Direct challenge to the NFA

[greyling22]

Kind of.

At some point though, economy of scale kicks in and the nicer ones will be cheaper. Not $100, but maybe $500 instead of $750 for a decently constructed one or $800 instead of $1000 for a real nice one.

I bet that if there were zero restrictions on importation and manufacture of suppressors, and enterprising person could go over to china and have a full TI can made for under $150, assuming you bought 20,000 of them. I mean, they make them for $20 out of aluminum right now (for 22 cans), and Ti isn't that much harder to machine. (now, R&D etc are not included in that figure, and lets face it, if somebody was doing a cheap china can, they'd just copy somebody else's hard work instead of reinventing the wheel)

 

[jmorris]

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.

If they are “sick of the massacres” are they also anti automobile?

Over 42,000 dead on our roads just last year!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

Or is there an acceptable amount of innocent men, women and children we can kill if we like something that isn’t even a right guaranteed by the #2 Constitutional Amendment?

 

[greyling22]

If they are “sick of the massacres” are they also anti automobile?

Over 42,000 dead on our roads just last year!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

Or is there an acceptable amount of innocent men, women and children we can kill if we like something that isn’t even a right guaranteed by the #2 Constitutional Amendment?

it's not about how many die, it's how scarily they die. bees kill way more people than sharks or snakes, but bee's aren't as scary.
also, to the quote that gets thrown around "if we can save just 1 person from getting killed, isn't it worth losing your rights to a gun?" how many people are killed by drunk drivers? should we then outlaw alcohol? How many liberal city dwellers are going to be willing to give up their nightly glass of wine so that frank down in Louisiana doesn't get drunk and crash into Bob on some back road. My poorly made point is that people are willing to give up rights they don't use, and less so when it impacts their lives.

 

[bearcreek]

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.

Something to keep in mind during this discussion is that, by far, the vast majority of the massacres committed using legally obtained weapons are committed by governments, not civilians.

 

[CapnMac]

enterprising person could go over to china and have a full TI can made for under $150

Given that Europeans can get them for under €100, I'd rather have known European manufacturing versus sketchy PRC machining (PRC would likely farm then out to Bangladesh or Vietnam, and still mark them up 3x)

 

[N555]

Machining titanium is a lot easier than 304 stainless.

 

[Monac]

Something to keep in mind during this discussion is that, by far, the vast majority of the massacres committed using legally obtained weapons are committed by governments, not civilians.

The GOVERNMENT goes around to schools, grocery stores, Fourth of July celebrations, and other public events shooting up the kids and the crowds? Please, tell me more.

 

[bearcreek]

The GOVERNMENT goes around to schools, grocery stores, Fourth of July celebrations, and other public events shooting up the kids and the crowds? Please, tell me more.

That's not what I said.

 

[Monac]

If they are “sick of the massacres” are they also anti automobile?

Over 42,000 dead on our roads just last year!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

Or is there an acceptable amount of innocent men, women and children we can kill if we like something that isn’t even a right guaranteed by the #2 Constitutional Amendment?

We are not talking about moral rights and wrongs here. We are talking about the political effects of holding out for, and via the Supreme Court getting, everything the pro-gun side in America would like. In this case specifically, the overturning of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Have you got any arguments about that?

But, if you would like to impose the same restrictions on guns that we already impose on cars - requiring user training, licensing users and prohibiting use without such a license, legally registering each sale or transfer, tracking them from state to state, requiring some kind of license plate so each one can be readily traced to an owner - I am willing to hear your side. I am just surprised you are up for that.

 

[Monac]

That's not what I said.

I apologize. Could you please clarify what you did say? Who is using these government guns? Who is massacring the American public with them?

 

[SharpDog]

Well, it turns out the 1934 NFA was in response to the 1918 Parkland shooting. Just check out a recent speech.

 

[bearcreek]

I apologize. Could you please clarify what you did say? Who is using these government guns? Who is massacring the American public with them?

