Repeal the 1986 machine gun ban!


PDA






warfighter929
December 24, 2011, 07:18 PM
I have a created a petition to repeal the Hughes amendment that is down right unconstitutional. Help me reach the goal of 25,000 signatures before january 23, 2012. go to https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/repeal-hughes-amendment-banning-sale-purchase-and-private-ownership-fully-automatic-firearms/txKCbRzj , make an account and sign the petition.

If you enjoyed reading about "Repeal the 1986 machine gun ban!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AlexanderA
December 25, 2011, 10:48 AM
An exercise in futility. This White House isn't going to do anything about the issue. Spend your time, money, and energy campaigning for pro-gun candidates, and make sure that they know that people care about repealing the Hughes amendment. Candidates listen to their constituents in election years.

Black Butte
December 25, 2011, 12:43 PM
Wouldn't this instantly depreciate the value of rifles that people spent a lot of money on? Some might not be so happy about repealing the 1986 ban.

warfighter929
December 25, 2011, 01:52 PM
it may depreciate the value but there are very many people who would jump at the opportunity to own a fully automatic firearm, there would be a huge jump in the firearms market and a big jump in government revenue from the tax stamps

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 25, 2011, 02:41 PM
Wouldn't this instantly depreciate the value of rifles that people spent a lot of money on? Some might not be so happy about repealing the 1986 ban.

If they are more concerned about the money then our rights then they are selfish.

warfighter929
December 25, 2011, 03:21 PM
If they are more concerned about the money then our rights then they are selfish.
nicely said @FIVETWOSEVEN

zignal_zero
December 25, 2011, 05:17 PM
Ill sign it! And I am one of those people who will see their gun lose value. You know what? I don't care, liberty means more to me than rate of return :)

blume357@bellsouth.net
December 26, 2011, 05:33 PM
I'll sign it too... since the 1934 law it has all been foolish stupidity.

The irony is my class 3 dealer loves these laws... makes him money.

I love to point out to my republican / conservative friends that they can thank the 1986 ban on their hero Ronald Reagan. Who is also responsible for a lot of the gun laws in California.

doom
December 26, 2011, 07:46 PM
It may or may not depreciate the value. Look at the founding fathers and what they sacrificed by just signing the declaration of independence. Which would you rather have, $20,000 or freedom?

Ron James
December 26, 2011, 07:51 PM
I don't know, there weren't that many people buying full auto before , why would they buy if it was repealed. I wouldn't but maybe that is just me.:evil:

dmxx9900
December 26, 2011, 08:46 PM
$1000 for a new full auto AK and $1500 for a real M4. Many people would be able to afford it at those prices vs $15,000 and up for 25+ year old used guns that usually sit in a safe in most collectors homes and are rarely taken out and shot to keep their value.The ones that do shoot them are usually well off to begin with and can afford to shoot them year round well out of middle class affordability.

We need the Hughes amendment repealed otherwise, they will become extinct eventually since there only a limited number of them legally available for ownership and sale.Those people who bought those machine guns for investment should have put all that money into gold when it was cheap over ten or so years ago instead of putting it into an investment that can literally be liquidated by a stroke of a pen when the Hughes amendment finally gets repealed.

JimPage
December 26, 2011, 09:46 PM
Whitehouse.gov is the wrong venue for such a petition because it will get NO positive response. Set up a petition that all Congress Critters and the press will see.

MIgunguy
December 27, 2011, 10:31 AM
An exercise in futility
yup

Wouldn't this instantly depreciate the value of rifles that people spent a lot of money on?
yup

I am one of those people who will see their gun lose value. You know what? I don't care
me neither... a lot of us will "lose" money and don't care, we want it repealed for the greater good... we all "lose" money anyway with every pull of the trigger

warfighter929
December 27, 2011, 02:10 PM
guys do whatever you can to help this petition. email your senators, promote the petition, just whatever possible.
Thank you guys-Cody

isaac.eck
December 31, 2011, 10:20 AM
We shouldn't even have to pay the tax stamps.

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 31, 2011, 09:36 PM
I love to point out to my republican / conservative friends that they can thank the 1986 ban on their hero Ronald Reagan. Who is also responsible for a lot of the gun laws in California.

