1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

PSG-1 Banned?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by The Grand Inquisitor, Sep 21, 2004.

  1. The Grand Inquisitor

    The Grand Inquisitor Well-Known Member

    I just read on another website that the HK PSG-1 was banned via executive order in 1999. I am new to the rifle world (been around for about a year or two) and I had no idea the gun was absolutelly banned, much less a gun the was semi-auto.

    If the thing is really banned, is there a good reason why it is?
  2. Zak Smith

    Zak Smith Moderator Staff Member

    Look up the 1989 Import ban.

    You just can't import them anymore. The way around the 89 Import ban is to replace a certain number of parts with US-made parts.

  3. PMDW

    PMDW Well-Known Member

    Can anyone provide a good reason as to why any gun is banned?
  4. Mumbles_45

    Mumbles_45 Well-Known Member

    well, I can answer one of your questions with 100% certainty, if it was in fact banned specifically in 1999(which I havent heard anything about) there was definately no good reason
  5. The Grand Inquisitor

    The Grand Inquisitor Well-Known Member

    I think the case can be made for moderate gun control; I think the current tax stamp control on fully automatic weapons is rational (though not the ban on importation and introduction into the country), and I think the ban on so called "destructive devices" is also fine and within the fences of the 2nd Amendment.

    I do think that the logic of banning "sniper rifles" is based on a totally clueless axiom though - picking and choosing what a "sniper" rifle is demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on exactly what semi-automatic firearms are.
  6. swingset

    swingset Well-Known Member

    I don't. Moderate speech control doesn't work. Moderate drug control doesn't work. Moderate pornography control doesn't work. Why would guns be one bit different? Ah....they're (dum dum dum) designed to KILL!

    Why? What does tax have to do with a constitutionally protected right? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that "arms=semi auto or less". It meant MILITARY ARMS, equal to or equivolent of what a standing army might carry. That's F/A, partner.

    Regulating them only provides revenue for the gubment, nothing more. It hasn't kept people from getting or using fully auto guns. (see Hollywood '97 shootout), nor has it made us safer. The NFA was bullcrap, and has proved to be worthless legislation.
  7. Daemon688

    Daemon688 Well-Known Member

    Because the power to tax comes from within the constitution. Moderate gun control does work to an extent. It prevents criminals from legally obtaining firearms. Regulation of pornography works too, if there weren't any controls you could buy kiddie porn at any video store.

    All those regulations work, but always to a certain extent.
  8. Mulliga

    Mulliga Well-Known Member


    Note that even when all the FAs were registered, even when the crime rate with registered FAs was practically ZERO, even when machine gun owners behaved well for 50 years...

    Eventually they still banned 'em.

    Down with the NFA! Down with gun control! :cool:
  9. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Moderator Emeritus

    I've been watching this thread for a few hours...I still have steam rolling from my ears over this. If I said what I want to say, I'd have to ban myself.
  10. Trigger

    Trigger Well-Known Member

    :rolleyes: :banghead: :fire: :cuss: Uh....yea......moderate gun control works real well........ :barf:
  11. Byron Quick

    Byron Quick Moderator In Memoriam

    Not only do I not think that a case can be made for moderate gun control but I am not aware of any instances of so-called moderate gun control .

    Take as an example, the $200 tax stamp on fully automatic weapons. This was enacted in 1934 when you could buy a fully automatic Thompson sub-machine through the mail from the Sears & Roebuck catalog. The retail price of the weapon from Sears was $129.95. Do you really contend that a tax that is 35% over the price of an item is moderate? Also consider the year. 1934, the height of the Great Depression...many folks were working for a dollar a day and glad to get it. Do you think they thought the $200 tax was moderate?

    Several years ago, I saw a water cooled Mauser beltfed machine gun that had been plowed out of a field here in Burke County. Mechanism was a solid mass of rust. Know why it was buried in that field? Because some doughboy had brought it back as a totally legal war trophy in 1919. And then was told he had to pay $200 to keep it 15 years later or go to prison for ten years and pay a $250,000 fine. To retain possession of his legal property that he had fought and risked life and limb for in the service of this nation. Think that was moderate? Oh, just in case you don't know: the Constitution forbids the government to seize property without paying for it...but what the hell...anything's ok as long as it's moderate...right?
  12. Ian

    Ian Well-Known Member

    I see. So you think it would be ok to require a $200 fee and months-long Federal background check before giving a person permission to speak? Or to pray? Can they charge you for a jury trial? Can they restrict jury trials to those who don't have criminal records? Hey, I know! How about the Feds raise money by charging a tax on all publicly printed material? You would have to buy a stamp for each document, and affix it clearly to the top page. We could call it a "Stamp Tax."

