Direct challenge to the NFA

[AlexanderA]

The NFA is really an outdated "historical artifact." In 1934, this was an attempt to outlaw the guns used by the most notorious criminals of the time. That meant, primarily, the Thompson SMG, which was the most frightening of all. And of course, handguns -- but a ban on handguns was a non-starter, because lots of law-abiding people had them. But Congress left in the provisions that banned handguns converted from long guns. (Which didn't make sense if the handguns themselves were not banned.)

Skip forward to the 21st century. The classic Thompson is a relic. There are lots of unregulated semiautomatic guns available that are more effective than a Thompson (or any machine gun), because they waste less ammunition. One would think that these semiautomatic guns would be the natural target of the NFA. But, once again, such a ban is a non-starter, because lots of law-abiding people have them.

So the question then becomes, why have the NFA at all? It doesn't accomplish its stated purpose of removing dangerous weapons.

 

[AlexanderA]

Over night everything else becomes a machine gun when the Hughes amendment goes away, assuming the nfa still exists,

I kind of doubt it. Why? Because machine guns are novelties. They don't have more practical use than their semiautomatic cousins. Making the conversion would still require registration, tax, etc.

I own several fully-automatic M16s as well as many semi AR-15's. I had most of them before the Hughes Amendment was passed, so I could have converted the semis to full, but I didn't. The FA M16s that I had were enough to satisfy my curiosity. I suspect that it Hughes is repealed, most owners would want one or two FA's, and that's it.

 

[N555]

Well I'm not most people.
I would probably want all AR lowers 3rd holed, a fullauto sten gun or 2, P90, some fullauto 22LR guns, a PPs or PPsH serries, vz61, an obligatory AK, maybe a belt fed.

 

[theotherwaldo]

The NFA is unconstitutional.
If they want to have something like a NFA then they should create and pass a constitutional amendment that contains these laws and rules.
Otherwise, it should be discarded by the Supreme Court as a federal law and then left up to the states.

 

[citizenconn]

How about a third option:
C) Can have access to anything the Taliban or Ukranians have been gifted from the US govt arsenal

 

[AlexanderA]

Well I'm not most people.
I would probably want all AR lowers 3rd holed,

That would mean all your AR's would be registered with the federal government. Would you really want that? And they would be less salable, even unsalable. With no Hughes Amendment, the situation with machine guns would be exactly analogous to what prevails today with silencers and SBR's. People would buy semis and Form 1 them. They'd rather make their conversion than buy your conversion (because buying your conversion would entail a long wait for ATF clearance). With a Form 1, they would still have the gun while they were waiting.

 

[AlexanderA]

it should be discarded by the Supreme Court as a federal law and then left up to the states.

If the NFA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, that would also preclude states from enacting analogues. That's because McDonald v. Chicago "incorporated" the 2nd Amendment, including all the federal jurisprudence surrounding it, so as to apply to the states.

 

[dogtown tom]

Remember the government caused all the events that lead to the creation of the nfa.

Remember who elected "the government".

But, but, but THE GUBMENT! is one of the silliest complaints an American can have. Having laws passed we don't agree with is the penalty we pay for being an American.
If we don't like it, we stop electing phonies, nitwits and posers.

 

[dogtown tom]

What I am suggesting is a new amnesty and repeal of Hughes, cloaked as an expansion of the NFA.

Seriously?

Maybe someone will be naive enough to buy it. Stranger things have happened. (Note: the antigunners are nothing if not naive. It's their central characteristic.)

As likely as passing off the Hearing Protection Act as a public health measure?
FYI.....gun owners are every bit as naïve as the antigunners. That why we voted for Donald Trump.

 

[N555]

That would mean all your AR's would be registered with the federal government. Would you really want that? And they would be less salable, even unsalable. With no Hughes Amendment, the situation with machine guns would be exactly analogous to what prevails today with silencers and SBR's. People would buy semis and Form 1 them. They'd rather make their conversion than buy your conversion (because buying your conversion would entail a long wait for ATF clearance). With a Form 1, they would still have the gun while they were waiting.

I can always make, mill, drill, print more.

 

[N555]

Remember who elected "the government".

Ballot mules?

 

[dogtown tom]

The NFA is really an outdated "historical artifact." In 1934, this was an attempt to outlaw the guns used by the most notorious criminals of the time. That meant, primarily, the Thompson SMG, which was the most frightening of all. And of course, handguns -- but a ban on handguns was a non-starter, because lots of law-abiding people had them. But Congress left in the provisions that banned handguns converted from long guns. (Which didn't make sense if the handguns themselves were not banned.)

