Do You Think Machineguns Should be legal with a Background Check Only?

[harvester of sorrow]

However the idea of the Bubba down the road touching off a mortar in his backyard and having it hit my home scares the crap out of me.

Well then clearly everyone should appoint you as the arbiter of who can own what. If you approve, no problem. If that person somehow makes you feel "icky," then they are out of luck. I'm pretty sure that's what the Constitution says in there, somewhere.:banghead:

I think a readily obtainable permit for such devices should be required. At least to prove you have safe storage facilities, and only to be fired at a range deemed safe for such activities ( meaning far away from civilization).

Yes, inviting bureaucratic oversight into your life is always a good idea. Maybe the government could go one better and provide the ONLY approved storage facility and range somewhere in Montana or Wyoming. Everyone could go check their destructive devices out and shoot them whenever they happened to be in the area. How convenient! Even better, maybe ALL guns could be put into a facility like that. After all, then nobody would have to worry about Bubba down the road touching off a round in his backyard and hitting their house.

Am I for saying that people like Charles Manson shouldnt be allowed to buy guns if they are released

I don't know, are you saying that Charles Manson can't get a gun now if he were to get out? Because, hoops to jump through and all, he will get one if he wants to. Any felon who is still dangerous when he is released from jail will. Obviously, dangerous felons shouldn't be released. That being said, the laws that restrict felons from owning guns are clearly asinine, because criminals are criminals. I would think that a convicted felon has already pretty clearly demonstrated his level of respect for any law. On the other hand, the one criminal in 1,000 (or 10,000, or 100,000) who has decided to reform himself and no longer victimize other people is barred from the most effective means of protecting himself. Ridiculous.

However, the track record of crimes comitted with NFA weapons that are actually registered speaks for itself.

But how many crimes have been committed with UNregistered fully automatic weapons, short-barrelled shotguns, or short-barrelled rifles? Don't confuse the two numbers. All that the lack of crimes committed with REGISTERED NFA weapons tells me is that anyone who is willing to go through with the legal process to obtain a machinegun shouldn't have to. Think about that.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Yes, inviting bureaucratic oversight into your life is always a good idea. Maybe the government could go one better and provide the ONLY approved storage facility and range somewhere in Montana or Wyoming. Everyone could go check their destructive devices out and shoot them whenever they happened to be in the area. How convenient! Even better, maybe ALL guns could be put into a facility like that. After all, then nobody would have to worry about Bubba down the road touching off a round in his backyard and hitting their house.

I think your sentiment is correct. Obviously a registration requirement, given an inch, could very well take a mile. Though I can't speak for others, I was just referring to adequate storage for munitions like RPGs. Look, it's one thing if an individual has an accidental discharge on his 9mm, it's a whole 'nother ballgame when it's an RPG. One puts a hole in the wall the other... well, puts a MUCH bigger hole in the wall.

The reason I had advocated for baby steps in the law, is not because responsible gun owners will be stupid. But if tomorrow, everything was legal in the USA, it'd be the unexperienced majority (cough, New Yorkers, cough ) who would result in the biggest problems. It'd be one damn idiot in Yonkers who collects RPGs for fun stores 'em in the bathroom, then there's a house fire and BOOM, there goes half the neighborhood. Bullets don't require similar storage because if they burn, they just tend to make really loud pops (and won't take out half the neighborhood). I don't have ANY problem with people owning RPGs. I just want to know that the guy one apartment over from me doesn't have his explosive ordinance stockpile on the other side of the wall from my bed.

 

[harvester of sorrow]

I was just referring to adequate storage for munitions like RPGs

And I can appreciate that. I simply see "protecting neighbors from neighbors" as dangerous. Well-stocked bar? Highly flammable. Reloader? Powder and primers. Furniture refinishing? Caustic chemicals. Where would it stop? Where should it stop? If it were my RPG, the rockets wouldn't sit around very long, anyways.

 

[ilcylic]

What's this "background check" nonsense?

 

[ilcylic]

And sorry Glockfan.45, perhaps it does put me in the same logical boat as W. on his "with us or against us" tripe; but I see "a little bit of gun control" the same as "a little bit of rape". It's still a violation of individual sovereignity. That makes it unconscionable.

Do I have a Right to keep and bear arms that may not be infringed? Or do I have the Privilege of owning firearms, subject to government approval?

