Are you in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughe's Amendment?

[zignal_zero]

I already made it clear where I stand - u should b able to walk into a convenience store, at 2am, and buy a shortbarreled selectfire AK with no ID except for age verification.

I'm just back here cause y'all started talking about FPS video games. I actually go from shooting online to shooting in my backyard, within minutes. In fact, Call of Duty normally ends up in me wanting to go shoot my rifle lol. I can tell ya, there are darn sure some similarities. No, its not the same thing, but it definitely gets u prepared for live fire.

 

[RX-178]

Am I in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughes Amendment?

Yes.

That is all.

 

[fixrspazz]

Absolutely. I don't have a machine gun, but I would surely get one.

 

[crazy-mp]

Nothing like poking a sleeping dog. Repeal the Hughes Amendment, the 1934 GCA, no problem, oh by the way we noticed that our tax stamp has not been keeping up with inflation, by today's monetary value your new tax stamp price is 3200.00. Thank You for using the ATF, NFA System and have a nice day.

So instead of getting that new silencer co sparrow for 650 with your stamp it would cost 3650.00 for a .22 suppressor. Leave it alone...

I guess that put me in the "no" category

Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege, if you really want one you will find a way, if you don't you will find an excuse.

 

[BK]

-your new tax stamp price is 3200.00.

I guess that's a different and more difficult question.Repeal it all and keep or do away with the $200 tax stamp, yes please. Repeal most all of it, open the registry, but tax stamps are now $3,000+, I don't know. I'm buying another suppressor this week, and I'm getting a good deal on it. Changing the tax stamp to over three grand would keep me from ever having bought the first one.

 

[Lunie]

Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege, if you really want one you will find a way, if you don't you will find an excuse.

I have no idea why you would choose to draw an arbitrary line at MG's. If that's the line, then semi-auto's need to fall into "privilege" too. Come to think of it, levers, pumps, and bolt actions can be fired pretty fast too... Heck, ANYTHING that fires fixed cartridges might just be too reliable, too fast, and too deadly.

The U.S. Constitution is very clear. It's either a right, or it's nothing. If there was something magical about the distinction of a machinegun, there certainly could have been an amendment saying as much. However, no such amendment exists. Instead, we have laws and regulations that violate the Constitution.

The 2nd still stands. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[NOLAEMT]

Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege, if you really want one you will find a way, if you don't you will find an excuse.

I cant believe someone here would say that...

Guess I learn something new everyday.

 

[41]

Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege

Some people would like to make it a privilege, but owning any type of gun you want to is a right, according to the constitution.

 

[fireside44]

Machine gun ownership is not a right it is a privilege

Machine gun ownership is a given under the 2nd amendment, no "privilege". You sound like a politician.

Felons should be able to buy guns legally. Mentally incompetent people should be able to buy guns. Drug addicts should be able to buy guns. I have sane arguments to back these talking points that no one can defeat so I thank you all in advance for trying.

 

[henschman]

I would say the ownership of fully automatic firearms and other weapons is a right we all have, which is true whether the Constitution or any other legal document says so or not; but it is a right which is currently being infringed upon by our government.

So of course I would like to have illegitimate laws like the NFA and Hughes Amendment repealed... it would certainly make it a lot easier and safer to exercise that particular right without having to jump through the feds' ridiculous hoops.

 

[AlexanderA]

There is absolutely NO correlation between (a) repealing the Hughes amendment, and (b) raising the price of the tax stamp, except in the minds of those who would use such a supposed correlation as an argument for keeping the Hughes amendment, and thereby keeping the price of machine guns high. It all boils down to simple greed -- those who want to keep the Hughes amendment want to protect their so-called "lucrative investment" in their machine guns. The fact of the matter is that if there's a political will to repeal the Hughes amendment, there's also a political will to keep the $200 tax stamp where it is, or even reduce it.

As a machine gun owner, I deeply resent those of my fellow owners who have the attitude of "I got mine, so screw the rest of you." They're cutting off their noses to spite their faces, because in the long run such an attitude will ruin the machine gun market for future generations, and thereby make their temporary gains illusory.

 

[RX-178]

Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Hughes Amendment.

The NFA as a whole is slightly more troublesome because it's where all our definitions of firearms come from. Before the NFA, there was no legal definition of a rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun, or any gun. A gun was just a gun.

I don't necessarily agree with any of the NFA's definitions, but I personally think it might be a little confusing if all of a sudden there was no definition for different categories of firearm. That might not be a bad thing, but I just am not sure where I stand on that.

Now, the NFA's categorizing of short barreled weapons and machineguns as restricted items, I wholeheartedly disagree with.

 

[Sam1911]

Before the NFA, there was no legal definition of a rifle, or a handgun, or a shotgun, or any gun. A gun was just a gun.

Er... before the NFA, there was no need for a "legal" definition of either. They simply were whatever they were.

The "need" for a legal definition has lead to such absurdities as a shotgun without a buttstock being legally not a shotgun at all, but an "other Firearm" (which ... of course ... is exactly the same thing as a tripod-mounted semi-auto, belt-fed .50 BMG rifle... of course ). Or a shotgun below a certain length being a short-barreled shotgun, but the same shotgun without a stock being NOT a shotgun at all, but an "Any Other Weapon."

