What if BATF Adds Semi Autos to the NFA?

I don't see that as being feasible in any sense.

in the EXTREMELY unlikely event that happens....

i would probably go through the motions to do whats necessary to keep the ones i have.......but i probably wouldnt go through the whole NFA process to buy any more.

ide imagine revolvers, pump, lever and bolt action rifles would see an immense surge in popularity again.....that is until the antis get their knickers in a bunch and find a reason to ban those too.....

The ATF cannot exceed statute. Does the statute allow the addition of semi-automatics to the NFA list?

I don't believe that the ATF, as a regulatory agency, as the statutory authority to add weapons to those required to be registered. Letting an agency make decisions that big would seem to be an improper delegation of legislative authority, and therefore a separation of powers problem.

And it was the National Firearms Act of 1934, duly passed by Congress, that put Title II firearms on the list of things that needed to be registered. NFA, by the definition of that statute, doesn't include semi-automatic weapons.

I suppose they could argue that all semi-automatics are "readily convertible" to fully automatic, but that would be a stretch, and not likely to hold up in court.

Still, the underlying question seems to be: if Congress added semi-automatics to the NFA, would you continue to buy them?

My answer is: Yep, assuming that they don't also raise the tax, since it was originally intended to be a prohibitive tax and just hasn't increased with inflation. If the tax was $2000 instead of $200, then no.

Aaron

I have thought about this. I doubt they would want to take on the task of registering MILLIONS of rifles. I would think it would be a this day forward all new purchases need to go through the process.

Does the statute allow the addition of semi-automatics to the NFA list?

Click to expand...

Street Sweepers are semi-auto.

jimmyraythomason said:

Street Sweepers are semi-auto.

Click to expand...

Street Sweepers were labeled as Destructive Devices based on having a bore bigger than .50 and being not "generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

Street Sweepers were labeled as Destructive Devices.
__________________

Click to expand...

That's true but they are still semi-auto so the precedent has been set.

It would take a complete restructuring of the NFA. They might as well sit down and write it anew from scratch. There's no telling what it would resemble once the legislative process was completed. I personally think that the more this is considered, the less feasible it becomes. There are literally millions of AR-15's, etc. They would bog down the system completely.

Street Sweepers were labeled as Destructive Devices.

Click to expand...

That's true but they are still semi-auto so the precedent has been set.

Click to expand...

I don't think you quite understand what he meant. The shotguns which were re-designated as Destructive Devices COULD BE, because the way the NFA was written, oddly enough, ALL shotguns over a 1/2" bore are Destructive Devices -- except that they are granted a special blanket exemption for being "sporting." When the decision came down to make those DDs, it was simply an administrative change to rescind the standard exemption in the case of those specific guns.

There is no provision under the NFA to make semiautomatic rifles (over 26" OAL, over 16" barrel) regulated under Title II of the law. Without Congress going back "under the hood" and re-writing the law itself, it just isn't possible.

Congress would have to change to NFA in order to include semi-automatic rifles of .50 cal and under. The street sweeper and Stryker 12 were added as destructive devices because the NFA as it exists allowed the ATF to make the determination that they were "non-sporting" and therefore destructive devices. The same method is not available for semi-automatic rifles of .50 cal and under. As for deciding that all semi-autos were easily convertible to full-automatic; I suppose the ATF could try that, but considering that they have to approve all new gun designs, and have signed off on all the guns as not being easily convertible they would be reclassifying as easily convertible, that would be a hard legal road to hoe for them.

As for the original question, I would absolutely register my current AR type rifles (hopefully in a free amnesty period), and assuming the tax didn't go up significantly, I would continue to buy them. I buy NFA stuff already, so adding a class wouldn't effect me. However, I would likely make all my semi-autos SBRs since they would have to be registered anyway.

In reality though, if congress has the votes for a reclassification of semi-autos to NFA, they have the votes for a ban, and a ban is what the gun grabbers really want.

As for the original question, I would absolutely register my current AR type rifles (hopefully in a free amnesty period), and assuming the tax didn't go up significantly, I would continue to buy them. I buy NFA stuff already, so adding a class wouldn't effect me. However, I would likely make all my semi-autos SBRs since they would have to be registered anyway.

Click to expand...

If there was an amnesty period, most likely it would be across the board, applying to all NFA categories. If that was the case, you could just as well convert semis to full autos. Such a massive registration drive also implies repeal of the Hughes Amendment, and opening up the registry.

In reality though, if congress has the votes for a reclassification of semi-autos to NFA, they have the votes for a ban, and a ban is what the gun grabbers really want.

Click to expand...

An outright ban would mean compensation under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, using money that the government doesn't have to spare. This is the reason why, even if they had the votes, the antis might prefer just bringing semi-autos under the NFA. Considering the truly huge time delay (years?) in processing transfer applications, this would amount to a freeze of the guns with their current owners, as a practical matter. Then the pressure from gun owners would be to massively increase the funding for the ATF, so that transfers could be processed.

Well, BATF can't do that, although Congress could by changing the law. So far, though, I have not heard that as a serious proposal. The main emphasis is on reinstating the AWB with maybe adding a few more weapons (the M1 carbine has been mentioned).

At the moment, though I think folks in NY and MD have more to fear from the state than from the feds. Both O'Malley and Cuomo are talking registration, a total ban on transfers and confiscation. There is a rumor that some O'Malley aide has even suggested calling out the National Guard to seize assault weapons. I do NOT believe that is true, but if it is, it takes gun control to a whole new level.