I said "governments" plural, I wasn't talking about just the American government. When such things occur, government agents, i.e. military, police etc. use the guns. The American government has not engaged widely in massacres of civilians within our borders for the last 130 years or so, but there is certainly no reason to assume that they never will again, which is why the 2A exists. The whole point is to protect the right of the people to maintain the tools and training necessary to keep their government in a perpetual state of fear of it's people.

 

[Monac]

I said "governments" plural, I wasn't talking about just the American government. When such things occur, government agents, i.e. military, police etc. use the guns. The American government has not engaged widely in massacres of civilians within our borders for the last 130 years or so, but there is certainly no reason to assume that they never will again, which is why the 2A exists. The whole point is to protect the right of the people to maintain the tools and training necessary to keep their government in a perpetual state of fear of it's people.

Wow. You are making an argument irrelevant to the point under discussion, which I made in my first post above, about the consquences of a political minority getting things the majority is opposed to, via the Supreme Court.

To get back to that, we have lived with the NFA since 1934. Tyranny has not descended; indeed, it seems like people who believe as you do are currently in the driver's seat when it comes to gun legislation, and have been for some time. Therefore, why the need to push on repealing the NFA? It might cause a backlash that would be harmful to your cause.

edited for spelling and grammar

 

[AlexanderA]

Just repeal the Hughes Amendment and fund the ATF so that transfers are processed quickly. I'd like to go back to 1975 when I could (and did) buy a Thompson for $750.

 

[CapnMac]

From the legal team bringing the case:

 

[Mike OTDP]

I agree that the complete abolition of the NFA is a "bridge too far." It can be reformed, though, by (a) repealing the Hughes Amendment, and (b) streamlining the procedures so that approval can be received in a few days.

Prior to the Hughes Amendment (1986), depending on the state, machine guns were affordable and not too difficult to obtain.

We can also chip away at the NFA by deleting silencers and SBR's.

This. The way to attack NFA'34 is not by frontal assault. That will fail. Chip at the most objectionable parts, leave the background check provisions.

The Dirty Little Secret of SCOTUS is that they follow public sentiment. NYSRPA v Bruen would have been lost if it had come to SCOTUS thirty years ago. In 2022, with 43 states shall-issue? We win 6-3.

Suppressors are reaching the point of acceptability to the non-gun-owning public. Arm braces are a "maybe", but we can make a similar argument. In both cases, they are already in widespread use.

 

[bearcreek]

Wow. You are making an argument irrelevant to the point under discussion, which I made in my first post above, about the consquences of a political minority getting things the majority is opposed to, via the Supreme Court.

To get back to that, we have lived with the NFA since 1934. Tyranny has not descended; indeed, it seems like people who believe as you do are currently in the driver's seat when it comes to gun legislation, and have been for some time. Therefore, why the need to push on repealing the NFA? It might cause a backlash that would be harmful to your cause.

edited for spelling and grammar

I stated an undeniable fact, one that is precisely the reason the 2A exists. I stated that that fact is something to keep in mind during this discussion related to the 2A. You asked for clarification and I obliged. That is all.

I'm not sure why you think people who "believe as I do" ( I'm not entirely sure what you're assuming I believe) are in the driver's seat. I assure you they are not, nor have they been in my lifetime.

 

[Monac]

I stated an undeniable fact, one that is precisely the reason the 2A exists. I stated that that fact is something to keep in mind during this discussion related to the 2A. You asked for clarification and I obliged. That is all.

Bearcreek, a thing can be both an undeniable fact and also completely irrelevant to what is being discussed, unless you show how it IS relevant. In particular, this is NOT a discussion about the Second Amendment. My point was about the political fallout from going too far, or at least too far and too fast, with rolling back the NFA. Your justification of the Second Amendment has no readily obvious connection with that.

I based my opinion of what you appear to believe on what you say about the Second Amendment. The people who agree with you about it have won about 90% of the battles concerning gun laws since 1968. If you think that is not enough, I don't know what to say to you. This is a democracy. I think that, when it comes to firearms, you are in a political minority. You should be delighted with 90%. You are not. I do not want to get this thread closed because I am being too political, so I will stop there.