 

[jungleroy]

Perhaps a deeper look,

I like how Rangerruck says it, "all firearms should be available to all, period".

Personally I don't think the U.S. would become like Dodge city, with shootouts everywhere. while I am thinking about it.
I think the money spent on the (batfe)is a big waste, and that everyone should learn to take care of them selves.
I also think that prison should be hard on the criminals, they are there to be punished.
Lower taxes, make inmates work for the food and clothes, and heat that they get, just like the rest of the world has to do every day.
I think I am done ranting for today.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Ultimately I would like to see a repeal of all firearms laws, and only a requirement (through the state government) that would say that if you have an RPG, bazooka, etc. you have to show that you have the ability to safely store the thing, and that you have the ability to use it without taking out your neighbors. In other words, you can own what you want, but you cannot own a WMD, or crew served weapon, and individually portable explosives have to show ability to use without threatening the community as a whole in the event of a fire, or a ND.

As to why I asked the question, it was because I wanted to gauge the opinions of pro-gun folks.

I am with Prince Yamato in that we should use incrementalism to destroy gun control.

The whole SBR/AOW thing should be the first thing to go. There is functionally little difference between a semi-suto Uzi and a pistol with a 30 round magazine, except that the Uzi is less concealable.

To me getting rid of that should be relatively easy if you have the right political climate.

Then, cut into import restrictions, and subguns.

Then go to rifle calibers.

Handle it in pieces, and the more people become acquainted to less gun control the easier taking off future restrictions becomes.

 

[Limeyfellow]

I would allow them with a background check. They definaltly need to repeal the no new machine guns law, which is probrobly only still in place because people don't want to see their $15000 firearm suddenly be worth $400. Not like I could afford to feed one anyway.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

I think they should be available for purchase without background checks, but that is only if we have a libertarian society in many other respects: complete legality for victimless crimes, and the elimination of taxes on specific goods except where those goods are guaranteed to contribute to the harm of a person or the environment. (E.g., gasoline.) Also, crimes with victims would have sentences sufficiently lengthy that the deterrent factor would be much higher, and so that ex-cons will have undeniably paid their debt to society.

 

[LAK]

They should be treated as they were prior to 1934 - as should rifles, shotguns and handguns.

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[1911Tuner]

Class 3

Exposure! When did I say "Warrantless Searches?"

Having been closely associated with a Class 3 dealer for several years in the past...and having owned three examples of the topic of this thread...I know a little about the process.

The BATFE does have the option to knock on your door and ask to see that
the weapon is actually in your possession, under your direct control, and secured. That they don't normally do it...yet...doesn't mean that they can't and won't if and when some hot-dog new boss decides that they should.

They do investigate your life thoroughly. That's why it takes 90 days for the application to process. How far they go and how deeply they pry is a matter of conjecture. One of my high-school teachers was contacted during one of my waiting periods. He told me. A former neighbor was contacted on another. She told me.


My personal feelings on the subject? I feel strongly that if a man doesn't have anything on him that would bar his legal right to own/possess a rifle or handgun, that he should be able to obtain Title 2/Class 3 firearms without the hassle. I believe that the felony restrictions on owning firearms should be classified rather than blanketed. A history of violence...No gun. A victimless felony such as income tax evasion or failing to make good on a lost library book...a Class H felony in some jurisdictions...Yes. Once the "Debt to Society" is paid, the record should be expunged so that such "criminals" can get back to a normal life in all aspects.

 

[wacki]

Tell your fence setting friend you think a guy just released from prison for rape/murder should be able to buy a gun, and see if your taken seriously afterwards, you probably just made an anti.

I agree in full. This forum has rules that forbid me from criticizing anyone. When people insist that we should make it EASIER for convicted-violent-felons to buy guns I really wish THR would change their policy. Or at least add an ignore feature. As of right now I will just remain quiet.

 

[wacki]

However, the track record of crimes comitted with NFA weapons that are actually registered speaks for itself.

more info?

 

[harvester of sorrow]

more info?

He's talking about the fact that only two crimes, iirc, have been committed by registered NFA weapons. One of them was by a police officer using a personally-owned machinegun, and I don't remember the circumstances surrounding the other one. However, people overlook the fact that UNregistered NFA weapons have been used in crimes quite often. The fact that law-abiding people aren't legally buying machineguns or short-barrelled shotguns to commit crimes with them shouldn't surprise anyone.

