Direct challenge to the NFA

[Jim Watson]

Likewise there is a semiautomatic M249 type at the local store. It would not cost any more to make it a real M249.

 

[AlexanderA]

I once saw kind of a daisy chain of builders who had manufacturer's licenses. They would just swap their "samples" around among themselves for their own shooting fun. It was always fun to see what they brought along for side entertainment at the rifle matches I was shooting at the time.

Clever people are going to create workarounds. What you are describing is in the same category as AR "pistols," "pistol braces," and "bump stocks" -- all workarounds for the NFA. The problem is the basic law. It needs to be repealed, or at least rewritten so that it makes more sense.

 

[dogtown tom]

The M60 is a special case. Unlike for the Browning guns, there is no single "controlled part" of the receiver. All the individual parts, such as the trunnion, the rails, the bottom channel, etc., can be found as uncontrolled parts. It's the assemblage that makes it the gun. Before the cutoff, RIA (the Illinois company) was doing this, and there's no reason why they couldn't do it again.

Every registered M60 will have a serial# on one of those parts.....and thats the single part that cannot be swapped, changed or replaced. Where that serial# is located affects its value.

 

[12Bravo20]

As strict as most European firearm laws are, suppressors for the most part are unregulated. Quite a few countries highly encourage the use of suppressors for hunting to fight noice pollution. Silencers in Europe run the gamete from cheap disposable models to expensive high end models.

Remember that a suppressor is nothing but a muffler for firearms. They work just like the mufflers on external combustion engines do.

Jut my opinion for the following. Since suppressors are just like mufflers we can look at the automotive muffler industry. Again you can buy everything from extremely cheap mufflers to very expensive mufflers. Both sell well enough that companies haven't gone out of business. I feel the same if suppressors were totally removed from the NFA or treated as a Title 1 firearm where a 4473 is needed.

Personally I am good with SBRs, and SBS shotguns being treated as a Title 1 firearm. Fill out the 4473, pass the instant background check and walk out with the item. I am good either way when it comes to suppressors. Though I do feel that they should be totally removed and treated as any other accessory.

 

[AlexanderA]

Every registered M60 will have a serial# on one of those parts.....and that's the single part that cannot be swapped, changed or replaced. Where that serial# is located affects its value.

Yes indeed. How it works in practice can get murky.

I have an early RIA M60, made when they were using reclaimed trunnions. They milled off the original Maremont/Saco serial number, and stamped their own in the resultant recess. But they left the original Maremont/Saco manufacturer's markings on the top of the trunnion. Their manufacturer's marking, a simple "RIA", is stamped on the bottom channel. Which part can be replaced? If the bottom channel is replaced, thereby getting rid of the "RIA", then it would seem that the gun is an original Maremont/Saco, which is considerably more valuable. (Although the paperwork lists RIA as the manufacturer.)

Desert Ordnance, in Utah, does a lot of M60 rebuilding and updating. One year at Knob Creek, I discussed this issue with them, and even they did not have an answer. But they were more than willing to rebuild my gun at a cost of thousands of dollars. I figured it wasn't worth it.

 

[tomrkba]

Yes, you may very well be able to get your rights back. (At least, your rights as you seem them. The Supreme Court did not see it that way in an earlier time, but the whole reason we are having this thread is because the Supreme Court has changed very much.)

My point was about the consequences of getting them back. If you think you will not mind those consequences, or that there will be none, then by all means, press on. But I gave a concrete historical example of the consequences of a political minority getting everything it wanted, and you have not addressed that at all.

Bruen solved the problem at the root. Now we're just fighting the delaying action the 9th Circus is waging.

As for "consequences" --- I don't give a effing whatever about them. Criminals will do as they please, as always. Apparently, so too do DA's in some cities. We're jumping into the rabbit hole of chaos that stems from an unstable body of law. I want my guns, armor, gear, and other stuff available at need. If a bunch of kids get murdered because the government, after 50 years, STILL refuses to solve it, then so be it.

It is harsh, but at some point we need to stop caring about the consequences of bad law and maintain the right at the expense of everything else or risk losing it (as we have come so close to allowing).

 

[AlexanderA]

It is harsh, but at some point we need to stop caring about the consequences of bad law and maintain the right at the expense of everything else or risk losing it

You are making the mistake of saying the quiet part out loud. Public relations is an important part of any successful legal strategy. You don't succeed by alienating people.

 

[Pudge]

You are making the mistake of saying the quiet part out loud. Public relations is an important part of any successful legal strategy. You don't succeed by alienating people.

