A Letter to Ron Paul about reopening the Machinegun registry.


PDA






Sambo82
March 11, 2012, 05:55 AM
I've read several old threads about a repeal on the Hughes Amendment and how that might be best acomplished, and it seems like one of the better ideas was to have a pro gun congressman attach a rider doing just that. After joining this forum a few minutes, ago the last question in the application form was something akin to "What have you done to advance RKBA", and I realized that other than voting, the truth is I havn't done alot. So I decided to write Ron Paul an email about it. I figure with his no compromise stance on gun issues and liberty in general, coupled with this being his last term in Congress, that he would have no qualms about attaching such a rider. Here was the gist;

"Congressman Paul,

Noting your A+ ranking from Gunowners of America and your support of liberty for Americans in general, I highly support your campaign for the office of President. Understanding that gun rights is important to all liberty loving Americans, I want to ask you to either introduce as a bill, or add as a rider, a movement reopening the machine gun registry for civilians.

The closing of the registry in May of 1986 represents an egregious violation of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution in general. Forcing a tax on a product, and then refusing to collect said tax is an underhanded and unconstitutional method of gun control. Also the intent and effect of closing the registry was to raise the prices of these firearms to the point where only the wealthy could afford them. This reminds one of laws the aristrocracy enacted in Europe to disarm peasants, and is in short the antithesis of what our Republic stands for.

Furthermore registered machine guns have only been used in an astonishing two crimes in our history, and as such there is no compelling evidence as to why Americans have deserved to have their use restricted. I trust that you will keep all of this under consideration, and make the right decision.

Personal Greeting"

I also sent a modified copy to the more gun friendly representatives from my state. I know it's not much, but it's a start to doing something toward fighting the last century's encroachments against our firearms rights. Please email your representatives as well, and feel free to use this as a template if you don't want to write it out.

Also, am I correct about the statment claiming that only two crimes have been commited with machine guns? There seems to be conflicting claims in the precise number. And I wasn't sure if this should go under the "legal" section or NFA, so I hope I made the right choice there.

If you enjoyed reading about "A Letter to Ron Paul about reopening the Machinegun registry." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MyGreenGuns
March 11, 2012, 06:08 AM
I'm a die hard Ron Paul supporter, but if you expect him to be able to change anything we need to get the old fuddie duddies out of congress as well.

The president does not have unlimited powers, he is limited by congress.

45bthompson
March 11, 2012, 06:10 AM
Prolly fits under activism best. Dr. Paul is kinda busy lately though. Maybe he'll address it at the convention in Tampa!

Sambo82
March 11, 2012, 06:23 AM
I'm a die hard Ron Paul supporter, but if you expect him to be able to change anything we need to get the old fuddie duddies out of congress as well.

The president does not have unlimited powers, he is limited by congress.
I was thinking more as an under the radar rider to a bill while he was still in Congress, if it were possible.

zignal_zero
March 11, 2012, 11:03 AM
The president does not have unlimited powers, he is limited by congress.

Folks should try to remember this, when the WRONG GUY (Mr. Bigears) is winning. With everyone crying and pooping their pants, last election I couldn't buy ONE box of 9mm to go to the range. Now, I hear how "oh, it's all gonna happen in his second term". I'm gonna be the idiot who does NOT prepare for political doom and widespread blanket bans by breaking open my kids piggy bank to stockpile tons of ammo.

In all fairness, though, the prez can have a strong effect on the laws. He is in a position to change Supreme Court Judges (right?) and this could change how an existing law is interpreted. Not to mention, if he does appoint someone a Supreme Court Judge, basic human nature would make them want to vote the way they think he prefers.

Bubbles
March 11, 2012, 04:00 PM
While the president can't magically wave his hand and simply make 922(o) go away, he could direct the Attorney General to order the registry reopened and an amnesty put in place until an independent audit of the NFRTR shows an error rate of 0.00000001%. :evil:

lilguy
March 11, 2012, 07:57 PM
In Illinois we are fighting Handgun registration at 65 bucks a pop and an ammo tax. Must be nice to dream about opening the NFA registry. I can't get near an NFA gun in my home state.:cuss:

Walther P99
March 12, 2012, 08:23 AM
As much as I'd like to see this happen, I highly doubt it since the very people we'd think would support us (dealers, etc.) would actually vehemently oppose reopening the registry due to the amount of money/profit they'd stand to lose.. :fire:

Sam1911
March 12, 2012, 08:49 AM
As much as I'd like to see this happen, I highly doubt it since the very people we'd think would support us (dealers, etc.) would actually vehemently oppose reopening the registry due to the amount of money/profit they'd stand to lose..


That gets brought up every once in a while. Usually the person who says it ends up running from the mob of irate NFA owners and dealers who are so insulted by the suggestion.

And it really doesn't make much sense for the dealers to be against it. More guns avaialble for transfer mean more dollars coming their way. It's not like transferring a $40,000 M1 Thompson makes them more money than transferring a post-Hughes-repeal $2,000 M-16 would. They don't get a cut of the VALUE of the gun.

Bubbles
March 12, 2012, 09:29 AM
That gets brought up every once in a while. Usually the person who says it ends up running from the mob of irate NFA owners and dealers who are so insulted by the suggestion.
While this is true, I've had more than one FFL/SOT state in private that they don't want to see 922(o) because it would devalue their inventory overnight.

And it really doesn't make much sense for the dealers to be against it. More guns avaialble for transfer mean more dollars coming their way. It's not like transferring a $40,000 M1 Thompson makes them more money than transferring a post-Hughes-repeal $2,000 M-16 would. They don't get a cut of the VALUE of the gun.
There are FFL/SOT's who charge a percentage of the gun's value as part of the transfer fee for Title II firearms.

Sam1911
March 12, 2012, 10:18 AM
There are FFL/SOT's who charge a percentage of the gun's value as part of the transfer fee for Title II firearms.


No kidding? Well, you learn something new every day! Thanks!