Outside of taxing and making possession of items UNCONSTITUTIONALLY illegal, there is no need to legally define them. A malum in se crime committed with (or without) any of them is a crime, period. Malum prohibidum "crimes" of possession of an item should not exist (and such prohibitions when applied to arms are contrary to the written letter of our founding document) so we should no have no need for a specific legal definition of one vs. another.

I think I'll still be able to identify my rifles, handguns, and shotguns without any help from Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Section 921.

 

[crazy-mp]

Some people would like to make it a privilege, but owning any type of gun you want to is a right, according to the constitution.

I must have missed the clause about being able to afford what you want, because in that case I want a Quad 50 with a 5 ton to pull it around.

Nobody took the right to own a machine gun away, well at least in most states, but you could become a FFl/SOT and get them anyways. The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away. NFA is an expensive game to play, once you start looking into machine gun ownership.

 

[Kush]

I must have missed the clause about being able to afford what you want, because in that case I want a Quad 50 with a 5 ton to pull it around.

Nobody took the right to own a machine gun away, well at least in most states, but you could become a FFl/SOT and get them anyways. The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away. NFA is an expensive game to play, once you start looking into machine gun ownership.

Then tell me where I can legally buy a fully automatic FN f2000, FN p90, HK UMP, or other fully automatic guns that were manufactured after 1986 without having to be licensed by the government. There is a lot more than paying to play involved in getting a class III FFL.

I cant believe someone here would say that...

Guess I learn something new everyday.

You didn't see the thread in the legal section(could be wrong about the section) where people where saying if you are legally blind you shouldn't be able to own a gun then did you?

 

[crazy-mp]

Then tell me where I can legally buy a fully automatic FN f2000, FN p90, HK UMP, or other fully automatic guns that were manufactured after 1986 without having to be licensed by the government. There is a lot more than paying to play involved in getting licensed by the government.

Somalia, and Pakistan off the top of my head. Sorry to break it to you but civilian ownership of any post 86 H&K machine guns will never happen, even if the Hughes is repealed.

 

[crazy-mp]

There is a lot more than paying to play involved in getting a class III FFL.

There is no such thing as a class III FFL. You are referring to a FFL/SOT. Special Occupational Tax. There are 3 different tax classes manufacturer, importer and dealer.

 

[41]

The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away

That would occur if the supply curve met the demand curve. When the government significantly reduces the amount of supply, the supply does not equal the demand, and therefore the price is driven up because a few people can and are willing to pay a higher price for this limited quantity. Therefore the government reduced the amount of people that are able to own full autos, not a free market system.

If there was a free market on full autos more manufacturers would enter the civilian full auto market. This would increase the quantity, which would drive the price down to the level where quantity equals demand.

 

[Rail Driver]

I do see one probable outcome of repealing the NFA, and that's a skyrocket in ammo prices when demand suddenly increases.

 

[Lunie]

Nobody took the right to own a machine gun away, well at least in most states, but you could become a FFl/SOT and get them anyways. The free market system took your ABILITY to own one away. NFA is an expensive game to play, once you start looking into machine gun ownership.

No, FA firearms aren't somehow magically more expensive. In fact, they can be simpler to design and manufacture than their semi-automatic brethren, and cheaper to produce. :banghead: Just how much do you think it would cost to crank out M3's or Sten guns today? Heck, LE pricing on new MP5's is less than many people pay for semi-auto handguns.

The only thing pricing most people out of ownership is unwarranted and unjust government interference with supply. And then there are still unnecessary legal hindrances to ownership, transfer, and use.

 

[Sam1911]

Sorry to break it to you but civilian ownership of any post 86 H&K machine guns will never happen, even if the Hughes is repealed.

Hard to say what the factory may do (if it became legal to sell their products here...they are in the business of selling things, but of course we suck and they hate us), but patents exprie, and lawful conversions by SOT2s happen every day. In that case, the only difference would be that the SOT2 could make a new transferrable conversion instead of a dealer post sample.

 

[Deus Machina]

Repeal something that could inject money into the US economy through taxes and business? Now that doesn't sound like a good idea at all...

Heck, I would be happy with simply allowing newly-manufactured FA's to be sold to the public, and keeping the taxing, registration, and trust requirements in place.

Until we can repeal those, too.

 

[BeerSleeper]

I'm going to respond to the original question,"Are you in favor of repealing the NFA and Hughe's Amendment?"

Yes, and no.

I would like to see them go away, but I would prefer to see them found unconstitutional by the supreme court. It's better precedent down the road, than if "congress simply changed their mind". It more firmly establishes it as a constitutionally protected right, than if it's repealed by congress.

That said, I'll settle for anything that makes it go away.

 

[CoRoMo]

I'd like .. registering MG's ... they pose a risk.

Inanimate objects are just that. They are no more inherently evil than another.
It is the user... who poses a risk, not the object that he holds in his hands.

I'm very strongly pro gun ..., but...

Yes, that one again. I see.

...there ought to .. be .. control...

You're for gun control. That's terrific.

 

[camar]

I agree with what The Long Haranguer, mnrivrat, and P5 Guy posted. I think some of you need to take a step back, sit down and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.