The original text of the National Firearms Act was a prohibitive tax on all concealable firearms. After lobbying by Colt, S&W, H&R and others, handguns were removed. Thats why the NFA is a mess in regards to concealing a Shockwave or TAC14 makes it an AOW.

Skip forward to the 21st century. The classic Thompson is a relic. There are lots of unregulated semiautomatic guns available that are more effective than a Thompson (or any machine gun), because they waste less ammunition. One would think that these semiautomatic guns would be the natural target of the NFA. But, once again, such a ban is a non-starter, because lots of law-abiding people have them.

What on earth makes you think "more effective" or whether ammunition may be wasted has any bearing on anything related to the NFA?

So the question then becomes, why have the NFA at all? It doesn't accomplish its stated purpose of removing dangerous weapons.

It sure as hell did!
In 1934 that $200 transfer tax would be equivalent to $4,400 today. It was intended to be prohibitively expensive to acquire those firearms, effectively removing them from commerce. With inflation that punitive tax has become less punitive and in the context of buying a fully transferrable machine gun inconsequential.

Thankfully, Congress hasn't adjusted that NFA tax in eighty eight years.
NFA firearms were an extremely small segment of the firearms market until the last twenty years.



62 million dollars in NFA tax revenue in 2016........using paper forms. The "transfer and making tax" column? Divide by $200 and it will give you a rough approximation of how many Form 1's/4's were processed.

Note the massive increases from year to year starting during the Obama years.
The near doubling of tax revenue in 2016 was due to the impending 41F panic (which required fingerprinting of everyone listed on a trust application)

 

[dogtown tom]

The NFA is unconstitutional.
If they want to have something like a NFA then they should create and pass a constitutional amendment that contains these laws and rules.
Otherwise, it should be discarded by the Supreme Court as a federal law and then left up to the states.

Eight eight years and its still law.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ballot mules?

"Ballot mules" is a losers excuse for losing an election.
It's like the guy who cries "the other team cheated, the ref was blind, my shoe came untied, the sun was in my eyes, etc"

Whiners gonna whine. Losers keep losing.

 

[Will Munny]

You know, if you are a political minority, sometimes getting everything you ever wanted is not a good thing. For example, the Supreme Court gave Southern slaveholders everything they ever wanted with the Dred Scott decision of 1857 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford).

This was completely unacceptable to the people of the Northern, non-slave states. This was not because they cared about black people. It was because they did not want to compete with slave labor. As a result, they voted Republican and elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

That, in turn, was unacceptable to the people of the South, because they had been told by pro-slavery "fire-eater" politicians that Lincoln would take away their slaves, although he had pledged to do nothing of the kind. The Southerners decided that the results of democracy were no longer acceptable to them. They announced they were leaving the United States, and created their own government specifically to preserve slavery.

As a result, the Southern slaveowners lost everything by 1865. Not just slaves, but sometimes everything they owned and their lives too. So did many, many other people, because of the slaveowner extremism and intransigence.

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.

PS - I am not going to vote in the poll. The answer in favor of retaining the NFA is phrased in a loaded, "have you stopped beating your wife?" manner.

edited for spelling and grammar

Accepting abuses of fundamental civil rights is a non-starter. It does not matter if it is a "minority", in this country minorities have rights, and that is simply something the media is going to have to deal with.

As to the historical example, the parallels are there, but 180 degrees from where you are reading them.
Only a minority of Americans wanted to abolish slavery, the nation was dragged into that outcome by Lincoln and the wealthy interests of the northern industrialists.
To the extent that there is any parallel, it is that even a majority should not be able to deny a minority their fundamental civil rights, which is to say that simply because infringing on a right is popular does not make it acceptable, as that case proved.

 

[Will Munny]

Eight eight years and its still law.

Of course it is, because the system required to overturn it is hopelessly corrupt and is going to ignore the constitution as it finds it convenient to do so.

 

[CapnMac]

A number of y'all probably ought go and research just what Hoover v. U.S. is actually about.

Matt Hooper made a tchotchke, a pendant of metal with an enamel image of a "lightning link." This was not punched, perforated, or anything other than an ornament. It was made as a deliberate--political--statement of the absurdity of the rules on such things.

Hooper was arrested and charged with possession of unregistered machine guns and of intending to profit from illegal sales of machine guns. He's facing 10-25 years in a Federal Penitentiary for making pendants.