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 12, 2012, 11:14 AM
Those that "support" the 2nd Amendment that would oppose a Hughes repeal are selfish.

fallout mike
March 12, 2012, 11:23 AM
Fivetwoseven, hypocrite would be a better word.

Pfletch83
March 12, 2012, 11:48 AM
There should be no restrictions on Firearms,because restrictions are infringement,and what does the 2-A say about that?

Prince Yamato
March 12, 2012, 11:55 AM
I think the best way to go about it is as a poison pill.

AlexanderA
March 12, 2012, 12:01 PM
Bubbles wrote:

While this is true, I've had more than one FFL/SOT state in private that they don't want to see 922(o) because it would devalue their inventory overnight.

This raises an interesting point. A true "dealer," it seems to me, makes his money on turnover; it's never a good business model to amass inventory. On the other hand, a "collector/investor" banks on the appreciation of his collection. The NFA world is probably unique in that there are so many hobbyists masquerading as businessmen.

Furthermore, an actual collector (as opposed to an investor) would be happy to have prices fall, so that he could more easily add to his collection. So we have a rather narrow range of people -- financial investors in MGs -- that want to keep prices artificially high by restricting supply.

There are FFL/SOT's who charge a percentage of the gun's value as part of the transfer fee for Title II firearms.

Why work with them? There are plenty that charge a flat fee.

Sambo82
March 12, 2012, 12:06 PM
I know the Hughes Amendment gets brought up every now and then and from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) it's never been challenged directly in court. That being said I doubt any challenge would be successful as the USSC has decided that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the right to do literally anything it wants.

IMO about the only chance of seeing legal new production machine guns is if Congress votes to reopen the registry, or if the states pass a "New 10th Amendment" so to speak. One that reaffirms specifically that the Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause does not give the federal government the right to legislate outside of their enumerated powers. Most people don't realize that 38 states can ammend the Consitution without Congress voting on anything or the President signing anything.

Of course that would instantly invalidate the NFA and 95% of what the federal government does, so there goes that Social Security, medicare, food stamps etc. that people are addicted to. So really despite it being in the best interest of the states and nation at large, I doubt any such movement would get off the ground. :(

Walther P99
March 12, 2012, 02:22 PM
That gets brought up every once in a while. Usually the person who says it ends up running from the mob of irate NFA owners and dealers who are so insulted by the suggestion.

And it really doesn't make much sense for the dealers to be against it. More guns avaialble for transfer mean more dollars coming their way. It's not like transferring a $40,000 M1 Thompson makes them more money than transferring a post-Hughes-repeal $2,000 M-16 would. They don't get a cut of the VALUE of the gun.
I'd really hope I'm wrong if such a thing came to pass as there are several MGs that I'd immediately start saving up for.. :)

As far as the profit realized, retailers looking to maintain their markup/profit margins will make more based on the value of the gun. If a dealer uses a 25% markup then the $40k M1 (I'll assume that's the dealer cost) would be marked up at retail to $50k, for a 20% profit margin or $10k. Using the same hypothetical percentages, the M16 at $2k cost would be marked to retail to $2,500 for the 20% profit margin or $500.

These numbers may be high or low for retail, but the idea is what's important.

Ian
March 13, 2012, 12:02 AM
Many of the big machine gun dealers make money by buying whole collections at a discount from auctions or estates and then selling them individually. Those guys make a lot of money from the inflated prices, and it would be very interesting to see how they would react to a reopened or repealed registry.

Girodin
March 13, 2012, 10:59 PM
He is in a position to change Supreme Court Judges (right?)

He is able to nominate new supreme court justices who then must be approved by the senate. He cannot change them in the sense of replacing a sitting justice. To be replaced the justice must either resign, die, or be impeached. There are so precious few examples of federal judges being impeached that the latter is not something I would think I will ever see.

There is in fact nothing that cements the SCOTUS at 9 members. During the new deal FDR floated an idea to pack the court by expanding its numbers because his programs were being struck down repeatedly. We don't know how that would have played out, because "the switch in time that saved nine" adverted it. In sum, a justice changed the way he was voting and FDRs programs started surviving judicial review. I would venture that expanding and packing the court would have a hefty political fallout and thus it is not particularly likely that it would even be attempted.

bamawrx
March 14, 2012, 02:01 PM
The key would be to keep Pre-1986 guns at $200 transfer tax. Tax all post 1986 guns at $5,000 (one-time) or some other high number. That prevents junk machine guns, helps maintain value in existing inventory, and still keeps the new guns affordable.

Sam1911
March 14, 2012, 02:39 PM
That prevents junk machine guns, helps maintain value in existing inventory, and still keeps the new guns affordable. Sooo, basically a "Saturday night special" law for machine guns? What's a "junk" machine gun, and why does one need to be taxed out of existence? This proposed tax is higher than even the current street price of some of the most popular transferable machine guns.

How does a "one-time" tax work, when all Title II devices are taxed each time they're transferred?

And WHO is helped by a $5,000 tax per item? Seems absurdly arbitrary. Is it to pay for something? Or to appease someone, somehow? Or to make sure that poor people don't run out and buy machine guns? What's your goal?

Walther P99
March 14, 2012, 08:38 PM
The key would be to keep Pre-1986 guns at $200 transfer tax. Tax all post 1986 guns at $5,000 (one-time) or some other high number. That prevents junk machine guns, helps maintain value in existing inventory, and still keeps the new guns affordable.
Not sure about anyone else, but I'd hardly call a $5,000 tax affordable...

Girodin
March 14, 2012, 09:56 PM
Tax all post 1986 guns at $5,000

I wouldn't see this as any real improvement in the general situation. One can buy certain transferable machine guns below that price and others for close to it. While it would reduce the price of some guns it would still place them well beyond the reach of many. I would venture that those that can buy a $1500 machine gun and pay a $5000 tax can already go buy a $10K machine gun and a $200.

I would also be real concerned that once you start talking about upping the tax on machine guns someone might get the bright idea to update the tax imposed on other items as well.

Lee Roder
March 15, 2012, 10:59 AM
The original $200 tax was equivalent to about $3200 in today's money.