 

[dogtown tom]

.....The Dirty Little Secret of SCOTUS is that they follow public sentiment.

Seriously? I know a couple of recent examples that disagree completely.
The US Supreme Court isn't supposed to rule on the facts of the cases brought before it, but matters of law. Popularity is not a concern.

NYSRPA v Bruen would have been lost if it had come to SCOTUS thirty years ago. In 2022, with 43 states shall-issue? We win 6-3.

How many states have shall issue has nothing to do with anything. The composition of the court has everything to do with that decision. If 49 states had shall issue, and the court was composed of a majority of liberals......Bruen wins.

Suppressors are reaching the point of acceptability to the non-gun-owning public.

Huh? To "the majority" of the non gun owning public silencer are illegal. Heck, once a week I'll transfer a gun to someone that sees my Silencer Shop kiosk and says "I thought silencer were illegal".
You would be surprised how many so called Second Amendment supporters are not accepting of silencer. We have a couple on THR.

Arm braces are a "maybe", but we can make a similar argument. In both cases, they are already in widespread use.

"Already in widespread use" has never been a defense against a prohibition. Doesn't matter if its alcohol, drugs, guns, leaded gasoline, vape pens or vegetables.

 

[12Bravo20]

Huh? To "the majority" of the non gun owning public silencer are illegal. Heck, once a week I'll transfer a gun to someone that sees my Silencer Shop kiosk and says "I thought silencer were illegal".
You would be surprised how many so called Second Amendment supporters are not accepting of silencer. We have a couple on THR.

I hear this quite often at my local gun shop that sells silencers. Most are surprised that silencers are legal. Another misconception is that silencers are "Hollywood" quiet. Outside of 22LR silencers, you still want to wear hearing protection with most centerfire silencers, especially rifle calibers.

I have to agree that chipping away at the NFA Act is better than a full head-on assault. It would be nice for silencers to be removed from the NFA. While most of Europe has very strict firearms laws, a lot of European countries encourage the use of silencers due to noice pollution. It would have been a nice start if the Hearing Protection Act would have been passed.

 

[N555]

Where I am no one cares about silencers.

 

[Pulldeaux]

Kind of.

At some point though, economy of scale kicks in and the nicer ones will be cheaper. Not $100, but maybe $500 instead of $750 for a decently constructed one or $800 instead of $1000 for a real nice one.

 

[Pulldeaux]

I’ll just take the stamp cost ,did so 3 times ,will take another can k !! Thanks

 

[jmorris]

But, if you would like to impose the same restrictions on guns that we already impose on cars - requiring user training, licensing users and prohibiting use without such a license, legally registering each sale or transfer, tracking them from state to state, requiring some kind of license plate so each one can be readily traced to an owner - I am willing to hear your side. I am just surprised you are up for that.

I am not sure of your location but here in Texas, you can be illegally in the Country, driving a car without insurance or obviously a drivers license, get in a crash and the police will let you go on your way with a ticket as long as you didn’t kill someone. If the vehicle was full of AK’s or even Obama “fast and furious” AR’s and you were 100% legal, you would get hauled in and arresting officers would show off your “weapons cash” for TV and the papers.

You can have your laws about registration, insurance, licensing for driving, etc, but if you don’t enforce them, they are as useless as the ones on the books that are suppose to keep politicians profiting because of the positions they hold and kickbacks. If you mean like that, I don’t think it would have any effect but that’s not how the left enforces laws against their opponents.

"hard to get" has nothing to do with wait times,…

I always thought that was exactly what playing “hard to get” was…

 

[dogtown tom]

Kind of.

At some point though, economy of scale kicks in and the nicer ones will be cheaper. Not $100, but maybe $500 instead of $750 for a decently constructed one or $800 instead of $1000 for a real nice one.

What makes you think "economy of scale" isn't occurring right now?
It's not like Silencerco is two guys in a garage churning out a dozen cans a day.