When people insist that we should make it EASIER for convicted-violent-felons to buy guns I really wish THR would change their policy.

Are you suggesting that anything about our current laws makes it difficult for violent felons to obtain guns? Recidivism rates make it appear to me that they don't.

The BATFE does have the option to knock on your door and ask to see that
the weapon is actually in your possession, under your direct control, and secured.

Under the law, the only thing the BATFE can ask a non-dealer or manufacturer is to see the paperwork transferring the gun to the individual. The individual has the right to decide whether to meet the agents at his home or at the local BATFE office.

That's why it takes 90 days for the application to process

All that the BATFE does is run checks on you. With the move of the NFA examiners to West Virginia, times to process Form 4's have dropped to 14-20 days in most cases.

which is probrobly only still in place because people don't want to see their $15000 firearm suddenly be worth $400.

I'm sure there are probably some who feel this way, but the real reason the law hasn't gone away is because no Congressman is going to touch this issue because of the way they would be portrayed in the New York Times and on CNN.

 

[1911Tuner]

BATFE

harvester...Apparently things have changed in 22 years. It's actually become easier and less restrictive. That's a good thing...

 

[chas_martel]

1911Tuner,

Sorry but you are still wrong. It is true the an SOT must give access.

However, this is not true of a non-SOT which owns Title 2 firearms.

Period.

Perhaps you'd be willing to site the relevent federal code
which says otherwise. I can't post code saying they can't because
there is nothing in the federal regs about this topic.

You imply you know an SOT, do you actually own a Title 2 firearm? I have
own multiple and have been over the code myself and with my attorney. There is NOTHING in the federal code, or my states code , that says them can come see your guns without a warrant.

Again please don't spread misinformation, there is enough already.

 

[stevelyn]

There wasn't a problem pre-34, there shouldn't be a problem going back to pre-34 laws.
All the problems were caused by govt. Govt implemented alcohol prohibition, gangs sprang up as a result. Govt implemented drug prohibition, gangs sprang up as a result.

 

[Glockfan.45]

Well then clearly everyone should appoint you as the arbiter of who can own what. If you approve, no problem. If that person somehow makes you feel "icky," then they are out of luck. I'm pretty sure that's what the Constitution says in there, somewhere.

Yes I could perform that task very fast and efficiently. I say violent felon no guns for you. Convicted of check fraud serve your time and your rights are fully restored upon your release. There that was easy wasnt it? In regards to what the Constitution has to say on the matter I find the best way to interpet it is to through the Founding Fathers thoughts regarding citizens keeping arms (you know the same way most try to get around the whole militia aspect). For that look to my sig line "the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms". I dont know what version of the dictionary you have at home but I dont think violent felons fall into the catagory of peaceable citizens.

Yes, inviting bureaucratic oversight into your life is always a good idea. Maybe the government could go one better and provide the ONLY approved storage facility and range somewhere in Montana or Wyoming. Everyone could go check their destructive devices out and shoot them whenever they happened to be in the area. How convenient! Even better, maybe ALL guns could be put into a facility like that. After all, then nobody would have to worry about Bubba down the road touching off a round in his backyard and hitting their house.

Sorry no room to budge here in my view. Lets be honest with ourselves on one thing. Some people show no responsibility at all when it comes to storing their firearms. When was the last time you heard about a kid finding the gun his moron father left loaded on the kitchen table, nightstand, and so on, and shooting himself or his friend with it. It seems to happen often. At the risk of sounding cold hearted when this happens the damage is usually limited to their imediate household, so it isnt my problem. However substitute gun for RPG in the same scenario and said kid lives next door to me, well that could very quickly become my problem. Heres another one I live in a townhouse, all that divides me from my neighbor is a wall. Now I am sound asleep in my bed one night and Bubba nextdoor falls asleep in bed smoking a cigarette (house fires happen all across America every day by the way). Well Bubbas bed goes up in flames and out the door runs Bubba. Bubba also had 10 or so RPG rockets stacked in his bedroom closet, I suspect you can see where this is going now right? There is a big difference between storing reloading supplies, ammo, and firearms and storing HIGH EXPLOSIVES :banghead: . If you dont have the proper facilities to store volitale substances I dont want you keeping them next door to me! As far as ranges go this is also a very important aspect of civilian DD ownership. Lots of things can go wrong in life and a new owner of a DD rushing out to public land to drop a few mortars without learning how to properly use said weapon, and dropping a 80mm shell onto the nearby highway would end the party for us all pretty quick. I have no problem with civilian ownership of such items so long as they are handled in a manner safe to others. So that means DDs need to be used only where they are not a threat to others be that threat ignorance, accident, or malfunction.