:neener:

Sam1911
March 15, 2012, 11:23 AM
The original $200 tax was equivalent to about $3200 in today's money.

Indeed, and in 1934, when folks were in even worse financial condition than they are today.

It WAS a tax to keep the poorer class "undesirables" from buying machine guns.

We are very fortunate to have seen that dollar amount hold steady until that is no longer (as) true.

I'm not sure we should get behind another classist/racist/whatever-ist tax scheme on guns.

Carl N. Brown
March 15, 2012, 11:36 AM
Didn't Al Capone have a standing offer of $3,000 (in 1920s dollars; adjusted for inflation about 35,000 to 40,000) for Thompson guns, no questions asked, when the MSRP was $200?

For today. Since the registry was closed in 19 May 1986, machinegun collection has been taken over by doctors, lawyers, and other rich people driving the prices out of the reach of ordinary military history buffs. In 1985, I could have gotten a Reising M50 for $150. The last time I checked the price has been inflated to $3,200. Maybe we should recruit the Occupy Wall Street crowd to our side: present opening the NFA registry to new or imported MGs as a 99% cause against the 1%.

MtnCreek
March 15, 2012, 12:23 PM
Doctors, Lawyers and such (was that a song? :)) didn't drive up the cost, the US Gov did by limiting supply. The quantity of transferable MG's is set, so the values of those transferable MG's continue to rise. That said, I would like to be a fly on the wall when you explain the plan to the occupy crowd (I'd probably be one of many flies in that room..:D).

mboylan
March 15, 2012, 01:47 PM
A $2000 machine gun tax on top of a $200 transfer tax is a much more reasonable proposal. Anyone who thinks our government will allow it's citizens to own cheap new machine guns with only a $200 tax is living in fantasy land. All machine guns would be much cheaper. I'm guessing that my Lage Max-11 would cost exactly what I paid for it and I'm into full-auto for as cheap as it gets. That's assuming the base price of an M11/9 fell to $800.

If you can't afford to spend $2000 on top of $1200 for an M16, you can't afford to run one anyway. It's a hell of alot better than spending $15,000 on an M16A1.

mboylan
March 15, 2012, 02:50 PM
In an ideal world you could walk into a gun shop and walk out with a machine gun. In the real world that is just not going to happen. Opening the registry with a small $200 tax is not going to happen either.

We have to be realistic and at the same time, we also have to improve upon a situation where we have about 183,000 and falling, 26+ year old transferable machine guns.

Sam1911
March 15, 2012, 02:54 PM
A $2000 machine gun tax on top of a $200 transfer tax is a much more reasonable proposal. Anyone who thinks our government will allow it's citizens to own cheap new machine guns with only a $200 tax is living in fantasy land.
Seeing as there is no great apparent enthusiasm on "the government's" part to allow its citizens to own new machine guns PERIOD -- I'm not sure that the dollar value of the tax would really compel the government to allow it either way.

Considering the microscopically "small potatoes" involved (from the government's perspective) in a few thousand individuals wanting to pay a $200 or $2,000 tax -- I honestly can't imagine this would even be a blip on lawmakers' radar one way or the other.

Kind of like saying I'd never allow someone to kick me in the shins for a penny. But if they offer a dime, well...now we're talking! :rolleyes:

Jim NE
March 15, 2012, 03:59 PM
Gun rights are only part of the reason RP is a good candidate.

As far as restrictions/fees on fully automatic weapons, I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here. However, I believe it isn't so much fear of crime, but fear of a populace (who might acheive firearms parity with the government) that has many people on the other side concerned.

You see, while many of us believe that an ever growing and ever intrusive government isn't to be trusted, there are many people in the world who believe that it's free thinking citizens who aren't to be trusted.

They believe that only government can "protect us from ourselves."

Black Butte
March 15, 2012, 04:04 PM
"Liberty-loving" is hyphenated, and you need commas after "also" and "furthermore" where those words begin sentences.

mboylan
March 15, 2012, 04:28 PM
I would love the value of my M11/9 receiver to go from $3200 down to $400 if I could pick up an M16 for less than $3500. Compensating machine gun owners for their losses isn't even a consideration.

The issue is that the government does not want it's citizens to have access to machine guns. The government will certainly never consider giving access to cheap readily accessible machine guns. That was the point of the NFA to begin with.

I am just proposing that we go back close to the original NFA rather than a complete ban.

Sambo82
March 16, 2012, 02:59 AM
I wouldn't advocate for a second raising the NFA fee. I mean what would stop the ATF from applying the fee to every NFA item in that case, from SBR's to suppressors? Also a $2,000 fee would put machine guns out of the range of alot of the average Joes. I for example own a parts kit built ar15 (around $750) and could probably afford the tax stamp and FA parts, but $2800 for a rifle is too steep for me.

So why should a honest, hardworking, tax paying citizen be denied such a weapon simply because he doesn't have a large amount of disposable income? Seems really unAmerican to me...

45bthompson
March 16, 2012, 05:57 AM
Taxes are bad! It seems like an easy concept for me. When I pay that $200 I'm a little pissed that it SHOULD have gone towards ammo. The $5 AOW tax is easier to swallow considering it prolly costs more that to process my paperwork but then again hasn't that already been paid out of my federal income tax? Come to think of it all taxes piss me off. Do not suggest any new taxes lightly. The monster grows only as long as you feed it.

mboylan
March 16, 2012, 02:48 PM
I wouldn't advocate for a second raising the NFA fee. I mean what would stop the ATF from applying the fee to every NFA item in that case, from SBR's to suppressors? Also a $2,000 fee would put machine guns out of the range of alot of the average Joes. I for example own a parts kit built ar15 (around $750) and could probably afford the tax stamp and FA parts, but $2800 for a rifle is too steep for me.

So why should a honest, hardworking, tax paying citizen be denied such a weapon simply because he doesn't have a large amount of disposable income? Seems really unAmerican to me...
I was advocating a separate machine gun tax in addition to the NFA transfer tax in exchange for opening up the registry that has been closed for 26 years. The NFA transfer tax would remain the same.