Jim

If there was an amnesty period,

Click to expand...

It would not be a amnesty period with amnesty you are protected from prosecution for having items which are illegal, and semi-auto rifles are not illegal.

If that was the case, you could just as well convert semis to full autos. Such a massive registration drive also implies repeal of the Hughes Amendment, and opening up the registry.

Click to expand...

How do you figure? If you write the ATF and tell them you have 10 M16's you want to register when they are asking for number of semi-auto rifles you own they will come visit you. They would just add on to existing laws, they would not take the white out and say register what ever you want.



When the USAS-12, Streetsweeper and the Striker 12, was declared a "destructive device" you could register the weapon from 1994-May 1, 2001. After that time you would be prosecuted for possessing a illegal firearm. No tax was collected when these guns were registered, because it was a retroactive law. ATF states that approximately 8,200 were registered.

crazy-mp said:

ATF states that approximately 8,200 were registered.

Click to expand...

Out of how many produced / sold?

No ex post facto laws. We can't be forced to pay additional for what we already legally own. Give it a rest, guys.

No ex post facto laws.

Click to expand...

Violence Against Women Law 1994. Enforcment was retroactive. Possession of a Firearm after Conviction of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence

18 U.S.C. 922 (g) (9)
Under this law, it is unlawful for anyone who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition or to receive any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Violence Against Women Law 1994. Enforcment was retroactive. Possession of a Firearm after Conviction of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence

Click to expand...

That's not ex post facto. You cannot be prosecuted for having possessed a firearm after being convicted of a crime of domestic violence BEFORE the effective date of the act. That would be ex post facto. The "crime" in the case of this law is possession. It's only illegal after the law was passed in 1994. Having been convicted of a crime of domestic violence is merely a one element of the crime.

I suppose you could be arguing that the outlawing of possession of firearms (after having been convicted of a crime of domestic violence) is such a huge punishment that it should have been decided by a jury during the sentencing phase of the domestic violence crime proceeding, but I don't think you're really arguing that. I think you just don't quite understand ex post facto.

It's no different than requiring registration of fully automatic weapons. Before 1934, it wasn't illegal to possess an unregistered fully automatic weapon. After 1934, it was. You had time to register, and then if you didn't, you were breaking the law. It's not an ex post facto law because possessing unregistered machine guns was only illegal after the law. Same with the Violence Against Women Law. You weren't breaking the law by having the guns before the act became effective. You just had to get rid of them to comply with the law after 1994.

There's a lot of reasons that adding semi-autos to the NFA would be hard, but arguing that the Violence Against Women Act was ex post facto isn't getting us anywhere.

Aaron

This may not be acceptable talk here on THR but if that situation were to occur, no I would not jump through those hoops.....and I wouldn't give mine up either. I am not advocating that anyone else break a law but I am advocating that everyone at the very least question unreasonable laws. Requiring a $200 tax stamp for a semi-automatic firearm, in my opinion, is extremely unreasonable. Four of the six firearms currently in my possesion are semi-auto and with the economy the way it currently is there's no way I can afford $800 worth of tax stamps. I generally stay out of the NFA section since I can't afford any NFA items but this topic caught my attention. I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I would guess that most firearms owners have at least 1 semi-auto. And I would bet that half of them/us couldn't afford to jump through that hoop for every semi-auto we possess. If they passed a regulation like that, I feel that they might as well ban all firearms...... that's how unreasonable I think that regulation would be.

How do you figure? If you write the ATF and tell them you have 10 M16's you want to register when they are asking for number of semi-auto rifles you own they will come visit you. They would just add on to existing laws, they would not take the white out and say register what ever you want.

Click to expand...

This is all admittedly just speculation right now. But if an outright ban gains traction, there's no telling how it would be configured after the sausage-making that is the legislative process. From what I'm reading from antigun advocates, they would prefer bringing whatever they want to ban under the NFA, rather than simply confiscating it. (That way they wouldn't have to pay compensation.) At that point (and only at that point), the pro-gun side could plausibly add amendments providing for an across-the-board amnesty, and for a permanent opening of the registry. This could be sold to the antigunners as a means of "registering more guns." In reality, it would be a poison pill, like a reverse Hughes Amendment. (The second part of this plan would be a vast increase in funding, and streamlining, of the ATF and its procedures so that it could approve transfers in a timely fashion.)

Requiring a $200 tax stamp for a semi-automatic firearm, in my opinion, is extremely unreasonable.

Click to expand...

The initial registration would be free (based on what happened with the original 1934 NFA). Thereafter, transfers would be subject to a $200 (or whatever amount is decided) tax. The biggest impediment, though, would be the lengthy clearance process. There would be a whole cascade of "unintended consequences," such as a huge spike in the value of the registered items, and a corresponding fall in the value of unregistered items. All you have to do is look at what happened to full automatics.

Hell, they can't keep up on CURRENT NFA stuff. Let alone if you throw another 300 million or so items in to a registry.

"Sure, you can fill out a Form 4; current wait time is approx 78 years."

"Sure, you can fill out a Form 4; current wait time is approx 78 years."

Click to expand...

That's why, to make the idea of adding semis to the NFA registry workable, the clearance process would have to be changed so as to be something like a NICS check. No reason why they couldn't have this back to you in a couple of weeks, postal time included. They could even set it up so that everything could be done online.