Thank the NRA, not RR. Reagan asked the NRA if he should sign FOPA because of the Hughes Amendment and the NRA said yes and they would challenge it later.

Bovice
December 31, 2011, 09:49 PM
We need the Hughes amendment repealed otherwise, they will become extinct eventually since there only a limited number of them legally available for ownership and sale.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that you can take your worn out FA weapons to an appropriate manufacturer and they can certify the original as "destroyed" and reuse the SN on a new firearm and return it to you.

springwalk
December 31, 2011, 09:49 PM
Like mentioned, your biggest foes are often the guy standing next to you smiling with his HK MP5 he paid $10,000+. He doesnt want you to get the same toy for the more realistic price of $1,000. This is very true of most class 3 dealers.:(

AlexanderA
December 31, 2011, 10:16 PM
springwalk wrote:

Like mentioned, your biggest foes are often the guy standing next to you smiling with his HK MP5 he paid $10,000+. He doesnt want you to get the same toy for the more realistic price of $1,000. This is very true of most class 3 dealers.

Class 3 dealers -- those that are truly in it for the business, as they should be -- make their profit on turnover, not on holding on to inventory for years hoping for capital appreciation. They would rather sell 100 units with a markup of, say, $500 each over a 1-year period than 10 units with a markup of $5,000 each over a 5-year period. Affordable prices are generally to the benefit of Class 3 dealers, because they make turnover much faster.

The "passive investor" (and one who doesn't care that much for machine guns for their own sake, at that) is the real problem. Such people don't even shoot their guns, so you're unlikely to find them at the range.

springwalk
December 31, 2011, 10:27 PM
Most Class 3 dealers are in it for their Personal toy collection and sell the minimum sales to retain a license. The ATF knows this and thats why they check in on them. Class 3 dealers arent generally known for great customer service:rolleyes:

AlexanderA
December 31, 2011, 10:37 PM
Bovice wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that you can take your worn out FA weapons to an appropriate manufacturer and they can certify the original as "destroyed" and reuse the SN on a new firearm and return it to you.

That's incorrect. At one time, the original manufacturer was allowed to replace a worn-out or destroyed receiver and reuse the original serial number, but ATF doesn't allow that practice any more. (There are some Olympic Arms FA M16's that fall into this category, but they're considered "gray area" legally and are best avoided.) Another complicating factor is that often the original manufacturer of the receiver is one entity, and the converter of the receiver to FA is another entity. Anyway, you can't do this now. (Somebody tried to weld serial numbers taken from MACs onto newly-made belt-feds, and got into a lot of trouble.)

That said, a "worn-out" receiver can almost always be repaired, given enough time and money. If it's utterly lost/destroyed (such as being thrown overboard into the deep ocean), you're out of luck.

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 31, 2011, 10:53 PM
(Somebody tried to weld serial numbers taken from MACs onto newly-made belt-feds, and got into a lot of trouble.)

I've heard about that but never read about it. Do you have a link handy?

AlexanderA
January 1, 2012, 01:45 AM
Do you have a link handy?

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=20486

CollinLeon
January 1, 2012, 05:49 AM
We shouldn't even have to pay the tax stamps.
Agreed... The NFA34 and GCA68 are totally unconstitutional since their entire purpose is to INFRINGE upon our 2nd Amendment rights.

CollinLeon
January 1, 2012, 05:53 AM
Thank the NRA, not RR. Reagan asked the NRA if he should sign FOPA because of the Hughes Amendment and the NRA said yes and they would challenge it later.
The NRA has done quite a bit of anti-2nd-Amendment things in its history...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/3/

CollinLeon
January 1, 2012, 05:56 AM
Wouldn't this instantly depreciate the value of rifles that people spent a lot of money on? Some might not be so happy about repealing the 1986 ban.
Some might be willing to take a loss on the existing FA firearms in their collection just so that they could buy more FA firearms to add to their collection. Although I don't really have a need for an M60 in my collection, a select fire M4 / M16 might be nice as long as it just cost me a new sear or trigger group...

lilguy
January 2, 2012, 11:34 AM
Has anyone challenged the constitutionality of Hughes? All one would need to do is try to buy a new machine gun.Being denied would give you standing and then get someone with DEEP POCKET to push it through the courts.