SBRs, AOWs and suppressors would not be affected.

There is absolutely no way US citizens will be allowed to own post-86 machine guns with only a $200 transfer tax. It won't happen. Running a machine gun is also completely unaffordable to the average Joe. Back in the day people got rid of them because they could not afford to shoot and maintain them.

We still need to find some way to reopen the registry.

Bubbles
March 16, 2012, 03:57 PM
I was advocating a separate machine gun tax in addition to the NFA transfer tax in exchange for opening up the registry that has been closed for 26 years. The NFA transfer tax would remain the same.
So, who would end up paying the tax, the manufacturer, or the first non-SOT/non-gov't agency transferee?

AlexanderA
March 16, 2012, 06:18 PM
As I understand the proposal by some here, the $200 transfer tax would remain the same, but there would be an additional $2,000 or $5,000 manufacturers' excise tax on new machine guns (or post-1986 sample guns converted to transferables). This would have the effect of (a) opening the registry, while (b) supporting the current market. Both current and aspiring owners should be happy with this, since it's better than the current situation and nobody loses too much financially. I think it's an idea worth exploring.

Sam1911
March 16, 2012, 08:08 PM
I've yet to see how adding (to the government's eyes anyway) a chump change tax to this is going to make it palatable. $2,000 per isn't going to cause any legislator's eyes to light up. So the gov't might take in a milliion or two a year? So what? That's like the FBI's yearly budget for those little plastic coffee stirrers. :rolleyes:

In 1934 the tax was set to keep poor folks from taking advantage of this. These days no lawmaker is going to be so blatant as to get behind a "no po' folks" tax.

They won't even discuss opening the registry until/unless forced, and money isn't going to come into it.

Brockak47
March 16, 2012, 08:50 PM
It would be sort of cool to have the registry opened. Though to be honest, I like it how it is. It wouldn't be as neat to own a MG if EVERYONE had one. then it would be like any other gun.

The only thing I wish they did was make suppressors more easily available so everyone would use them at the range, would be rrreeeaallllyy nice

Sam1911
March 17, 2012, 05:39 AM
Though to be honest, I like it how it is. It wouldn't be as neat to own a MG if EVERYONE had one. then it would be like any other gun.

Please say that was sarcasm. You like that other people can't have the same gun you have because it makes you/yours special? :scrutiny:

Walther P99
March 17, 2012, 04:13 PM
It would be sort of cool to have the registry opened. Though to be honest, I like it how it is. It wouldn't be as neat to own a MG if EVERYONE had one. then it would be like any other gun.

The only thing I wish they did was make suppressors more easily available so everyone would use them at the range, would be rrreeeaallllyy nice
These are the people who would complain about losing too much money if the mg registry was re-opened.

Prince Yamato
March 18, 2012, 12:29 AM
I dislike the $200 tax, but I tolerate it. $2000 tax... man, I'd go bananas.

Swing
March 18, 2012, 10:39 AM
In 1985, I could have gotten a Reising M50 for $150. The last time I checked the price has been inflated to $3,200.

I've actually seen them go for a bit more than that these days. I recall a time when they didn't garner much interest in the NFA market.

AlexanderA
March 18, 2012, 11:11 AM
I dislike the $200 tax, but I tolerate it. $2000 tax... man, I'd go bananas.

The $2,000 excise tax (or whatever amount) being proposed here would apply only to machine guns that are currently unavailable due to the Hughes Amendment. It would be imposed at the manufacturer level and the purpose would be as a "sweetener" for opening up the registry, as well as preventing the market from dropping out on existing guns. I'd be for simply opening up the registry, but there are many current owners that would take huge losses if that were to happen. We need to maximize the political forces that are in favor of opening the registry. The excise tax could be phased out as the market stabilized, and it would be easier to do so than to change the underlying prohibition.

Sam1911
March 18, 2012, 11:25 AM
"Sweetener" for WHO? WHO are we trying to appease here? The government? I still don't think any aspect of the government is going to be impressed, in the VERY least, by an indiscernible income bump caused by a tax like this.

Or is this in some way to appease machine gun collectors who, we're theorizing, would oppose opening the registry to -- absurdly selfishly -- "protect" their investment. If so, what's the point? Is adding a $2,000 per-new-gun tax going to get them on-board? And if so, so what? What power do they wield that is going to help or hurt "us" in this effort in any significant way?

Sambo82
March 18, 2012, 12:02 PM
Man Sam, your posts make me wish there was a "like" button.

Sam1911
March 18, 2012, 12:25 PM
Well, thanks, but I'm really trying to cut to the logic here. Someone is proposing that if 'we' agree to a one-time tax of $2,000 per gun, that would be compelling to some portion of "the powers that be," helping convince them to open the MG registry.

I cannot see WHO this minuscule tax is really going to impress -- a few million in additional tax revenue isn't going to sway Congress to do anything, let alone something so radical -- so it seems there must be some other angle being played.

Is that other angle in trying to get more "heavy hitters" (i.e. rich machine gun collectors) to go to bat for us common folks and bring their money or influence to bear on Congress to reopen the registry? If so...are there really any/enough of these "heavy hitters" out there who wield that kind of influence? Really? :scrutiny: These folks exist, and have this power? And haven't deigned to use it yet? And if so, is a $2,000 per-gun tax really going to change the game for them so they suddenly decide to bring their hidden powers of influence to bear?

I just haven't seen yet how this is a strategy.

Owen Sparks
March 18, 2012, 01:47 PM
The sum of $200 was chosen because that was the price of a new Thompson gun at the time so the tax basically doubled the price.

What do you think would be a fair $ amount for a transfer tax on Bibles?

Owen Sparks
March 18, 2012, 01:52 PM
BTW, Ron Paul is retiring from Congress and is no longer in position to introduce any more bills.

Swing
March 18, 2012, 02:22 PM
What do you think would be a fair $ amount for a transfer tax on Bibles?

