Repeal the machinegun ban

I like it ... not gonna happen, but I like it

The RKBA will be repaired the same way it was harmed. Bit by bit, slowly.

We make the same political mistake in calling for "all or nothing" that the antis made in the 1960/1970s when they called for complete bans rather than incremental regulation.

I hope it happens. It will be a slow process of small victories that achieves the goal.

We make the same political mistake in calling for "all or nothing" that the antis made in the 1960/1970s when they called for complete bans rather than incremental regulation.

Click to expand...

Plenty of that going on in many of these threads lately.

I agree that repealing the machine gun ban would be a logical and exceptionally significant next step.

As someone pointed out in another thread here in the last couple weeks, (paraphrasing) "what are the antis going to say, that there will be massacres in the streets ? They already said that about the repeal of the AWB !"

They're banned??
I thought you just had to pay a tax...

I'll be sure to get in touch with my local NRA representative and request they push this...right after I get up off the floor and stop laughing.

I'll make a prediction...this will be repealed when pigs fly - and this doesn't include tossing strips of bacon into the air.

I think it has a MUCH better chance of simply being declared unconstitutional than being repealed.

I mean come on,.. how constitutional is a tax measure that purposefully doesn't collect tax?

Answer: it isn't!

can you point me to any case where parts of it have been declared unconstitutional that went to the appelate level?

I've seen stewart and sylvera.

I'm always looking to expand my knowledge.

thanks,
JPIII

Wheres Ron Paul when you need him!!!!

Why was this not attatched to the Firearms industry Lawful Commerce thingie that just went through ...It would have seemed like such a good fit. I mean come on, MG are firearms, and they are lawfull to own(in most places). I say we shoot it down with a must pass bill also, that is how they got the ba..., I mean the prohibition on new registration of autos...Man,antis are so stupid, a shotgun is a MG under the most strict interpretation of the NFA! Multiple projectiles with a single funtion of the trigger, right? A gun is a gun is a gun; just like if somebody steals your car, it is no less stolen if they use a key, hot-wire it, or strip it....Crime is crime, regardless of the implement used...

Yea...let's have this as an addendum to the Republican Party Platform. I'm sure it will catch on and become a priority with the majority of most Americans.

TGT said:

Yea...let's have this as an addendum to the Republican Party Platform. I'm sure it will catch on and become a priority with the majority of most Americans.

Click to expand...

Doing things incrementally is the way to success. Just flat out repealing 922(o) won't happen. We need to think of incremental ideas that COULD happen.

Here's my idea: change it so that soldiers returning to civilian life could have the option of buying their old beat-up M16 from the military, at some reasonable price (less than $1,000) and having it fully transferable.

Why might this work? Right now the military is falling far from the mark on its recruiting targets. This would be a no-cost way for them to enhance recruiting. The soldiers who take this option will be able to turn around and sell their weapons for $10,000 or so (estimate). So this is a no-cost way for the military to enhance recruiting, getting new rifles, and give soldiers (effectively) a bonus worth about $10k. What's not to like? Support our troops, right?

Obviously there would need to be restrictions on which troops can do it: honorable discharge, no mental illness or serious PTSD problems, etc. Maybe it should also be reserved as a priv. for soldiers who have served in special ways, like soldiers who have served in Iraq, seen combat, etc. Details.

It's some kind of incremental idea like that that is going to get rid of 922(o) for us. Either that or a court victory, which is a thin hope.

MG Ban

Something I have not seen mentioned yet is the possibility that numerous dealers and collectors who have bought MG's as an investment may not like this idea. Their $100,000+ collection of "full auto investments" just lost 90% of there value the minute this thing passes. I would not mind seeing it pass but there are other more important issue's I would like to see dealt with first. Just my 3/4 cents after taxes.

Not true. There are a ton of MG owners out here in Hernando/Citrus counties and every one of them I have met would love to be able to buy more toys.

It would mean the difference between 400-500 dollar MAC10s and 3-4000 dollar MAC10s. It would mean 400 dollar FA AKs, 800 dollar FA AR15s etc. Can you imagine being able to call up CDNN Investments and for 1200 dollars pick up an open bolt FA M1919 instead of a crappy semiauto one? Glock 18s for the same price as Glock 17s? MP5s for under 1k.

It would be a new golden age of firearms ownership. Every MG owner wants this.

