Direct challenge to the NFA

jmorris said:

I don’t see it that way. You sell something for the most you can.

Click to expand...

Yet the worlds biggest retailer doesn't.
And neither do I. I would rather sell 100 silencers and make $100 profit on each, than sell twenty at $200 profit on each. Thats why I sell more silencers than three of my local brick and mortar gun competitors. I don't advertise. I haven't rented tables at a gun show in over two years. But simple word of mouth has me selling hundreds of silencers a year.

Do you think the cost to manufacture primers went from $99/5000 to $100/1000 or that’s just what people would pay, once supply was hampered?

Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that the cost to manufacture primers increased 5X ?
It didn't.
The retail price of primers, just like silencers, is dependent on the profit margin at the distributor and dealer levels. When demand exceeds supply, the price may increase, but the cost to manufacture didn't.

Monac said:

You know, if you are a political minority, sometimes getting everything you ever wanted is not a good thing. For example, the Supreme Court gave Southern slaveholders everything they ever wanted with the Dred Scott decision of 1857 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford).

This was completely unacceptable to the people of the Northern, non-slave states. This was not because they cared about black people. It was because they did not want to compete with slave labor. As a result, they voted Republican and elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

That, in turn, was unacceptable to the people of the South, because they had been told by pro-slavery "fire-eater" politicians that Lincoln would take away their slaves, although he had pledged to do nothing of the kind. The Southerners decided that the results of democracy were no longer acceptable to them. They announced they were leaving the United States, and created their own government specifically to preserve slavery.

As a result, the Southern slaveowners lost everything by 1865. Not just slaves, but sometimes everything they owned and their lives too. So did many, many other people, because of the slaveowner extremism and intransigence.

Although the parallels are obvious, I will point out that many people do NOT want the lethality of legally available weapons increased. This is not because they "hate guns", or want to impose "tyranny". It is because they are sick of the massacres that people with legally available highly lethal weapons easily can commit. They fear for their own lives, and for the lives of their children. I think it would be foolish to ignore that. We have lived in peace with this law for 88 years. I don't see any practical point in outraging the public by having it declared unconstitutional.

PS - I am not going to vote in the poll. The answer in favor of retaining the NFA is phrased in a loaded, "have you stopped beating your wife?" manner.

edited for spelling and grammar

Click to expand...

Yes, let's not demand our rights back because we're afraid part of the country may be upset. Operating out of fear of what may happen is not the right way to go about this.

The gun banners are NOT afraid to tell us what their intentions are and that they will do it. Here is a recent declaration. Let's not forget what Beto and Biden (and all the others in 2020) have said while campaigning.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...epeal-the-2nd-amendment/ar-AAZrQs3?li=BBnbfcL

dogtown tom said:

The retail price of primers, just like silencers, is dependent on the profit margin at the distributor and dealer levels.

Click to expand...

I contend that there is a larger portion of profit at the mfg level vs mark up at distribution, retailer levels.

It’s a muffler for a gun.

tomrkba said:

Yes, let's not demand our rights back because we're afraid part of the country may be upset. Operating out of fear of what may happen is not the right way to go about this.

The gun banners are NOT afraid to tell us what their intentions are and that they will do it. Here is a recent declaration. Let's not forget what Beto and Biden (and all the others in 2020) have said while campaigning.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...epeal-the-2nd-amendment/ar-AAZrQs3?li=BBnbfcL

Click to expand...

Yes, you may very well be able to get your rights back. (At least, your rights as you seem them. The Supreme Court did not see it that way in an earlier time, but the whole reason we are having this thread is because the Supreme Court has changed very much.)

My point was about the consequences of getting them back. If you think you will not mind those consequences, or that there will be none, then by all means, press on. But I gave a concrete historical example of the consequences of a political minority getting everything it wanted, and you have not addressed that at all.

AlexanderA said:

The NFA is really an outdated "historical artifact." In 1934, this was an attempt to outlaw the guns used by the most notorious criminals of the time. That meant, primarily, the Thompson SMG, which was the most frightening of all. And of course, handguns -- but a ban on handguns was a non-starter, because lots of law-abiding people had them. But Congress left in the provisions that banned handguns converted from long guns. (Which didn't make sense if the handguns themselves were not banned.)