The reality is that the Pro2A victories in court are the result of the Bill of Rights. The BoR are amendments to the Constitution. I would argue that the unintended consequences result from having to defend the legality of the restrictions on our rights. The 2A is pretty clear, and it takes some mental gymnastics to argue that infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms aren't really infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms. And that is the argument against the NFA. There does, however, remain a real means for legislation which restricts the rights our Constitution protects, and that is to amend the Constitution.

Now, the unintended consequences of forcing legislators to work within the bounds of their responsibilities as laid out in the Constitution, may be a push for a new amendment. But the unintended consequences of rewriting the Bill of Rights, that is something I hope not to witness.

 

[LiveLife]

As strict as most European firearm laws are, suppressors for the most part are unregulated. Quite a few countries highly encourage the use of suppressors for hunting to fight noice pollution.

Why do you think suppressors are not regulated in Europeans countries even though they are mostly anti-gun?

Because they protect hearing and reduce environmental noise? Because they are beneficial?

So why are suppressors "regulated" in the US? Good question ... Because of NFA.

Clever people are going to create workarounds.

And the founders of this country were quite clever:

• By creating a workaround for the British imperial taxation without representation and tyranny against freedom and liberty by forming a new nation
• Won the American Revolutionary War by using the latest ("modern" to founders in 1775) firearm technology and guerilla fighting tactics

What you are describing is in the same category as AR "pistols," "pistol braces," and "bump stocks" -- all workarounds for the NFA.

To me these along with other devices like suppressors, binary triggers, etc. are "modern" firearm technology and accessories developed to help people shoot better/defend themselves and enjoy the sport of shooting.

Founders formed this nation with US Supreme Court being the "ultimate and final" voice when legislative and executive branches fail to uphold the constitution and amended the constitution with Bill of Rights to ensure that was the case.

Supreme Court has ruled "modern" types of firearms are protected by the Second Amendment just like "modern" forms of communication for the First Amendment. One such "modern" type of firearm technology is magazines to store ammunition which makes "Bear/Carry" part of "right to keep and bear arm" easier. And "modern" evolution of firearm technology will continue and the Supreme Court will rule to protect them under the Second Amendment.

The problem is the basic law. It needs to be repealed

Yes, the problem is the NFA, the Original Post of this thread.

Should the NFA be abolished?

 

[tomrkba]

You are making the mistake of saying the quiet part out loud. Public relations is an important part of any successful legal strategy. You don't succeed by alienating people.

I can agree with that, but the media has a far stronger hold on the minds of Americans than any gun forum. Average Americans aren't interested in what we have to say.

 

[N555]

The average American that bought an AR pistol with a brace has no idea that gun is likely about to become a short barrel rifle, furthermore the average person has no idea what the NFA is, beyond "didn't the government shoot a guy because he had a sawed of shotgun".

 

[N555]

Me when the Hughs ammendment gets sunk and people lose $24,000 or more on their pre86 machine guns:

 

[dogtown tom]

Me when the Hughs ammendment gets sunk and people lose $24,000 or more on their pre86 machine guns:

While some of the current value is due to the finite# of fully transferrable machine guns, surely you understand that collectible firearms are collectible for other reasons.
Ain't no one going to lose $24,000 on any pre '86 machine gun.

You when the Hughes Amendment is still in effect forty years from now:

 

[N555]

While some of the current value is due to the finite# of fully transferrable machine guns, surely you understand that collectible firearms are collectible for other reasons.
Ain't no one going to lose $24,000 on any pre '86 machine gun.

You when the Hughes Amendment is still in effect forty years from now:

The same was said about the "shall issue" states that were really "never issue" are now cutting permits.
The same was said about Assault weapons ban and magazine bans. These bans are done they're just waiting to be ceremoniously struck from the books. At least a few counties in California have made public that they are no longer going to pursue magazine capacity violations.
Hughes may stand, with out the nfa. I guess then it wouldn't have any legs.
The nfa was a bad law in 1939 and they knew it, that's why the only nfa case to go supreme was argued in absentia.
The nfa will only last as long as they can keep it out of the big courts and they know it, now more than ever.

Edit: I spoke too soon, the state AWBs have already started to fall.

 

[Trashyshoots]

Do we really want anybody to be able to walk into the hardware store and walk away with any of the fully auto weapons available? I am for dropping SBR, SBS, and suppressors. They don’t really add to the effect that the gun has, they just get more portable but since we have pocket nines aplenty the point on portability is moot. I would argue against the arbitrary .50 inches in bore size as well for rifles. Kinda silly.

Until I can mail order a fully functioning, fully stocked m1 abrams, I will argue that all laws against the second amendment are unconstitutional.