The only thing better than this would be getting rid of the 6-9 month delay that the ATF throws into every approval. It should be no more difficult than doing a 4473 and a phone call. At the very least, someone who has passed the CCW background check and fingerprinting should be able to bypass all that garbage.

I would personally love a real P90. And a real MG42.

MG Ban

Well if paying 10-15 grand for something and having it be worth only 1k a short time later does not upset anyone, then I have some really nice land for sale. Your thinking of this from a hobby stand point, which is fine, but I am thinking of it from a business stand point and there is no doubt there would be some serious money losses.

Most of these guys have craploads of cash or they bought the guns back when they were cheap.

From talking to dealers at gun shows, the guys who do it for investment already sold off most of their inventory a few years ago. When Uzis hit about 4k, most people stopped caring if they would keep going up in value and decided to cash in on the 90 percent appreciation in value. Ditto all the other NFA stuff.

Guys who have bought a few dozen 5-20k dollar firearms arent doing it because they see it as a way of paying the rent- they are doing it because they are filthy rich and want to play with machine guns. The appreciation in value is just a side benefit. I personally wouldnt long-term invest in MGs that didnt have significant historical significance (like STG44s and similar) because the only thing making them valuable is a single federal law.

People have a point though. What are the antis going to say? Half of them would probably be like "didn't that sunset last September?" Most antis don't know the difference between semi or full auto or if they do don't care to distinguish between them. So you have Feistein in front of Congress holding an AK say "these things weren't meant to be aimed but were intended to spray down entire areas" and everybody else just looks at their watches and nods like "yeah we heard this one before. You know, when you told us the streets would become a war zone if the AWB wasn't renewed?" Think about it. The problem isn't countering a good defense on the part of the antis, it's mustering a good offense on our part. Someone just mentioned collectors. Any bets on whether or not they are going to be selfish enough to maintain the value of their collection at everyone else's expense? My guess is they are. And then you have the large portion of the gun owners in this country who are nothing more than Billy Bobs with a hunting rifle and a shotgun that don't give a damn if they can buy a machine gun. Heck some gun owners I know didn't even care if the AWB was made permanent. Gun owners are too divided for something like this to pass. All we'd need is a united front and a serious push and it would happen. Eighty-million people saying the same thing at the same time would be heard. But as it is now, all we have is a few whimpers from the shadows that are easily going to be drowned out under accusations that we are militant radicals who can't really be serious at best and terrorists at worse.

That said, where do I sign?

Main problem right now is the Senate is full of D- and F rated "republicans" who are not so much "pro-gun" as they are "slightly less enthusiast about gun banning than ted kennedy"

Technically the republicans have a majority. Looking at the NRA and GOA ratings, I would say that we on the other hand do not have a majority in the senate.

There is still plenty of fighting to do. Looking at my own state we have Senator Bill Nelson, who is "not rated" but is deserving of something in the D- to F- range. Hopefully we can fix that in 2006. There are tons of other states that are completely pro-gun to the core and they have D and F rated senators. How the hell did North Dakota end up with two F rated senators? How about Louisiana? Montana? Both Virginias? VERMONT!?!?!?!? Seriously, gun owners need to wake up and start voting in Senatorial elections. I can understand California sending gun banners to the Senate, but to have them come from Vermont, Montana or Virginia is unforgiveable. If you have the votes to make your entire state trend pro-gun, then you have the votes to elect a non-crappy Senator.

sam59 said:

Well if paying 10-15 grand for something and having it be worth only 1k a short time later does not upset anyone, then I have some really nice land for sale. Your thinking of this from a hobby stand point, which is fine, but I am thinking of it from a business stand point and there is no doubt there would be some serious money losses.

Click to expand...

Thats a pretty sloppy analogy.

A more accurate representation involving land ownership would be this. Your a farmer. You own a small piece of land right smack in the middle of a corporate plot. The corporation offers you 1,000,000 for your scrap of land. you choose not to sell. A year later that corporation goes out of business and you are able to buy all of THEIR land for $10,000. So what if your land lost value? If you wanted to get out of farming you would have sold it already, and now you can expand your livelyhood exponentially with little cost to yourself.

People dont own machin guns as "investments", they own them because they want to shoot them. With that in mind an end to the 89 ban is a winning situation for everyone. For the very few people who actually are trying to make a profit on macnineguns they have accepted the risk and i am not at all willing to lose am ajor RKBA battle so that a few guys can profit from legislative injustice.