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

A Letter to Ron Paul about reopening the Machinegun registry.

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Sambo82, Mar 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    I've read several old threads about a repeal on the Hughes Amendment and how that might be best acomplished, and it seems like one of the better ideas was to have a pro gun congressman attach a rider doing just that. After joining this forum a few minutes, ago the last question in the application form was something akin to "What have you done to advance RKBA", and I realized that other than voting, the truth is I havn't done alot. So I decided to write Ron Paul an email about it. I figure with his no compromise stance on gun issues and liberty in general, coupled with this being his last term in Congress, that he would have no qualms about attaching such a rider. Here was the gist;

    "Congressman Paul,

    Noting your A+ ranking from Gunowners of America and your support of liberty for Americans in general, I highly support your campaign for the office of President. Understanding that gun rights is important to all liberty loving Americans, I want to ask you to either introduce as a bill, or add as a rider, a movement reopening the machine gun registry for civilians.

    The closing of the registry in May of 1986 represents an egregious violation of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution in general. Forcing a tax on a product, and then refusing to collect said tax is an underhanded and unconstitutional method of gun control. Also the intent and effect of closing the registry was to raise the prices of these firearms to the point where only the wealthy could afford them. This reminds one of laws the aristrocracy enacted in Europe to disarm peasants, and is in short the antithesis of what our Republic stands for.

    Furthermore registered machine guns have only been used in an astonishing two crimes in our history, and as such there is no compelling evidence as to why Americans have deserved to have their use restricted. I trust that you will keep all of this under consideration, and make the right decision.

    Personal Greeting"

    I also sent a modified copy to the more gun friendly representatives from my state. I know it's not much, but it's a start to doing something toward fighting the last century's encroachments against our firearms rights. Please email your representatives as well, and feel free to use this as a template if you don't want to write it out.

    Also, am I correct about the statment claiming that only two crimes have been commited with machine guns? There seems to be conflicting claims in the precise number. And I wasn't sure if this should go under the "legal" section or NFA, so I hope I made the right choice there.
     
  2. MyGreenGuns

    MyGreenGuns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    553
    Location:
    Pacific NW, USA
    I'm a die hard Ron Paul supporter, but if you expect him to be able to change anything we need to get the old fuddie duddies out of congress as well.

    The president does not have unlimited powers, he is limited by congress.
     
  3. 45bthompson

    45bthompson Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    Omaha, NE
    Prolly fits under activism best. Dr. Paul is kinda busy lately though. Maybe he'll address it at the convention in Tampa!
     
  4. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    I was thinking more as an under the radar rider to a bill while he was still in Congress, if it were possible.
     
  5. zignal_zero

    zignal_zero Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    Folks should try to remember this, when the WRONG GUY (Mr. Bigears) is winning. With everyone crying and pooping their pants, last election I couldn't buy ONE box of 9mm to go to the range. Now, I hear how "oh, it's all gonna happen in his second term". I'm gonna be the idiot who does NOT prepare for political doom and widespread blanket bans by breaking open my kids piggy bank to stockpile tons of ammo.

    In all fairness, though, the prez can have a strong effect on the laws. He is in a position to change Supreme Court Judges (right?) and this could change how an existing law is interpreted. Not to mention, if he does appoint someone a Supreme Court Judge, basic human nature would make them want to vote the way they think he prefers.
     
  6. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    While the president can't magically wave his hand and simply make 922(o) go away, he could direct the Attorney General to order the registry reopened and an amnesty put in place until an independent audit of the NFRTR shows an error rate of 0.00000001%. :evil:
     
  7. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    464
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    In Illinois we are fighting Handgun registration at 65 bucks a pop and an ammo tax. Must be nice to dream about opening the NFA registry. I can't get near an NFA gun in my home state.:cuss:
     
  8. Walther P99

    Walther P99 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    As much as I'd like to see this happen, I highly doubt it since the very people we'd think would support us (dealers, etc.) would actually vehemently oppose reopening the registry due to the amount of money/profit they'd stand to lose.. :fire:
     
  9. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,366
    Location:
    Central PA
    That gets brought up every once in a while. Usually the person who says it ends up running from the mob of irate NFA owners and dealers who are so insulted by the suggestion.

    And it really doesn't make much sense for the dealers to be against it. More guns avaialble for transfer mean more dollars coming their way. It's not like transferring a $40,000 M1 Thompson makes them more money than transferring a post-Hughes-repeal $2,000 M-16 would. They don't get a cut of the VALUE of the gun.
     
  10. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    While this is true, I've had more than one FFL/SOT state in private that they don't want to see 922(o) because it would devalue their inventory overnight.

    There are FFL/SOT's who charge a percentage of the gun's value as part of the transfer fee for Title II firearms.
     
  11. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,366
    Location:
    Central PA
    No kidding? Well, you learn something new every day! Thanks!
     
  12. FIVETWOSEVEN

    FIVETWOSEVEN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,078
    Those that "support" the 2nd Amendment that would oppose a Hughes repeal are selfish.
     