 

[N555]

Huge development.
Supposedly the original auto key card guy Kristopher Ervin who pled guilty and had been sentenced for bs machine gun charges is having his case dismissed after he appealed to the district court.
You have better odds of appealing something up to the Supreme Court and winning the lottery while being struck by lightning than having your case dismissed after you have been found guilty and sentenced.
Kristopher Ervin's defense argued how can you punish someone for not paying a tax when you are not allowed to pay the tax in the first place? It was at that moment the AFT realized they had f'ed up and filed to dismiss the case that they had already won.
So NFA, GCA, Hughs ammendment will only last as long gone as they can keep cases like this out of the higher courts.
These are dead laws walking.

 

[12Bravo20]

@N555 that IS a huge development and a very positive one at that.

I have always personally thought that they were purposely poking the bear with the Auto Key Card but am glad to hear that they are winning the fight.

 

[N555]

A 5x bigger development.
5 assault weapons bans challenged in circuit courts.

Assault weapons today.
Hughes, gca and nfa tomorrow.

 

[Insignificant bill]

While this is true. Doing away with the NFA would actually help guys like dogtown tom. Imagine how many more suppressors, SBRs, ad SBSs thy would sell if all that was deregulated.

As far as I know he doesn't support the NFA either.

 

[12Bravo20]

As far as I know he doesn't support the NFA either.

Most FFL holders that deal with Class 3 stuff would love to see the NFA go away. It would be way easier for them to sell stuff such as suppressors SBR's and SBS's and they would be able to sell more of them too. I have a good friend that that deals with NFA items would love for it to go away. He would definitely sell way more suppressors and SBR's if they were deregulated.

 

[Insignificant bill]

OK, let's say it would hurt DEALERS with megabuck inventories to SELL.

There's a further wrinkle to this. If the Hughes Amendment was repealed, I think you would have a "two-tier" market for machine guns. That is, (a) newly-made machine guns, and (b) old original classics such as the guns from the World Wars. The latter category would still have a "finite supply" and prices wouldn't be expected to go down much. Newly-made machine guns would sell at prices comparable to those of their semiautomatic cousins -- maybe even a little less to compensate for the bureaucratic delay in the transaction. The availability of newly-made clones of, say, classic Thompsons may have an effect on the prices of the originals, but then again, maybe not. The clones are easily distinguishable from the originals.

Every registered M60 will have a serial# on one of those parts.....and thats the single part that cannot be swapped, changed or replaced. Where that serial# is located affects its value.

Until I can mail order a fully functioning, fully stocked m1 abrams, I will argue that all laws against the second amendment are unconstitutional.

They are because it specifically says so

 

[N555]

The short sighted nfa dealers think solvent traps cost them sales.
No, a form1ed $40 trap is just gateway silencer.
It costs a sale, but creates more customers. Eventually that person will want a better, cooler, higher end more exotic form4 silencer or silencers.
Then it spreads to their friends and family who own guns but live in an NFA vacuum.
Now silencers aren't scary exotic weapons used by assassins and secret agents.

 

[dogtown tom]

The short sighted nfa dealers think solvent traps cost them sales.

You seem to think that I'm one of those dealers although as I've explained to you several times, I fully support people making their own Form 1 silencer.

What I object to is the nitwits that make assumptions about the legality of "80% silencer kits", supposed "solvent traps" or "fuel filters". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that those Wish.com solvent traps or fuel filters are neither. Their design is identical to commercial silencers. Simply not having the bore drilled doesn't mean they aren't silencers or parts for silencers.

I've cautioned folks for years in this subforum to be careful when building a Form 1 from a kit thats nearly complete. First it was CBP seizing Wish.com imports and ATF sending buyers a letter telling them that their solvent trap or fuel filter may actually be a silencer. Then things got nasty when ATF raided Diversified Machining and others selling solvent traps/fuel filters. Its notable that the principals in those companies admitted they were indeed selling silencers. As part of their prosecution and eventual plea agreements they turned over customer lists. You don't want to be on one of those lists.

Now, ATF is requiring a photo of the materials you plan to use when you make your Form 1 silencer. Guess what happens when your photo is a fuel filter/solvent trap? Disapproved almost immediately and they tell the applicant that their photo appears to already be a silencer. Oops.

No, a form1ed $40 trap is just gateway silencer.
It costs a sale, but creates more customers. Eventually that person will want a better, cooler, higher end more exotic form4 silencer or silencers.

No kidding. The FFL's on this forum have been saying that for years. You aren't exposing that one secret trick that only FFL/SOT's know.

 

[dogtown tom]

As far as I know he doesn't support the NFA either.

Of course not.
No dealer I've ever met supports the NFA. It's an impediment to sales.

 

[12Bravo20]

I had to turn down business when it came to NFA items when I had my Type 2 Pawnbroker FFL since I did not have my Class 3 SOT. I would have loved to sell suppressors, SBR's and SBS's if I could have. I couldn't take them in as collateral either without paying my Class 3 SOT.