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

What if BATF Adds Semi Autos to the NFA?

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by SharpsDressedMan, Dec 25, 2012.

  1. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Well-Known Member

    As others have said, adding semi auto's to the NFA registry is already on the bill on Feinstein's website. I hear talk about how hard funding it would be, but if there is an update of the NFA, it would suprise me if they didn't price index the tax stamp to the 3500$ or so to compensate for inflation.

    If something like this went through, I wouldn't comply, with all that that implies. I don't say that with any false bravado, either. Truth is, I'm scared as hell. But ultimately, as we've seen with full auto, registration eventually becomes a ban, and if we follow the UK or Australia that becomes confiscation. I'd rather get my civil disobedience in while I've still got the teeth to make it count.

    But hopefully this is just meaningless political profiteering on the part of Feinstein and it will all blow over. We Americans have notorously short attention spa... hey Iron Chef is on.
  2. Girodin

    Girodin Well-Known Member

    Actually the proposal underscores what people here have said. That under the current laws the ATF cannot do it on its own. Rather there must be a change in the law from congress.

    Her proposal is also slightly different in that it would still block new production, sales, and transfers. It would require NFA registration of grandfathered weapons. And under her shockingly expansive list of of what would be banned you would have to register this bad boy:


    The scope of her proposal is mind blowing. The good news is perhaps that it helps to show their hand and what they are really after. Basically they are very clearly trying to get as close to simply banning all semi autos as they think they can get. It sweeps in guns that even the, "I don't need that kind of gun for hunting" "pro gun" folks are likely to object to. Her proposals are also so far reaching it makes their constitutionality even more questionable Her proposals go so far beyond what the '94 ban was that it is very frightening. However, I think the chance of her full list of proposals passing is extremely slight.
  3. rdhood

    rdhood Well-Known Member

    At which point any such law would be clearly unconstitutional. Remember, just because Congress passes it does not make it constitutional. I strongly suspect that the SCOTUS will not view a semi-auto 10/22 in the same perview as an M16 or belt fed anything. Banning and confiscation of a 10/22 simply because it is semiauto is an obvious overreach. It might even force the SCOTUS to start creating law to determine what a "reasonable restriction" is. I, for one, don't think putting semi-auto squirrel guns in the NFA for future $3500 transfer is a "reasonable restriction".

    Further, while the topic is Semi AUtos, the NFA restriction is also called for for hi-cap magazines. These are generally un-serialized and outnumber rifles about 5:1, 10:1, maybe even 100:1. Are we really going to try to put 30 billion magazines without serial numbers in the NFA? Seriously?
  4. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    The USAS-12 declared a DD was semi-auto, but, the Streetsweeper also restricted as a DD was a 12ga revolver action, not a semi-automatic.

    Both were declared "destructive devices" for being both over .50" bore and "non-sporting purposes" because they were strictly designed as combat shotguns.

    While certain congresspersons seen to want to add new classes of firearms to the NFA classifications, I am not so sure that ATF especially the Firearms Technology Branch are keen on the idea.

    When you realize that Canada abandoned its long gun registry after 17 years and 2.7 billion dollars with no discernable law enforcement benefit, you would think that adding tens of millions of semi-auto rifles to our NFA registry would be seen as a useless waste of law enforcement resources.
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  5. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    Original Mauser C96 pistols with shoulder stocks (once a NFA item under Title II NFA) are now Curio & Relic pistols subject to Title I GCA same as other handguns.

    Original Trapper rifles made by Winchester and Marlin (once NFA SBR items under Title II 1934 NFA) are now Curio & Relic rifles subject to Title I GCA same other rifles.

    Small concessions to the idea certain firearms are more valued as collectibles than as weapons, but a concession nonetheless.
  6. Girodin

    Girodin Well-Known Member

    In Washington budgets are king. If it comes with a big budget increase, which is what Feinstein suggests her bill include, it might sweeten the ATF on the idea. The expense, however, seems even more folly given our current fiscal situation. I think Feinstiens bill as she describes it will be a non starter. There is an argument that it is a deliberately absurd starting point to then "compromise" to something less.
  7. tepin

    tepin Well-Known Member

    I got this email from the NRA today (see below). I have 8 AR15 rifles. If they increase the NFA fee to 3500.00 to account for inflation, that is $28K. That would be hard to swallow (actually 7 since 1 is already pending a NFA stamp for a SBR). Feinstein has also proposed that when the owner of the NFA item dies, the device must be surrendered to the government. So, when you do your mandatory NFA registration, do so in the name of a Trust (a Trust never dies) so you can keep it in the family. After the ban passes, I wonder what will happen when some idiot kills another 30 kids with a Glock and 20 ten-round magazines. Gun bans are such a wast of time and money.

  8. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Well-Known Member

    If they passed this abomination of the law I would comply with it in the sense I would take a hacksaw to the receiver of my AK and make it inoperable. When the law is overturned, eventually, I would buy a new receiver and reassemble it. I'll be damned if I will give it to them or allow it to be registered.
  9. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Well-Known Member

    I do sincerely believe that if this travesty of a law is passed, it will be time to saddle up and hit the "reset" button on our government. We CANNOT allow this to stand. To do so is treason and suicide at the same time.
  10. kimberkid

    kimberkid Well-Known Member

    I would hope we would look to Canada to see how that worked out for them ... Spent billions of dollars before they finally abandoned the idea as impossible.
  11. reggie_love

    reggie_love Active Member

    Massive noncompliance.

    I would rather chew glass than deal with the BATFE. I would rather deal with the hardest, most tattooed Crips; I'd probably be safer anyway.
  12. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    I had no problems with them when I had my FFL and SOT. If you act decently with them, and obey the rules, you can expect to be treated likewise. Act like a wise guy, and they'll push back.
  13. wally

    wally Well-Known Member

    Wait times would likely go from 6+ months to 6+ years
  14. Kiln

    Kiln Well-Known Member

    Keep in mind that these guys are part of a regulatory government branch. They're not there for your own good.

    I don't want to have to "play by the rules" to own a semi automatic rifle. Good luck taking it from me without creating a public outcry anyways.
  15. reggie_love

    reggie_love Active Member

    I make a point not to disrespect anybody, but forgive me for not trusting an over-armed tax agency with wanton massacres to its name.
  16. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Well-Known Member

    Sounds like Obama would need to hire a bunch more government employees. Shovel ready jobs and whatnot...
  17. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    I would not bet on the government compensating the owners for confiscation of their property. Just look back at history and you will see that they have confiscated property previously with no compensation. That's what the government did with respect to the slaves in the Civil War. Like it or not, at that time, slaves were legal property and the government declared that you cannot own that property anymore and confiscated them (i.e. set them free).
  18. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    The ancient Chinese had a torture / punishment that was called "Death By a Thousand Cuts". I have to wonder if the way that we are allowing the antis to take away our 2nd Amendment rights is best compared to this or the case of boiling a frog starting out in cold water. With each generation, we lose more of our 2nd Amendment rights and people grumble a bit and then go about their business. At what point do we take a stand and say, "NO MORE"?
  19. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    It's not like they would be opposed to that. Just look what they did to the Branch Davidians in Waco, just so that they could manufacture an incident to get the Brady Bill passed.
  20. VVelox

    VVelox Well-Known Member

    txnative1951, that is a truly terrible analogy as the "property" in question was sapient. It also makes you look like a southern sympathizer.

    A much better analogy would be drugs.

Share This Page