Full length or one of those "sawed-off" pocket versions that only have the New Testament? ;)

25cschaefer
March 18, 2012, 03:30 PM
Full length or one of those "sawed-off" pocket versions that only have the New Testament?
Those sawed off versions are what they give the troops when they deploy, military grade, you could just whip it out in a crowd of people and start preaching-everybody could fall asleep in no time. Way too dangerous.

Orkan
March 18, 2012, 04:07 PM
I just haven't seen yet how this is a strategy. That's because bribery is no strategy at all. That is what's currently happening.

It's illegal to own a machine gun. Yet if you send $200 and go through a lengthy background check, and a ridiculous 6-9 month wait time... your bribe will be granted, and you can take home your machine gun.

It's illegal to do pretty much everything... unless you pay a tax. (Bribe) We've let ourselves get to the point where we have no rights, unless we have the ability to pay for them.

Tyranny, by definition, is something that is legal for the ruling class, but illegal for those being ruled. Tyranny is ALWAYS accomplished by "law." After all, it would be unconscionable for a ruling entity to break the law, right? So they just modify the law to suit their goals. That is what happened in 1934. They wanted to ensure that the ruling powers in the government had superior firepower when compared to those being ruled.

In the name of compromise, the citizens of this country have sold our rights wholesale to the government.

Doubt me? Make a list of everything that is "illegal" unless you pay a tax and jump through hoops, which then if authorized, becomes legal as if almost by magic. Personal liberty rarely, if ever, comes into the equation.

Worse yet, is the fact that people are so accustomed to being ruled, that they will fight anyone that wants to remove power from the rulers. They can't stand being fully responsible for everything they do. It's much better for them to have to ask permission, so if something happens as a result, they have someone to blame.

Nothing is more disgusting to me than talking to a machine gun owner, and having them voice their position that they would fight the repealing of the NFA of 1934.

Their reasons cover the gamut, but here are a few:
1) They had to pay the tax, so they want to make sure everyone else does.
2) They are afraid of their collection being devalued.
3) They don't want NFA items in the hands of the "poor."
4) They want the government knowing who has NFA items.

In any event, the owners of machine guns that refuse to fight for the repeal of the NFA and the GCA feel themselves to be in a different "class" than a regular citizen. They are special in their ability to afford machine guns that would otherwise be 1/10th of their value if newly manufactured items were allowed to be sold in an unregulated fashion.

As usual, gun owners are our own worst enemies. People's selfish excuses will continue to ensure that our freedoms will be compromised into oblivion, just has happened for the last hundred years.

Orkan
March 18, 2012, 04:28 PM
Food for thought:

Here is what all this compromise has produced -
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

academy
March 19, 2012, 02:58 AM
Why not allow Native Americans to manufacture them on tribal land, then "import" them to the United States? It would provide an economic boon to areas that could use one, and allow for new manufacture. They're allowed stuff like casions, why not throw them an industrial bone? Maybe institute a special "import tax" to be paid to allow the gun off tribal land...

mboylan
March 19, 2012, 04:47 AM
Why not allow Native Americans to manufacture them on tribal land, then "import" them to the United States? It would provide an economic boon to areas that could use one, and allow for new manufacture. They're allowed stuff like casions, why not throw them an industrial bone? Maybe institute a special "import tax" to be paid to allow the gun off tribal land...
Importation of machine guns was banned with the GCA of 1968. That's why most of the foreign made machine guns you see are conversions of semi-autos. So you are really talking about repealing sections of the FOPA and the GCA. Not going to happen.

I don't expect to see legal post-86 machine guns in my lifetime.

AlexanderA
March 19, 2012, 08:04 AM
I think there are Congressmen/Senators that would vote for opening the registry, if the issue was presented to them in the right way, and if they had political cover in doing so. The "veterans' heritage bill" is one way of doing this. Most likely, opening the registry would be slipped in as an amendment to some other bill, like the reverse of what happened with the original Hughes Amendment. A big tax bill is the perfect vehicle for this -- opening the registry could be cloaked as a "revenue raiser" in some obscure provision.

Orkan
March 19, 2012, 12:41 PM
Sorry, but I'm not voting for anything that will increase the bribe. We need to fight the fights that need fighting, not just the fights we think we can win.

Sambo82
March 20, 2012, 03:36 AM
Most likely, opening the registry would be slipped in as an amendment to some other bill, like the reverse of what happened with the original Hughes Amendment. A big tax bill is the perfect vehicle for this -- opening the registry could be cloaked as a "revenue raiser" in some obscure provision.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Paul seems like the perfect candidate for this. He's pro 2A and this is, from what I understand, his last term. So essentially he's got nothing to lose anyway from such a rider.

Walther P99
March 20, 2012, 01:44 PM
In addition to a rider lifting the mg ban, maybe something removing the GCA 1968 import ban.. Although probably a long(er) shot for lifting the import ban.

zignal_zero
March 22, 2012, 01:12 AM
Yea it seems like one could explain reopening the registry along the lines of - in 1986 the machinegun registry was closed. Since then, as many as 100,000 fully automatic weapons have been made inside the U.S. and the authorities have absolutely no way of determining who is in possession of these military style weapons. By reopening the registry, the gvt would be given a powerful tool in the fight against the illegal arms trade. Once again, all newly manufactured machineguns would be subjected to a registration process that involved a background check. Furthermore, retroactive registration of the machineguns manufactured after 1986 would be encouraged by offering amnesty to those who are currently in possession of an unregistered machinegun. So not only would this law allow the gvt to keep track of all newly manufactured machineguns, it also has the power to greatly reduce the number of unregistered machineguns that are currently in this country with absolutely no documentation on who owns them.

Sam1911
March 22, 2012, 07:59 AM
Since then, as many as 100,000 fully automatic weapons have been made inside the U.S. and the authorities have absolutely no way of determining who is in possession of these military style weapons.
Based on what information? Where does this 100,000 new illegal machine guns number come from?