Skip forward to the 21st century. The classic Thompson is a relic. There are lots of unregulated semiautomatic guns available that are more effective than a Thompson (or any machine gun), because they waste less ammunition. One would think that these semiautomatic guns would be the natural target of the NFA. But, once again, such a ban is a non-starter, because lots of law-abiding people have them.

So the question then becomes, why have the NFA at all? It doesn't accomplish its stated purpose of removing dangerous weapons.

Click to expand...

To me the most important part of the NFA is the heavy restrictions it puts on the ownership of full-power machine guns, not the lighter restrictions on submachine guns. People have forgotten it was ever possible to own, say, a Browning M1919. I think that would be the most controversial part of having the law declared unconstitutional, although of course having sawed-off shotguns made legal again would not look good either.

kwguy said:

If a “political minority” happens to “get something” that the “political majority” doesn’t agree with, big deal. The rights of people aren’t dictated by “raise your hands if yadda yadda”, like deciding to stay inside or go outside for elementary school recess.

If the “political majority” doesn’t want to exercise a right, then don’t. Don’t buy a suppressor or a gun or alcohol or whatever else. Just leave those that do alone.

Thats the problem with people. They want impose their petty tyranny on others.

Click to expand...

I think the problem with your argument is that gun ownership is something that may not affect only the gun owner. What makes it a matter of public concern is the ability of people to use guns to affect the lives of other people. Or, to put it another way, a lot of people object to the way that even the currently available semi-military weapons can be used to affect - by ending - the lives of considerable numbers of other people in a short time. Some weapons are much better at that than others; that is why those weapons are controversial.

To me, that seems similar to the way that people did not want the ability of states to prohibit slavery done away with, because although they did not really care about the slaves, they did not want to compete with slave labor. The proponents of slavery refused to see that point and simply disparaged and despised anti-slavery people. Sound familiar?

Personally, I think a majority of the public might not respond well to having the lethality of legal available weapons increased by ending the NFA, but that's just my opinion. I thought it might be a good idea to consider that possibility.

Monac said:

To me the most important part of the NFA is the heavy restrictions it puts on the ownership of full-power machine guns, not the lighter restrictions on submachine guns.

Click to expand...

Huh?
It's EXACTLY the same restrictions, process and tax on a .50cal Ma Deuce as a .380 MAC 11.

People have forgotten it was ever possible to own, say, a Browning M1919.

Click to expand...

Yet, it still is possible to own one.

I think that would be the most controversial part of having the law declared unconstitutional, although of course having sawed-off shotguns made legal again would not look good either.

Click to expand...

Huh. All these years and the four Remington 870 factory SBS in my safe aren't legal?

Monac said:

To me the most important part of the NFA is the heavy restrictions it puts on the ownership of full-power machine guns, not the lighter restrictions on submachine guns. People have forgotten it was ever possible to own, say, a Browning M1919.

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, it is no harder to get a M2 Browning than it is to get an Uzi. It is the same forms/paperwork and wait for either. Yes one will cost a lot more than the other otherwise it is the exact same process.

Monac said:

Or, to put it another way, a lot of people object to the way that even the currently available semi-military weapons can be used to affect

Click to expand...

A Ruger 10/22, Ruger Mini 14, Ruger 44 Carbine, Marlin Camp 9 or Camp 45 do NOT operate any differently than a semi auto AR15. The only differences are purely cosmetic IE how they look. The AR "looks scary" to some while the others do not. They all functions the same and all can be had with 10 round magazines or larger.

In the right hands a person can do the sam amount of damage with a lever action rifle or even a shotgun.

12Bravo20 said:

Last time I checked, it is no harder to get a M2 Browning than it is to get an Uzi. It is the same forms/paperwork and wait for either. Yes one will cost a lot more than the other otherwise it is the exact same process.

A Ruger 10/22, Ruger Mini 14, Ruger 44 Carbine, Marlin Camp 9 or Camp 45 do NOT operate any differently than a semi auto AR15. The only differences are purely cosmetic IE how they look. The AR "looks scary" to some while the others do not. They all functions the same and all can be had with 10 round magazines or larger.

In the right hands a person can do the sam amount of damage with a lever action rifle or even a shotgun.

