Prevalence of MGs Pre-86??

When I first became interested in the topic, I turned to my State Department of Public Safety. I was re-informed of all the rules, all my questions were answered fairly, including that in 2003 or 2004 that there were about 17,200
MGs registered in my state. Still yearning to be part of the minority!

There were many things legal in California at some point. I bought my Para-Ordnance P-14 there, in 1996, 14 round magazines and all. I bought an AR-15 there too, in 1998.
It's only in the last 10 years that California has gone absolutely bat**** insane.

There were many things legal in California at some point. I bought my Para-Ordnance P-14 there, in 1996, 14 round magazines and all. I bought an AR-15 there too, in 1998.
It's only in the last 10 years that California has gone absolutely insane.
***edit***
Weird, didn't intentionally double post. Mods, can I get a deletion, please?

Speculation

Don't kill the messenger here but; there is speculation the court will rule the 2nd is an indivigual right, but like the NFA of 1934, the governments (Federal, State, Local) have the ability to require registration and a tax paid per firearm.

I sure hope that speculation is wrong I would hate to think of my S&W model 34 as an NFA weapon.

I wonder how many there are in California and when they were banned. They must have been legal there at some point.

Click to expand...

Rumor is that there are still some individually owned class three machine guns in California that were grandfathered in before California banned machine guns.

just out of curiosity how much were machine guns preban?
( lets do % price increase over their semiauto brethren )

Many of them were cheaper than their SA counterparts.

Not counting the tax, that is.

While many firearms (including some of mine) are not practical, full autos are pretty much useless IMO unless you have a lot of money to turn into noise. Once the "bad-ass, cool" factor wears off (which was real quick in my case after I paid to feed one), the shine went off quickly. This was with 9mm back when milsurp was way cheap. The guy that owned it sold it due to operating cost.

As for money, $1,200 was a LOT of money in 1968. I graduated from Purdue with an engineering degree in 1973 and started with Deere & CO. at $1,100 a month. That was very good starting money. $1,200 would have been maybe 2 months take home income for the average person.

In constant dollars, I'm not sure that full auto is a whole lot more now than it was then.

I have no problem with someone owning one. I just want something I can afford to actually shoot.

just out of curiosity how much were machine guns preban?

Click to expand...

Well I was under 21 then but I did convince my father to buy a few. He transferred them to me when I turned 21.

In 1984 he paid around $500 for a Walther MPL submachine gun.
In 1984 he paid around $1200 for a 1952 Royal Typewriter BAR
and in 1985 he bought 2 SWD Lightning Links for $200 each. Now, Hughes had been signed so the RLLs were a bit high. Before any inkling of Hughes the Lightning Links were $45. Not many sold because everyont thought it silly to pay $45 + $200 for a piece of stamped sheet metal.

In constant dollars, I'm not sure that full auto is a whole lot more now than it was then.

Click to expand...

For reference, the last RLL I saw sell went for $11,000.

Using the nominal GDP per capita measurement for money growth, that $45 in 1985 is about $116 today. The RLL sold for $11,000.

So you're way off there, full auto is definitely more expensive today even taking into account inflation over time and the value of the dollar.

Any market where you have an artificially capped inventory of product is going to have this problem.

just out of curiosity how much were machine guns preban?

Click to expand...

You could buy a MAC 10 for $150.00.

Quote:
The other 76M are ridding our backs.

That’s what the NRA wants you to believe. The NRA does not represent firearms owners. It represents the firearms industry. They do what Winchester, Remington, et al tell them to, not the firearms owners. Firearms owners are just a necessary evil to be led around by the nose.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I disagree with you. If all gun owners were united & Voted as a block. The NRA could walk in a say we want this, this & this or your out of office.

Instead we have the shotgun guys who don't care about the black rifle guys, the hunters who don't care about the pistol shooters ect.....

Reagan asked the NRA what they wanted him to do with the FOPA, he knew they had been fighting for it for 7 years and how bad the MG ban was. They told him to sign it anyway, believing that the Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional within 6 months.

Sometimes political gambles do not work out, its just the way the game works.

Kharn

MGs are a "third rail" subject to most common folks & politicians. The product has simply been so completely demonized that nobody will consider legalizing 'em, and will promptly label "nutcase" anyone who does want to. Any approach that requires a majority vote will fail. Courts are the only civilized hope, and that could only succeed by a large purely grassroots effort pushing a whole lotta cases at once.

The product has simply been so completely demonized that nobody will consider legalizing 'em, and will promptly label "nutcase" anyone who does want to.

Click to expand...

But that's the problem, they are already legal. It is not necessary to talk about 'legalizing' machineguns. That was taken care of in 1934 with a system that, though not great, is certainly still workable today.

Simply opening the registry is all that's needed here, leaving the '34 NFA intact in all it's unconstitutional glory.

If you start the conversation by talking about 'legalizing machineguns' sure you will get funny looks but there is no reason to frame the argument that way.

This is a financial and commerce question.

All Hughes did was legislatively limit commerce on a legal item. That's all the argument needs to be; free trade of a legal product.