happy switch for the same reason.

Even if they did price the full-autos up at $3,000+, within the month Bushmaster, DPMS, Spikes, Del-Ton, etc., etc., etc, would be scratching to sell at the lowest dollar they could (with LMT and Noveske, etc. within $1,000 of that mark) -- just like with semis, and Colt would be slumped in the trough of the wave of excited new buyers. No company (or group of companies) will hold their prices higher than market forces "just because."

With no artificial reason in place for the price hike, the prices would rapidly stabilize at whatever the minimum is for which each company can make a profit, just like with semis.

Ruger745
December 19, 2011, 06:46 PM
YES! I would love to be able to own.....anything, we law abiding citizens should be allowed to, trouble makers and others who have lost their second amendment rights, no.

What, if anything, could be done by people like us to start repealing or weakening these laws?

crazy-mp
December 19, 2011, 08:49 PM
What, if anything, could be done by people like us to start repealing or weakening these laws?

Well way back in October of 2011 there was an initiative to increase funding for the examiners at the ATF's NFA branch, I think the petition needed 5000 people to sign it so it would be considered, the last time I seen it there were around 3000 people who signed up.

The only want to change any laws pertaining to NFA is to get involved, go to the range with your toys, let other people run a few mags through your SBR, suppressors and machine guns. You might get them hooked into the NFA World, right now there is only a small segment of Americans that have any idea what NFA even is.

When I go to public ranges one of the first things I get asked, is either "aren't those illegal," or the famous "are you a hit-man?"

If you can get the general public and the mainstream gun community more exposure to NFA and some of the laws then launch a nationwide initiative to change the law so politicians will take notice when they receive 20,000 letters from their district instead of one here, two there and 20 next months because there was one post on a forum that made a few people write letters.

Brockak47
December 20, 2011, 12:29 PM
Yes, But I think they should still be more regulated than regular firearms, like maybe just registering them with the police with finger print cards ect. And private sales of them have to be done with switching the finger print cards and paper work at the police station

AlexanderA
December 20, 2011, 02:23 PM
Yes, But I think they should still be more regulated than regular firearms, like maybe just registering them with the police with finger print cards etc. And private sales of them have to be done with switching the finger print cards and paper work at the police station

What would be the point? Would this prevent misuse any more than the present system of NICS checks for Title 1 firearms? (The semiautomatic clones of MGs are just as deadly as MGs, for all practical purposes.) The only purpose of tracking is to facilitate confiscation.

BeerSleeper
December 20, 2011, 05:25 PM
It doesn't matter if the additional regulations prevent misuse. Infringed is infringed, and it's not acceptable.

It is my unfounded, unscientific, based-on-no-facts-whatsoever, opinion, that if NFA items were no longer restricted, their use in some crimes would increase. If one could buy full auto the same as semi, do you not think those engaged in drug/gang related violence would upgrade their weaponry? It is unfortunate, but I think it would happen.

That said, I still think the NFA should be found unconstitutional and overturned. If that means some of those guns will be used in crimes, well, then that is the price of freedom.

It is not that I find the criminal use of such firearms to be acceptable, but that the infringement of rights is more unacceptable.

Yes, But I think they should still be more regulated than regular firearms
That depends on what is meant by "should". *Should* as in, that is what is Constitutional, or *should* as in that is what you think is best for your own reasons?

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. Anyone wanting to have any kind of gun control, done legally, should have to get a Constitutional amendment to do it.

Ingsoc75
December 21, 2011, 07:57 AM
I agree with crazy-mp in regards to educating the public about NFA class weapons.

I've never even fired an NFA class weapon. The closest I came was back in 2009 when I was at a public range in Missouri and found an owner's copy of his M-16 tax stamp and form he left on the bench.

AlexanderA
December 21, 2011, 09:16 AM
I agree with crazy-mp in regards to educating the public about NFA class weapons.

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, if more people became aware that machine guns are legal (without learning more about the machine guns themselves), it might cause a hue and cry to outlaw them. Therefore, it might be wise for machine gun owners to keep a low profile.

On the other hand, if people really learn more about the actual capabilities of machine guns, and maybe get some hands-on experience with them, the mystique (fear) might be lessened. They would realize that machine guns, in practical use, are not much more deadly than their semiautomatic clones. (Of course, for some people, this realization might lead to a hue and cry against the semiautomatic clones, but that's another story.)

Zombiphobia
December 30, 2011, 12:29 AM
I'm all for it

dirtengineer
December 30, 2011, 02:10 AM
Repeal!

If you enjoyed reading about "Are you in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughe's Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!