By reopening the registry, the gvt would be given a powerful tool in the fight against the illegal arms trade. What? Are you saying that people who make/sell/trade in illegal weapons would come to the light side if there was a way they could register them with the government? :scrutiny: I'd think this is self-evidently fallacious. The only people making/selling/trading in illegal weapons in any quantity are doing so to serve very wealthy criminal organizations (and I think even these are very few). That's never going to be legal, and those customers would not be interested in purchasing registered arms for sale through lawful channels anyway.

Furthermore, retroactive registration of the machineguns manufactured after 1986 would be encouraged by offering amnesty to those who are currently in possession of an unregistered machinegun. So not only would this law allow the gvt to keep track of all newly manufactured machineguns, it also has the power to greatly reduce the number of unregistered machineguns that are currently in this country with absolutely no documentation on who owns them.I don't think TPTB are too concerned about this. Folks who use weapons in violent, unlawful ways aren't going to REGISTER them with the government, so this won't change anything whatsoever about the safety and control of dangerous, violent criminals. All it would do is DE-criminalize folks who own contraband now, as curios and novelties, and I can't imagine the government has any compelling interest in helping those people out of the legal danger they are in.

AlexanderA
March 22, 2012, 08:49 AM
Sam1911 -- What zignal_zero wrote was a "plausible rationale," not a statement of facts. Of course your analysis is correct. But since the whole scheme of regulating machine guns is based on fear-mongering, why not counter it with something that sounds plausible to the uninitiated? Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. We have nothing to lose. (I would quibble about making statements like "100,000 post-1986 machine guns in circulation," but along general lines the idea of putting unaccounted guns into the database sounds good.)

Sam1911
March 22, 2012, 08:58 AM
That did tickle the back of my brain as I was responding -- a rationalization known to be specious but a useful piece of chicanery intended to help the uneducated masses swallow the medicine.

We should probably preface such statements with a brief disclaimer so that it is clear what we're about, rather than posting them baldly as though they are statements of merit that we accept credulously.

Swing
March 22, 2012, 09:54 AM
Since then, as many as 100,000 fully automatic weapons have been made inside

Out of curiosity, what is the source of this figure?

zignal_zero
March 22, 2012, 01:49 PM
I get my stats from the same place the anti's do...... I pull them out of my butt :D notice it did NOT say "100,000" it said "as many as 100,000" that means its a possible number. Also, be sure to use their own vernacular, things like "millitary style weapons" and other catch phrases they recognize. Very important to do a "take away" - our side needs to balk about the bill infringing on our rights, that way they our convinced its THEM who want this bill. Oh and I did give you a small headzup, the 1st sentence said 'someone could explain it like this" (or something to that effect) I thought y'all'd catch it.

Swing
March 22, 2012, 02:25 PM
I get my stats from the same place the anti's do...... I pull them out of my butt

Um, OK ...

mboylan
March 22, 2012, 11:05 PM
I get my stats from the same place the anti's do...... I pull them out of my butt

Illegal post-86 machine guns are quite rare. Illegal pre-53 machine guns are quite common.

Most figures I have seen have put the number of legal transferable on form 4 machine guns at less than 200,000.

I do not believe there are 100,000 illegal machine guns in the US, period. Crimes with illegal automatic weapons are exceedingly rare.

zignal_zero
March 23, 2012, 01:39 AM
Actually they're not that rare. Now I did just randomly grab a figure, half for the sake of demonstrating the lunacy of "statistics", and I do not believe my number is accurate. If it was, it would be an accident. However, there are quite a few machineguns that were manufactured after 1986, never registered, and without BATFE approval. Think about how many HK trigger packs have been sold for 99bux. You think those were all for replacing parts in a registered receiver? It would be a little odd that more trigger packs get sold than there are RR's accounted for. Or how about all the FA FCG's for AK's? Are those only bought by folks who have a registered AK and want to replace their FCG? Truth is - a lot of machineguns have been made since the registry closed and not all are by people who were already criminals. Watch how many folks step up if they ever did open the registry and granted amnesty for any one who has one. You think wait times are bad now LOL there'd be a 5 yr back log created over night.

But it doesn't matter if you believe me. I want the anti gun crowd to believe it. That way, reopening the registry can be pitched as a way to curb the anonyminity of MG ownership. I still think pitching the bill the way my original post did would be an easier sell than any other method.

Do not confuse the number of crimes committed with illegal MG's with the number of illegal MG's in existence. Im sure a large portion of them are owned by (otherwise) law abiding folks :)

jmorris
March 23, 2012, 09:03 AM
Nothing is more disgusting to me than talking to a machine gun owner, and having them voice their position that they would fight the repealing of the NFA of 1934.


Their reasons cover the gamut, but here are a few:

1) They had to pay the tax, so they want to make sure everyone else does.

2) They are afraid of their collection being devalued.

3) They don't want NFA items in the hands of the "poor."

4) They want the government knowing who has NFA items.

That is, for lack of better words, false.

1) $200 is nothing these days. It costs me more than half that for a tank of fuel.

2). I could care less if the machineguns I have dropped in value like Enron stock if I could form 1 all the new ones I wanted. Always wanted quad mini guns for my Jeep.

3) The government wants ME to be poor. Now that I have busted my ass and can afford semi-expensive toys (I am already taxed on) they also want me to cough up "my fair share". The exact amount they want to extort from me varies but many of them would like to take enough to make me decide not to work thus be dependent on them to provide for me like the rest of the dead beats. Not sure where they think this ends up but that's a different thread.

4) Currently the government only knows where legal NFA items are and thoes are not the ones that I worry about. Hell, they are giving them away, I guess to poor countries, and have no idea where they are now.

forestdavegump
March 23, 2012, 01:38 PM
The president does not have unlimited powers, he is limited by congress.
They, the government and/or congress, are limited by the people, provided the people are willing to limit the government. I hate to mention checks and balances....as things are out of balance and have run unchecked so long, that to speak up now seems radical and outside the norm? GOOD! As for the norm today, and for a while now, the "norm" has been to play ostrich. People seem or are to busy, working so they can eat....or too busy on social sites and playing on-line games or.....I don't know what?