His lawyers have made several motions to the Court.
One is for dismissal under 1st Amendment grounds; political art is protected speech.
Another motion is the prima facie (aka "facial") issue that a "part" is not a "machine gun" no matter what BATFE says.
Naturally, another motion questions whether BAFTE has the authority to so broadly interpret legislation.

What the Court will do with those motions remains to be seen.

They are being asked to determine if the mere image of a Lightning Link is the same as a prohibited part. Further, whether that part must needs be as regulated as the whole (this will be watched closely as it has "80%" implications). They also will have to address if the authority exists by a Bureau to create such enforcement based upon legislation which does not address that.

Sadly, this is not a situation where "horse trading" various bits and pieces of NFA is "on the table."

 

[rust collector]

The US military wasn't convinced that the submachine gun would be useful, and Thompson's initial production runs were not quick to sell. Then organized criminals and bandits discovered how useful they were, and panic ensued. The NFA rode in on the wave of lawlessness that the feds had created with the Volstead Act and other actions or inactions that created vacuums into which organized crime and individual opportunists moved. Skillful parties harnessed this panic to once again divert attention to the ordnance rather than the cultural and political failings which set things in motion. I hope that Hooper comes before a judge with a good sense of irony and understanding of the misdirection that got us to this point.

 

[jmorris]

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.

I get it. It is not complicated machine work to build a suppressor. If harbor freight sold them by the millions they would be $20.

A can that works is orders of magnitude easier to machine that even a simple engine.

If you bought this from a suppressor manufacturer it would cost more that your house…



With all of the machine work, castings, molds, presses for stamping, etc. Makes a can closer to a pet rock than a masterpiece of machine work.

 

[dogtown tom]

If you bought this from a suppressor manufacturer it would cost more that your house…
.

So why oh why are there not more silencer manufacturers cranking out $50 silencers?

 

[jmorris]

Can’t buy them at harbor freight.

If I decided to start making them tomorrow, I wouldn’t sell them for what it cost to make them, I would price them as high as I could. Like everyone else does right now.

I hate to provide this example but search “solvent trap kit”, they simply do not cost what the going rate for a “legal” example of the same thing goes for.

 

[dogtown tom]

Can’t buy them at harbor freight.

If I decided to start making them tomorrow, I wouldn’t sell them for what it cost to make them, I would price them as high as I could. Like everyone else does right now.

Which blows apart your argument.
The reason silencer manufacturers don't sell their silencer for the cost of materials has to do with the fact its not just materials figured into the retail price.
It's like the nitwits that think FFL transfers are "pure profit", they fail to understand the expenses of time involved.

I hate to provide this example but search “solvent trap kit”, they simply do not cost what the going rate for a “legal” example of the same thing goes for.

Thats a great example!
Something goes wrong who ya gonna call?
Liability insurance aint free.

And FYI that cheap solvent trap silencer? Rebel tried selling the same junk eight years ago. Dealer cost was $50 for exactly what is pictured in your photo. Rebel is now out of business.

 

[kwguy]

about the consquences of a political minority getting things the majority is opposed to, via the Supreme Court.

If a “political minority” happens to “get something” that the “political majority” doesn’t agree with, big deal. The rights of people aren’t dictated by “raise your hands if yadda yadda”, like deciding to stay inside or go outside for elementary school recess.

If the “political majority” doesn’t want to exercise a right, then don’t. Don’t buy a suppressor or a gun or alcohol or whatever else. Just leave those that do alone.

Thats the problem with people. They want impose their petty tyranny on others.

 

[citizenconn]

Thats the problem with people. They want impose their petty tyranny on others.

Not all people. Currently its the far left that fits that description. Now, to generalize is to be an idiot, according to a dead English poet, and so perhaps I am being one. But in my youth, some 4 decades ago, it was the Christian conservatives among other groups that were worried someone somewhere might be having a good time. I've come to realize that political persuasion isn't the best indicator of those tyrants (some not so petty) as you so aptly described. Rather it is their penchant for fascist ideology that drives them to want to control the lives of others. Our prescient forefathers foresaw this and thankfully gave us the tools with which to fight back against this tyranny. So, of course, these fascists will fight with lies, slander, deceit and moral turpitude to deny us those freedoms at any cost. To this I simply say - Shall Not Be Infringed. Seems there's been a lot of infringing the last 90 years though. Time for some un-infringement,

 

[jmorris]

Which blows apart your argument.

I don’t see it that way. You sell something for the most you can.

Do you think the cost to manufacture primers went from $99/5000 to $100/1000 or that’s just what people would pay, once supply was hampered?