Click to expand...

I thought it was not possible to register any new full power machine guns for legal ownership in the US, whereas I thought it is possible to bring in new submachine guns. If I am right, that means the current pool of full power machine guns available is not getting any larger. That would change if the NFA was done away with. If I am wrong, I stand corrected; I have never studied the detail of that law.

As to your second point, all the rifles you mention fire pistol ammunition except the Mini-14. I submit they are therefore substantially less deadly than rifles that fire assault rifle type ammo, such as the .223 or the 7.62x39mm. That is the whole key to the assault rifle concept - ammo far more powerful than the pistol ammo of submachine guns, but far easier to fire accurately in rapid semi-auto or full-auto mode than the old full power ammunition like .30-06 or 8mm Mauser. I guess I assumed that people here would know that.

And yes, the difference between a Mini-14 and a AR-15-style rifle is purely cosmetic. People are not scared of weapons because of how they look. They are scared of what they do. I don't think I have seen any pictures of the rifles used in Buffalo, Uvalde, or Highland Park, and I read more about guns than most people do.

But the main point is, that despite all the uproar there is about them, those weapons are already all legal, as you yourself point out. What I am talking about here is the public reaction to making even more lethal weapons available, like full power machine guns. I am suggesting it might not be good in the long term, or maybe even the short one. In a democracy, you might want to think about that.

PS - I think 10/22s, and Marlin Camp Carbines are all simple blowback because of the low powers of the ammo used. The Mini-14 is a locked-breech gas-operated gun, isn't it? And I have no idea how the Ruger 44 Carbine works. None of this is important, I just don't want people to be mis-informed. There's too much of that around already.

Monac said:

I thought it was not possible to register any new full power machine guns for legal ownership in the US, whereas I thought it is possible to bring in new submachine guns. If I am right, that means the current pool of full power machine guns available is not getting any larger. That would change if the NFA was done away with. If I am wrong, I stand corrected; I have never studied the detail of that law.

Click to expand...

The Hughes Amendment of 1986 put a stop to any and all new machine guns. No new full autos could be made after 1986, this goes for any firearm capable of shooting more than 1 round per a single trigger pull regardless of the caliber or size of the weapon.

Monac said:

As to your second point, all the rifles you mention fire pistol ammunition except the Mini-14. I submit they are therefore substantially less deadly than rifles that fire assault rifle type ammo, such as the .223 or the 7.62x39mm. That is the whole key to the assault rifle concept - ammo far more powerful than the pistol ammo of submachine guns, but far easier to fire accurately in rapid semi-auto or full-auto mode than the old full power ammunition like .30-06 or 8mm Mauser. I guess I assumed that people here would know that.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of semi auto rifles available in calibers that are a lot bigger and more powerful that 5.56 or 7.62x39. And again, it really doesn't matter what caliber is used when shooting into a big crowd. A 22lr will still do a lot of damage. So will pistol calibers. No they won't kill as quickly as a rifle caliber, but they will still kill and wound.

Monac said:

nd yes, the difference between a Mini-14 and a AR-15-style rifle is purely cosmetic. People are not scared of weapons because of how they look. They are scared of what they do. I don't think I have seen any pictures of the rifles used in Buffalo, Uvalde, or Highland Park, and I read more about guns than most people do.

Click to expand...

If you read as much as you do, then you would know that an AR was used in Buffalo, Uvalde, and Highland Park.

Monac said:

But the main point is, that despite all the uproar there is about them, those weapons are already all legal, as you yourself point out. What I am talking about here is the public reaction to making even more lethal weapons available, like full power machine guns. I am suggesting it might not be good in the long term, or maybe even the short one. In a democracy, you might want to think about that.

Click to expand...

"Full power machine guns" are currently available. You just can't legally transfer one made after 1986 as an individual. Any and all machine guns made before 1986 are still transferrable for individuals that submit a Form 4, pay the NFA tax, and pass the background check. And believe me, there are plenty of them in the hands of criminals too.

Monac said:

I think the problem with your argument is that gun ownership is something that may not affect only the gun owner. What makes it a matter of public concern is the ability of people to use guns to affect the lives of other people. Or, to put it another way, a lot of people object to the way that even the currently available semi-military weapons can be used to affect - by ending - the lives of considerable numbers of other people in a short time. Some weapons are much better at that than others; that is why those weapons are controversial.