I don't see it ever being repealed legislatively. No ones going to fall on that sword for Machine Gun collectors. You have to make the case that FA arms are included in the mix of generally recognized civilian defense arms of the period you live in. The second amendment is not open ended.

AlexanderA
January 2, 2012, 02:18 PM
Has anyone challenged the constitutionality of Hughes? All one would need to do is try to buy a new machine gun. Being denied would give you standing and then get someone with DEEP POCKET to push it through the courts.

I don't see the present Supreme Court touching the machine gun issue. In the Heller case, Justice Scalia even went out of his way to list machine guns among examples of things that could be reasonably restricted. It would take at least a couple more pro-gun Supreme Court appointments before the issue could plausibly be taken before the Court.

I don't see it ever being repealed legislatively. No ones going to fall on that sword for Machine Gun collectors. You have to make the case that FA arms are included in the mix of generally recognized civilian defense arms of the period you live in. The second amendment is not open ended.

A repeal of Hughes, perhaps combined with an amnesty, could be attached as a rider to some other piece of pro-gun legislation. There are lots of ways it could be framed so as to make sense to the broader public (revenue-raising, legalizing family-heirloom veteran bring-backs, etc.).

Let me repeat again that the 2nd Amendment is not about "sporting uses." The arms protected by the 2nd Amendment are first and foremost military-style arms, suitable for use against a tyrannical invader or domestic usurper. That was clearly the theory behind its original enactment. It's unfortunate that Justice Scalia, in writing the opinion in the Heller case, chose to negate the importance of the militia clause. Rightly interpreted (that the militia includes the body of the whole people, not just the organized militia), the militia clause would reinforce the right to own things like machine guns.

CollinLeon
January 2, 2012, 02:59 PM
Let me repeat again that the 2nd Amendment is not about "sporting uses." The arms protected by the 2nd Amendment are first and foremost military-style arms, suitable for use against a tyrannical invader or domestic usurper. That was clearly the theory behind its original enactment. It's unfortunate that Justice Scalia, in writing the opinion in the Heller case, chose to negate the importance of the militia clause. Rightly interpreted (that the militia includes the body of the whole people, not just the organized militia), the militia clause would reinforce the right to own things like machine guns.

As a general principle, I do not believe that the government should be able to have any arms that the people are prohibited from having. Of course the obvious response by those who do not believe in the absoluteness of the 2nd Amendment is, "Well, what about nuclear weapons?"... Considering the cost of nuclear weapons, that's probably not a major issue, but one could argue that those concerns could be addressed by restricting the access to all nuclear materials... Just look at it this way -- fuel oil and fertilizer are considerably cheaper and we don't see a rash of bombings that utilize it, do we? And as the OK City incident proved, it can be a rather effective tool to use against a single building.

lilguy
January 3, 2012, 12:09 PM
I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on FA arms. What is done now would need more bodies to process the expected increase in acquisitions. I live in Illinois and we would need an overhaul of our state gun laws to collect NFA devices.

CollinLeon
January 3, 2012, 02:49 PM
I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on FA arms. What is done now would need more bodies to process the expected increase in acquisitions. I live in Illinois and we would need an overhaul of our state gun laws to collect NFA devices.
So, in other words, you're well down that slippery slope and enjoying the ride?

Our enemy's goal is a complete repeal of our 2nd Amendment rights. THAT is the only result that they will consider "reasonable" and they will not stop until they achieve it. We have tried compromising with these leftists and all it has done is give them yet another base upon which to start asking for even more restrictions. We need to TAKE BACK our rights and quit compromising. Repeal NFA34 and GCA68 to start with!

You would not need more bodies to process the expected increase in acquisitions if you completely repeal NFA34 and GCA68.

zignal_zero
January 4, 2012, 03:47 PM
I'm with Collin Leon - we don't need ANY gun laws OR anybody to sort throuh them. In fact, I've said this before, but there is only ONE gun law I would CONSIDER getting behind and that would be - if you have ever been convicted of (not just charged with) violent felony involving a weapon, then no more weapons for you.