.....The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it.".....:what::banghead::what::banghead:
Above quote from the http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/659-qa-republic-if-you-can-keep-itq

Problem today is few are willing to keep it. Glad that those here are fighting the good fight and willing to stand. Also glad others are waking up.
The above letter needs to go further than to Dr. Paul. We need to send letters to our local, state, and federal representatives. Again and again and again, until we get the results WE want.....the squeaky wheel gets the oil!!!!! If you send the mail letter return receipt requested and signature required, you will know when they get it, and it costs more, but you will know.(Then follow up by phone) Emails and other forms of non mail, who knows if...(round file).....As for the cost of mailing the letter this way it is money well spent as if everyone of us did that it would make a difference. Freedoms have a price! Mailing and calling can be done by all easier than watering the tree of liberty?

zignal_zero
March 23, 2012, 01:40 PM
Oh just to make sure nobody misunderstands where I am on this issue - I feel you should be able to go to the convenience store, at 0200hr, and buy a select fire Krink and they should only ask you for ID if you look less than 18 or 21 (we could argue that later). Also - I purchased a legally registered title II firearm (a SWD M11) I have never illegally converted a semi auto to fully automatic, but I do not consider the folks who have criminals as long as they are not using those guns to commit crimes. Just wanted to clear that up :)

mboylan
March 23, 2012, 11:12 PM
Think about how many HK trigger packs have been sold for 99bux. You think those were all for replacing parts in a registered receiver? It would be a little odd that more trigger packs get sold than there are RR's accounted for. Or how about all the FA FCG's for AK's? Are those only bought by folks who have a registered AK and want to replace their FCG? Truth is - a lot of machineguns have been made since the registry closed and not all are by people who were already criminals. Watch how many folks step up if they ever did open the registry and granted amnesty for any one who has one. You think wait times are bad now LOL there'd be a 5 yr back log created over night.

Do not confuse the number of crimes committed with illegal MG's with the number of illegal MG's in existence. Im sure a large portion of them are owned by (otherwise) law abiding folks :)

Well AK full-auto FCGs and often BCGs are included in every AK build kit. Most get tossed in the trash. Very few people are going to drill the axis hole and make the rail cut when the penalties are about the same as holding a kilo or two of cocaine. There aren't alot of jigs out there for people to get the location correct either. Full-auto fire does attract police and it's really easy to look at an AK receiver and tell if it's full-auto or semi-auto.

I will bet most of those HK lowers went into drawers or posties at ranges that rent machine guns. The HK full-auto lowers don't fit semi-auto uppers, which are very costly to begin with. There aren't alot of people out there with the know how to cut the upper receiver to accept the lower. Then you have to find a full-auto BCG.

Converting semi-autos to full-auto is alot more difficult than most people believe. The receivers are designed to not accept the full-auto FCG in most cases. It is a task far beyond a kitchen table gunsmith.

zignal_zero
March 24, 2012, 07:54 AM
ok, well i guess we will just have to agree to disagree. i do not believe converting a semi auto to full is that difficult and i do believe it has been done countless times since 1986. you don't :)

none of that was ever really the point of my post, though, and it stinks that my original message could get so clouded behind all this detail dispute. all i am saying is: point out the fact that machine gun manufacture has not been stopped and NEVER can be (whether or not it's true), that a machinegun can be made so long as Lowe's or Home Depot is in existence (even in the abscense of ANY pre-made firearm). Explain that most machinegun owners are hobbyist that truly wanted to abide by the law, but the gvt forced them into anonyminity by no longer allowing registration of mg's.

i truly believe pitching this as a "let's register the guns that ARE OUT THERE" will sell it. heck, i believe we can make them think it's THEIR idea. i've had a lot of experience as both a sales rep and a police officer, this could work :)

jmorris
March 24, 2012, 10:05 AM
I have never illegally converted a semi auto to fully automatic, but I do not consider the folks who have criminals


Its not your call, its a matter of definition, doing illegal things makes you a criminal.

Normal people call suicide bombers fanatics, fanatics call them a hero but by definition they are dead.

Sam1911
March 24, 2012, 12:16 PM
Its not your call, its a matter of definition, doing illegal things makes you a criminal.


Certainly true. We can say that we don't consider people who do so "BAD" or "EVIL"...but yes, they are criminal.

bamawrx
March 24, 2012, 07:48 PM
Id say non-registered machine guns easily exceeds 100,000 in number. If an amnesty were to ever be established everyone with a m2 parts kit or 80% side plate will be registering there "item". The total number of amnesty items would actually be closer to several hundred thousand given a 90 day amnesty period. You would be crazy not to pull grandpa's stuff out of the closet and put in on the NFA registry if the opportunity presented itself. Just think of all the parts kits sold at gun shows over the last 30+ years.

M1C
March 24, 2012, 09:17 PM
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but there are unregistered M2 Carbine machineguns floating around out there in semi auto form. Every now and then some guy inherits a rifle and wants to know what it's worth and posts pics on the internet or takes it to a gun show. Since it says M2 on it, it's a machinegun to the ATF. If it wasn't entered in the 1968 NFA amnesty registry, or the family didn't know it was and didn't have the paperwork and/or the previous owner didn't have any auto parts in it, they don't know it's a machine gun just because it's stamped "M2" on the receiver instead of "M1". I've seen an M1 that had all the script scrubbed where it should've said CAL. .30 M1 or M2.

It's a shame to lose a WWII piece of history because it wasn't registered or the paperwork is lost.

AlexanderA
March 24, 2012, 10:45 PM
A 90-day amnesty wouldn't be adequate. The period has to be much longer so as to allow time for discussion, and give people confidence to come forward. During the 1968 amnesty, there was a lot of talk (I heard some of it myself) that the registration was just a first step toward confiscation, and that they'd rather keep their guns off the books than take that chance. This turned out to have been a very expensive mistake.

Secondly, an amnesty solves only part of the problem. There should be a way of registering new guns going forward. So, opening the registry means two things: an amnesty for existing guns, and the ability to Form 1 / Form 2 new (or converted) machine guns.