I don't know, are you saying that Charles Manson can't get a gun now if he were to get out? Because, hoops to jump through and all, he will get one if he wants to. Any felon who is still dangerous when he is released from jail will. Obviously, dangerous felons shouldn't be released. That being said, the laws that restrict felons from owning guns are clearly asinine, because criminals are criminals. I would think that a convicted felon has already pretty clearly demonstrated his level of respect for any law. On the other hand, the one criminal in 1,000 (or 10,000, or 100,000) who has decided to reform himself and no longer victimize other people is barred from the most effective means of protecting himself. Ridiculous.

The issue here isnt can criminals get guns as we all know they can, the issue is should violent criminals be able to do so legally. I say no, the vast majority of America says no. Saying yes only makes you look like a loony to most, and paints the rest of us with the same brush in most peoples eyes. If a law is not 100% effective should we repeal it? Murder is illegal but people are still murdered every day. Should we make murder legal on that logic? As for that rare 1 in 100,000 that reforms not being able to protect himself, boo hoo a single tear rolls down my cheek. Heres a thought, if you dont want to lose your rights dont murder or rape people, seems fair right? Honestly I would be willing to bet if a homeowner shot an intruder and said intruder sued the homeowner and won you would flip out and scream that they are giving rights to criminals. Do you see now the irony in your statement?

 

[normbal]

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission."

The Atlanta Declaration
by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

My feelings exactly. State has NO just power to infringe on this most basic of human rights.

-nb

 

[1911Tuner]

SOT

T'was asked:

>You imply you know an SOT, do you actually own a Title 2 firearm?<
************

Have owned three, and handled the sale of several while under the employ of a Class 3 dealer...but can't quote much since it was over 20 years ago. Again...apparently things have lightened up a little in two decades.

 

[TallPine]

Personally, I don't see what the big deal about the background check is.

Oh yeah, but just wait until congress decides to "defund" the NICS call-in system for FFL dealers. I've already been delayed because the whole system was down for over 24 hours - costing me another 100 mile round trip to pick up my gun. Or what if these techinical problems just suddenly become permanent?

Or some president could issue an XO suspending the sale of firearms (easy to do, with NICS) because of some "national emergency" .... however, the "emergency" (like the WOT) may last decades

I may not live to see it, but I am convinced that is how our right to buy guns will be erased.

I say no, the vast majority of America says no. Saying yes only makes you look like a loony to most, and paints the rest of us with the same brush in most peoples eyes.

So now the minority is not supposed to voice their opinion ...?

BTW, I am opposed to the WOD as well

 

[wacki]

Are you suggesting that anything about our current laws makes it difficult for violent felons to obtain guns? Recidivism rates make it appear to me that they don't.

No, I know it's easy for them. I just don't think we should make it super easy for convicted-VIOLENT-felons. Rape, murder, etc are all in this category. I do not consider bar fights a part of this.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We've Got This Thing Called the Right To Keep And BearArms...

...and it is protected from government infringement in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. What more needs to be said?

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[ronto]

Personally I don't want one...But you can If you wish...What I REALLY want is a tank.

 

[Sistema1927]

Am I for saying that people like Charles Manson shouldnt be allowed to buy guns if they are released yes. So what does that make me systema1927? Am I an anti or not?

Like they are going to be releasing Charles Manson anytime soon. Funny how you conveniently missed my point about the fact that if you are a danger to society you should be locked up or executed. If Charles Manson was released from prison tomorrow, how long do you think it would take him to obtain any weapon that he desired? Gun control laws only inhibit the law abiding, they do nothing to stop criminals from obtaining guns.

1911Tuner - Why don't we all work together to restore the America in which we grew up? We can either piss or moan about what we have lost or we can proactively work to change it for the better. I would much rather live in a pre-1968 America than the one in which we reside today, and repealing the GCA68 would be a strart. Since we have gun owners on one of the largest firearms forums supporting gun control we have a long way to go, but I am hopeful that we will one day get the tide to change.