    You do realize that the machine gun ban hasn't been a tax since 1986, when they prohibited the registering of new machine guns, right? And that in 1934, it was blatantly designed to prohibit such guns rather than make tax money off of them, right? Look at the short-barreled shotgun section oft hat law - a $200 tax on what was then a $10 shotgun? If they enacted a $4,000 tax on Remington 870s tomorrow, would you consider that a tax or an attempt at prohibition?

    Even if you believe that taxation is morally acceptable, it is well-known that the power to tax is the power to destroy. When the Feddies start using it to destroy rights, they have overstepped a line that should be obvious to every citizen who understands liberty.

    So flippin' what? The Constitution does not exist to prevent or reduce crime. It exists to protect our individual rights, even if that means having more crime (individual-on-individual crime, that is; not crimes committed by government) than a dictatorship would have.
  13. Black Snowman

    Black Snowman Well-Known Member

    Once it's known that the purchaser is not a criminal or mentally unstable there is no justification for denying them the ability to posses any weapon if they have the means. If a person does indeed have any rights at all, they have the right to defend themselves as they see fit.

    Every member of the government is bound by the Constitution to uphold it and it's principles. Knowing that they actively pursue the erosion of individual rights and defy the Constitution daily, they fear an armed populace.

    If the government fears and attempts to restrict arms in the hands of the individual it's simply an admission that people are justified in wanting to be on equal footing as the government is no longer there to serve the people, but to turn them into subjects.

    I wonder if this will get bumped to L&P ;)
  14. another48hrs

    another48hrs Well-Known Member

    Yes, the PSG1 is banned by name by Bill Clinton.

    Also, I believe that the NFA is just like how the south had an intelligence test for voting. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, I wonder when they are going to get on the NFA.
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2004
  15. Average Guy

    Average Guy Well-Known Member

    Oh? So what prevents criminals from ILLEGALY obtaining firearms?

    Just wondering.
  16. TODD3465

    TODD3465 Well-Known Member

    What part part of ".......shall not be infringed." Don't you understand???

    It was written in English and I do not need a *$((^#@#^&^**%@@, lawyer or judge or some bureaucrate to "interpert" it for me, thank you very much.:fire:
  17. Daemon688

    Daemon688 Well-Known Member

    [rant on]
    You guys can get all uppity if you would like, but those are the facts. Maybe if our side would get off their ass and actually start a decent campaign, things would be different. The law is the law. If you have a problem with the law, maybe you and most of America should get off our asses and vote for people who support your views.

    If you want full auto weapons and don't want to pay the tax stamp on it, then by all means get a CNC machine and start making parts. If you want a full auto and are willing to pay the current price tag of easily $2000+ dollars what's another $200 dollars and a waiting period? If you want the laws repealed then ORGANIZE, VOTE, and DEMONSTRATE. The problem with the pro-gun side is we're all too lazy to stand up and fight for our rights.

    All laws don't prevent everyone from doing "insert bad thing here". But we still have them. Do you honestly think having now laws would make our country function? We have laws preventing anyone under 21 to buy alcohol. We have laws preventing people from buying weed, cocaine, meth, etc. Why aren't you trying to fight for their complete legalization? Felons can't vote unless they appear to a panel for review. Is that right? Why is kiddie porn illegal? What about beastiality? This list can go on and on. I would love to see you stand up for your right to own/create child pornography on the streets.

    Laws are merely suggestions and it is up to you to follow them. If we live in a country without laws, then you live in anarchy.

    Don't get me wrong here, I wish I could purchase a full auto AK for 400 bucks. I wish our government taxed less. I wish social welfare programs would be completly cut. The idea we are teaching kids in spanish because they don't understand english is BS.

    Don't forget that those fat cats in washington got there from our votes. They will support the views of those who helped win the election. We have all these gun owners in America and yet we allow our the liberals and including the republicans erode away our freedoms.

    Thus is life [/rant off]
  18. Ian

    Ian Well-Known Member

    So...why haven't YOU started a campaign to legalize full autos? Or legalize illegal drugs? Or reduce taxes? Or cut Welfare? Or repeal the drinking age?
  19. Daemon688

    Daemon688 Well-Known Member

    I'm not old enough to hold office :D
  20. Ian

    Ian Well-Known Member

    So? Neither am I, and that hasn't stopped me from partaking in political activism.

Share This Page