Orkan
March 24, 2012, 11:47 PM
Not being able to buy a new machine gun is very disturbing. If that's not "infringement" on our rights, then I don't know what is.

bamawrx
March 25, 2012, 11:07 AM
The law's wording says something like "up to 90 day" amnesty can be declared by attorney general or something to that effect. That's why I said 90 day. I expected bush may do it at the very end of his term, but didn't happen. Of course, multiple 90 day periods could be declared. Be fine with me. There would be a mad dash to make or finish parts to then amnesty register, so I suspect that may be the hold up. Similar thing happened in 1986, but that was old manufacturing technology and no internet. You give us a 90 day period today and watch out. Just think how many side plates a water jet could cut out in a day for instance.

AlexanderA
March 25, 2012, 01:17 PM
Remember that in an "amnesty" you are admitting that you have committed a crime. It's just that that admission can't be used against you. I'd rather not have that admission in the record.

taliv
March 25, 2012, 01:22 PM
You're not a criminal until you are convicted.

Remember innocent until proven guilty is kind of a fundamental part of our social contract

jmorris
March 25, 2012, 04:32 PM
You can be guilty of something without being found guilty (convicted).

bamawrx
March 25, 2012, 04:59 PM
You can amnesty register something or wait and buy it later once its transferable again. Won't be mine or anyone's business which you choose. The point is that IF an amnesty were to take be declared many hundreds of thousands of new registration would likely be filed, and I could see over a million being a real possibility.

Frankly, you would be a fool to not drill auto sear holes in all of your AR receivers and file the paperwork during an amnesty. The price of transferables would take a temporary hit, but would quickly go back up. Just like what happened when Vector Arms had "new" uzi's for sale for $3,000 a pop. That held down the price of uzi's for a while, but they are now double that price since the supply was quickly absorbed by the market.

Tootie
March 31, 2012, 08:56 PM
Or to make life even easier, spend $350 for a bumpfire stock and you effectively have a machine gun for under $1,000 with no tax or other requirements. While I do own a couple of MG's, I am much more comfortable with the SlideFire stock. Easy to control, keeps you smilin'! I just wish there were more than one range in San Antonio to shoot MG's.

Orkan
April 1, 2012, 12:55 AM
Certainly true. We can say that we don't consider people who do so "BAD" or "EVIL"...but yes, they are criminal. Yet one can be a criminal, and be completely morally right. Consider those who wrote the declaration of independence for instance. They were all branded criminals. History is filled with examples of those who broke unjust laws and are regarded as patriots.

What makes people think our time is any different than those of the past?

The law is always used to enslave a populace. One cannot rule, and be a criminal, now can they? Rather, they modify the rule to suit their behavior. Now think of certain members of congress, and how they submit countless pieces of anti-gun legislation, while exempting themselves and their staff.

If one cares to, you can draw a great many parallels between our current so-called leaders, and evil tyrants of the past.

It's really not hard. One statement defines it in full, without any explanation or interpretation required; “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
― Thomas Jefferson

The government, military, LEO, and various other agents of the government can legally buy newly manufactured machine guns.

I, as a citizen of this country in good standing, can not.

While not directly related to this thread, you can find countless instances of things that government agents are allowed to do or simply get away with that would land a regular citizen in federal prison.

The average person's grasp of true freedom in this country is enough to make me vomit. Our every move is regulated by the tyrants in our government, yet all anyone wants to do is "calm down" and marginalize those who speak out. Make no mistake, we will be our own undoing, as we've lost the ability to keep our republic. Statements by people on this forum in regard to our rights assures me of it. While trying to act so civilized and evolved, they submit themselves for rule by any willing tyrant.

Does it really matter what name the tyrant goes by? Republican, democrat, socialist, liberal, conservative. It matters not. Anyone that would deny someone else their liberty or rights granted by God is by very definition a tyrant. Our government is a law creating force numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Their entire purpose, is to create law, yet there is no real consideration given to whether law is required.

How many laws can possibly be created?

We've reached a point where virtually every law that is created, will absolutely infringe on personal liberty for the sake of collective welfare.

The label of criminal has absolutely no meaning to me. The act of the person in question is where the value is assigned. Child rapist, murderer, thief. Those are absolutely morally wrong and everyone knows it from the time they are able to comprehend their actions.

I refuse to allow the government to decide what I view to be wrong.

If someone were to make an illegal machine gun, that is their prerogative. I'll hold no ill will toward them. If they go on a murderous rampage, it will not be the fault of the condition of their firearm.

thorazine
April 3, 2012, 06:29 PM
I would imagine a lot of collectors of full autos would be against this as well.

For wouldn't the value of a pre 1986 FA drop drastically overnight?

Orkan
April 3, 2012, 07:10 PM
That's exactly why the majority of them will never get on board with it. Greed is a terrible thing.

Walther P99
April 3, 2012, 07:39 PM
That's exactly why the majority of them will never get on board with it. Greed is a terrible thing.
I completely agree.. Unfortunately :(

zignal_zero
April 4, 2012, 05:23 PM
Tootie - I have shot both the slidedire stock and MG's. You really find them comparable? To me, its like comparing intercourse to masturbation. HUGE DIFFERENCE :D

TurtlePhish
April 4, 2012, 07:34 PM
Family friendly, zignal_zero, family friendly... :rolleyes:

zignal_zero
April 4, 2012, 07:37 PM
Yea it actually took me awhile to remember what the proper way to say those two things was :D

gun lover 18403
April 28, 2012, 02:22 PM
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 .

Orkan
April 28, 2012, 03:37 PM
If its run by the obama administration you are insane if you think they will act on any pro-gun issue.

Sambo82
April 28, 2012, 04:17 PM
Gun lover I really do appreciate people trying different routes, but I too honestly believe this administration wouldn't touch this. This might work when we get a more gun friendly President in office. Maybe you could start a petition to your state representatives?

If you enjoyed reading about "A Letter to Ron Paul about reopening the Machinegun registry." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!