  13. fallout mike

    fallout mike Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,947
    Location:
    North Mississippi
    Fivetwoseven, hypocrite would be a better word.
     
  14. Pfletch83

    Pfletch83 member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    354
    There should be no restrictions on Firearms,because restrictions are infringement,and what does the 2-A say about that?
     
  15. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    Texas
    I think the best way to go about it is as a poison pill.
     
  16. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,262
    Location:
    Virginia
    Bubbles wrote:

    This raises an interesting point. A true "dealer," it seems to me, makes his money on turnover; it's never a good business model to amass inventory. On the other hand, a "collector/investor" banks on the appreciation of his collection. The NFA world is probably unique in that there are so many hobbyists masquerading as businessmen.

    Furthermore, an actual collector (as opposed to an investor) would be happy to have prices fall, so that he could more easily add to his collection. So we have a rather narrow range of people -- financial investors in MGs -- that want to keep prices artificially high by restricting supply.

    Why work with them? There are plenty that charge a flat fee.
     
  17. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    I know the Hughes Amendment gets brought up every now and then and from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) it's never been challenged directly in court. That being said I doubt any challenge would be successful as the USSC has decided that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the right to do literally anything it wants.

    IMO about the only chance of seeing legal new production machine guns is if Congress votes to reopen the registry, or if the states pass a "New 10th Amendment" so to speak. One that reaffirms specifically that the Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause does not give the federal government the right to legislate outside of their enumerated powers. Most people don't realize that 38 states can ammend the Consitution without Congress voting on anything or the President signing anything.

    Of course that would instantly invalidate the NFA and 95% of what the federal government does, so there goes that Social Security, medicare, food stamps etc. that people are addicted to. So really despite it being in the best interest of the states and nation at large, I doubt any such movement would get off the ground. :(
     
  18. Walther P99

    Walther P99 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    I'd really hope I'm wrong if such a thing came to pass as there are several MGs that I'd immediately start saving up for.. :)

    As far as the profit realized, retailers looking to maintain their markup/profit margins will make more based on the value of the gun. If a dealer uses a 25% markup then the $40k M1 (I'll assume that's the dealer cost) would be marked up at retail to $50k, for a 20% profit margin or $10k. Using the same hypothetical percentages, the M16 at $2k cost would be marked to retail to $2,500 for the 20% profit margin or $500.

    These numbers may be high or low for retail, but the idea is what's important.
     
  19. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    Many of the big machine gun dealers make money by buying whole collections at a discount from auctions or estates and then selling them individually. Those guys make a lot of money from the inflated prices, and it would be very interesting to see how they would react to a reopened or repealed registry.
     
  20. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,571
    He is able to nominate new supreme court justices who then must be approved by the senate. He cannot change them in the sense of replacing a sitting justice. To be replaced the justice must either resign, die, or be impeached. There are so precious few examples of federal judges being impeached that the latter is not something I would think I will ever see.

    There is in fact nothing that cements the SCOTUS at 9 members. During the new deal FDR floated an idea to pack the court by expanding its numbers because his programs were being struck down repeatedly. We don't know how that would have played out, because "the switch in time that saved nine" adverted it. In sum, a justice changed the way he was voting and FDRs programs started surviving judicial review. I would venture that expanding and packing the court would have a hefty political fallout and thus it is not particularly likely that it would even be attempted.
     
  21. bamawrx

    bamawrx Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    460
    Location:
    ALA-FREEKING-BAMA!
    The key would be to keep Pre-1986 guns at $200 transfer tax. Tax all post 1986 guns at $5,000 (one-time) or some other high number. That prevents junk machine guns, helps maintain value in existing inventory, and still keeps the new guns affordable.
     
  22. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,366
    Location:
    Central PA
    Sooo, basically a "Saturday night special" law for machine guns? What's a "junk" machine gun, and why does one need to be taxed out of existence? This proposed tax is higher than even the current street price of some of the most popular transferable machine guns.

    How does a "one-time" tax work, when all Title II devices are taxed each time they're transferred?

    And WHO is helped by a $5,000 tax per item? Seems absurdly arbitrary. Is it to pay for something? Or to appease someone, somehow? Or to make sure that poor people don't run out and buy machine guns? What's your goal?
     
  23. Walther P99

    Walther P99 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Not sure about anyone else, but I'd hardly call a $5,000 tax affordable...
     
  24. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,571
    I wouldn't see this as any real improvement in the general situation. One can buy certain transferable machine guns below that price and others for close to it. While it would reduce the price of some guns it would still place them well beyond the reach of many. I would venture that those that can buy a $1500 machine gun and pay a $5000 tax can already go buy a $10K machine gun and a $200.

    I would also be real concerned that once you start talking about upping the tax on machine guns someone might get the bright idea to update the tax imposed on other items as well.
     
  25. Lee Roder

    Lee Roder Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    510
    Location:
    AZ
    The original $200 tax was equivalent to about $3200 in today's money.

    :neener:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page