CollinLeon
January 4, 2012, 04:05 PM
I'm with Collin Leon - we don't need ANY gun laws OR anybody to sort throuh them. In fact, I've said this before, but there is only ONE gun law I would CONSIDER getting behind and that would be - if you have ever been convicted of (not just charged with) violent felony involving a weapon, then no more weapons for you.
Well, you're nearly a true conservative, but you've got one step down that slippery slope... What you're saying is that if a person shoots (but does not kill) another (and it is not a justified shooting), then they would lose their 2nd Amendment rights, but if someone attacks someone with an axe, chops off a body part, and doesn't kill that person, then they would still have their 2nd Amendment rights. A firearm is nothing more than a tool used to facilitate an action. It should not be treated any differently than any other tool used to facilitate the action. Punish the action, not the tool... I just don't have a problem with criminals still having their 2nd Amendment rights. I have a problem with them doing violent things or even property crimes. If a drug dealer shoots another drug dealer, I really don't have a problem with it and do not think that his 2nd Amendment rights should be taken away.

I have never been charged or convicted of a felony. In fact, I have never even been incarcerated for a misdemeanor... I've paid my share of speeding tickets and such, so I guess you could have called me a "serial speeder" at one point in my life... So, it's not like I'm arguing for something that affects me directly. I'm a Strict Constitutionalist and as such, it's the principle of the matter... The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct and not subject to reinterpretation or revision...

lilguy
January 5, 2012, 10:28 AM
Sorry, but you are wrong. None of our right are unlimited. I do not want every crank bait on weekend leave from at state mental facility to be able to walk in and buy a machine gun. If your are inferring that then you are also a threat to social order.
Have you been keeping abreast of gun rights events lately, our enemies on the left are loosing 10 to 1 in the courts. Even Illinois courts are deciding in our favor, we are on the offensive, no sense in allowing the extremes to derail our train.

CollinLeon
January 5, 2012, 02:28 PM
Sorry, but you are wrong. None of our right are unlimited. I do not want every crank bait on weekend leave from at state mental facility to be able to walk in and buy a machine gun. If your are inferring that then you are also a threat to social order.
Have you been keeping abreast of gun rights events lately, our enemies on the left are loosing 10 to 1 in the courts. Even Illinois courts are deciding in our favor, we are on the offensive, no sense in allowing the extremes to derail our train.
We need to take back our 2nd Amendment rights. We have lost so much since NFA34 and GCA68. They both need to be recognized as the unconstitutional infringement upon our 2nd Amendment rights that they are and repealed. The Founding Fathers did not provide for any exceptions with respect to whom the 2nd Amendment applies. Is it so difficult to think that just maybe they knew what they were saying and said what they meant?

sturmgewehr
January 8, 2012, 12:04 PM
I don't see the present Supreme Court touching the machine gun issue. In the Heller case, Justice Scalia even went out of his way to list machine guns among examples of things that could be reasonably restricted. It would take at least a couple more pro-gun Supreme Court appointments before the issue could plausibly be taken before the Court.
While Scalia did make that statement, he didn't say they should be banned - only that they can be subject to "reasonable restrictions". Many would argue that a total ban on ownership isn't reasonable.

Quaamik
January 8, 2012, 03:12 PM
I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on FA arms.

The first problem I see with this is who gets to decide what's "reasonable"?

- Is it hundreds of dollars in fees and background checks including interviews with your family and friends plus a signoff by the local LEOs to bless your exercising of your rights?

- Is it a simple straightforward background check with a prohibitions on felons owning weapons? Note: Vandilism (painting on a building) is a felony in California.

- Is it a prohibition on violent felons owning arms?

What you think is reasonable the guy next to you might not. And what the guy down the street thinks is "resonable" might be that only the police and military have access to arms.

Personally I think the restrictions on FA firearms, and any others, should be as simple as possible. The existing laws that say it's illegal to use one in a crime. When someone uses one for a crime, prosecute them. Otherwise leave them alone.

If you enjoyed reading about "Repeal the 1986 machine gun ban!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!