Click to expand...

Just like knives, hammers, fire, cars, boats, trucks, planes, alcohol, words, etc, etc. Everyone has the ability to affect other people in bad ways. That’s why we have a judicial and penal system.

Advocating for, or actually owning an AR15 or a machine gun is not at all the same as promoting the freedom to own slaves.

12Bravo20 said:

The Hughes Amendment of 1986 put a stop to any and all new machine guns. No new full autos could be made after 1986, this goes for any firearm capable of shooting more than 1 round per a single trigger pull regardless of the caliber or size of the weapon.

Click to expand...

To be precise, the Hughes Amendment did not end the manufacture of new machine guns, but restricted the transfer of machine guns to those registered prior to May 19, 1986. These are referred to as "fully transferrable" machine guns.

07FFL/SOT can manufacture new machine guns all day long, but they can only be transferred to LE or military. Transfer to another FFL/SOT requires a "law letter" which is a letter from a LE agency requesting the demonstration of that machine gun for possible agency purchase. If an FFL/SOT is going out of business, he can transfer his post May machine guns to an 07FFL/SOT without a law letter.

Monac said:

I thought it was not possible to register any new full power machine guns for legal ownership in the US, whereas I thought it is possible to bring in new submachine guns. If I am right...
.

Click to expand...

Federal law does not differentiate between "full power" or "submachine gun"........both are machine guns as defined in federal law.
Federal law, due to the Hughes Amendment, does allow for the registration of new machine guns, but the Hughes Amendment restricts the transfer as I described above.

And, for all the hype, we are still talking about pretty old technology. Semi auto and machine guns have been around for at least a hundred years. The technology of ammunition, since the use of gilding metal and smokeless powders, is relatively unchanged as well. Sure, we have hollow points and whatever, but any center fire rifle round is devastating, as would be expected.

All of that stuff is way overplayed by anti gun people.

The fact that a less powerful lethal weapon is more controllable in full auto than a larger caliber in full auto is arguing about angels on the head of a pin.

dogtown tom said:

To be precise, the Hughes Amendment did not end the manufacture of new machine guns, but restricted the transfer of machine guns to those registered prior to May 19, 1986. These are referred to as "fully transferrable" machine guns.

07FFL/SOT can manufacture new machine guns all day long, but they can only be transferred to LE or military. Transfer to another FFL/SOT requires a "law letter" which is a letter from a LE agency requesting the demonstration of that machine gun for possible agency purchase. If an FFL/SOT is going out of business, he can transfer his post May machine guns to an 07FFL/SOT without a law letter.

Click to expand...

I knew you would clarify the laws beyond what I stated. I left talking about SOT's to you.

Monac said:

People have forgotten it was ever possible to own, say, a Browning M1919. I think that would be the most controversial part of having the law declared unconstitutional, although of course having sawed-off shotguns made legal again would not look good either.

Click to expand...

Was possible, I still have mine.



I am not convinced, not having to pay a tax for a SBS, would be the end of the world either. Same goes for SBR’s with all of the “pistol brace” examples out there.



They probably hate those examples because they blow apart their argument.

Monac said:

People have forgotten it was ever possible to own, say, a Browning M1919.

Click to expand...

The Browning .30 cal. guns are at a "sweet spot," price wise, as compared to other MG's. (I'm talking about so-called "sideplate guns" -- guns rebuilt with aftermarket right sideplates.) You can still find them for around $20,000 while a lowly M3 Greasegun will set you back $30,000.

Here is yet another quirk about the NFA laws that makes absolutely no sense at all. The Mossberg Shockwave is 100% legal as is since it is over 26" in OAL, meant to be shot with two hands and does not have a shoulder stock. But here is the quirk. If you conceal the Shockwave you instantly create an unregistered AOW.

And if you were to add a stock to the Shockwave the OAL would be 34". But since the barrel is under 18" you would have to register it as a SBS to be legal. Yes I laid my 410 Shockwave on top of my 410 Mossberg 500 to come up with that 34" measurement. A Bantam or youth stock would still keep the Shockwave over 26" in OAL.

And a lot of AR pistols with 10.5" to 14.5" barrels are really close to the same length as a 16" carbine with the stock completely collapsed. I have a 9mm AR pistol with a 10.5" barrel that is 24.5" in OAL with a standard pistol buffer tube attached. But because the barrel is less than 16" and OAL is less than 26" I have to keep it as a pistol or file to make it a SBR. Same goes for an AR carbine with a 14.5" barrel. You either have to pin and weld a muzzle device on to get the barrel length over 16" or register it as a SBR. That 1.5" difference doesn't make them any deadlier or any easier to conceal.

Now let's look at the nonsense over folding adaptors for the AR. When used on an AR pistol, the OAL is measure with it in the folded position. The ATF stated that is because it will still fire 1 round with the adaptor folded. I personally would not want shoot one that way.

It would rally be nice if we could get the SBR/SBS definitions changed for the better along with changing the laws on suppressors. Suppressors are nothing but a muffler for firearms. Try running a car, truck or motorcycle without a muffler and see what happens.

12Bravo20 said:

Here is yet another quirk about the NFA laws that makes absolutely no sense at all. The Mossberg Shockwave is 100% legal as is since it is over 26" in OAL, meant to be shot with two hands and does not have a shoulder stock. But here is the quirk. If you conceal the Shockwave you instantly create an unregistered AOW.....

Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. The Shockwave and Remington TAC16 do not meet the definition of shotgun, rifle, handgun, SBR, SBS, AOW, MG, DD, silencer, frame or receiver in federal law. The Shockwave does meet the definition of "firearm" however.

jmorris said:

I contend that there is a larger portion of profit at the mfg level vs mark up at distribution, retailer levels.

It’s a muffler for a gun.

Click to expand...

Economically it almost has to be. Think of a small silencer maker with 2-3 employees and a decent investment in CNC machines: how much profit per day do they need to make just to meet payroll and pay the loan for the machines? Now spread that across the (probably small) number of units they sell every day and it’s not unreasonable to figure they need to take in half or more of what each unit sells for just to break even.

dogtown tom said:

It makes perfect sense. The Shockwave and Remington TAC16 do not meet the definition of shotgun, rifle, handgun, SBR, SBS, AOW, MG, DD, silencer, frame or receiver in federal law. The Shockwave does meet the definition of "firearm" however.

Click to expand...

I know it does. Same as some AR's that are over 26" in OAL with a VFG and no stock attached. What I was getting at was the OAL AND barrel length.

The NFA is a political device for control. Do away with it. I want freedom and I don't need a false sense of security. I'll defend myself and I suggest others learn how to do it. I'm a constitutional individual, I don't give a tinkers dam for what the masses think or feel.

BRatigan said:

The NFA is a political device for control. Do away with it.

Click to expand...

BRatigan said:

. I'm a constitutional individual, I don't give a tinkers dam for what the masses think or feel.

Click to expand...

These two statements are contradictory. If you want to do away with the NFA, it will take political means to do so. In turn, in our system, you have to convince "the masses" to go along with the change.

AlexanderA said:

These two statements are contradictory. If you want to do away with the NFA, it will take political means to do so. In turn, in our system, you have to convince "the masses" to go along with the change.

Click to expand...

Bull.
Only judicial action can take out the NFA.
In fact, a strict reading of the constitution automatically destroys the NFA in its entirety.

Monac said:

full-power machine guns, not the lighter restrictions on submachine guns.

Click to expand...

Well, no, there is no difference under NFA.

In reality, the differences between crew-served and "personal" weapons tend to "weed them out" no matter what the law is. An M2 runs to 90#, the tripod about 75#, ammo cans--those big fat ones--only hold 100 rounds at a time and get heavy quickly. Needing a linking machine also limits things, too.

I had a semi 1919A4, it was three trips from ride to line at the range. These things will largely self-regulate.

theotherwaldo said:

Only judicial action can take out the NFA.

Click to expand...

Well, technically, Congress could make a Law Repealing NFA. That's unlikely given the composition of what we are presently forced to call Congress. But, it is possible. You are correct in that, realistically, only SCOTUS is like to rid us of that foul McDuff.