Feds Say Wyoming Man Has No Right To Make His Own Machine Gun

[codytrucker]

Think about the amount of value lost for the current full auto market owners. If they open the NFA the current owners with the five digit value pre 86 full auto wll loose a huge portions (80-90%) of that value.

A form 1 machine gun , built for own use , would not necessarily be transferable . If you look up prices for dealer sample machine guns , they are much lower than transferable ones . Some , like m16's , would probably lose some value because it is easy enough to make a clone from AR15 parts . Ma deuce , not so much .And a home built one has no provenance

 

[Pudge]

No, but they stand to loose allot of the value in their NFA collection if the registry is opened. Some will not mind, some might.

Capitalism can be rough. If the value of the investment is dependent on a scarcity created by government regulations, perhaps regulations that won't stand up in court, maybe it isn't a good investment.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Ironically, many of those NFA machine gun holders are 2A advocates.

I wonder what they would advocate for when the value of their items is on the line?

 

[AlexanderA]

The idea that current MG owners are against NFA reform, because they might suffer financially, is a myth. Every single MG owner that I know, would love to see the Hughes Amendment repealed. They bought their guns because they like the guns, not because of the investment potential. (Yeah, I know, they justified the purchase to their wives by citing the investment potential.) But the truth of the matter is that MG's make lousy investments simply because they are illiquid. Nobody would buy shares of stock, for example, if they couldn't sell them without a year's wait for bureaucratic approval by some government agency.

 

[Pudge]

Ironically, many of those NFA machine gun holders are 2A advocates.

I wonder what they would advocate for when the value of their items is on the line?

Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a government policy that costs them significantly. If I'd spent, in good faith, 5 figures for something, that due to the stroke of a pen, was now worth 4 figures, I'd resent it. BUT, there are actual principles in play here.

Who knows, maybe if we see enough of an increase in machine gun ownership, we'll get new ammo producers, ammo costs will go down, and current owners will get to shoot their collection more frequently. The reality is that if new machine gun legislation gets written, I am pretty sure it won't be for my benefit. Thus, while I want to see my freedoms expanded and protected, what we have currently could well be better than what we'll get, regardless of the intentions behind the new rules/legislation.

 

[N555]

I'm going to have to call BS on that.
There's 3/4 of a million full autos owed (about 200,000 fully transferable and the remainder have to be "dealer owned") .
The atf considers 40,000 tasers enough to be considered "common use".
And the atf said on numerous occasions the AR15 is "common use".
I don't think there is any way to support the "unusual" side of that claim.

 

[PapaG]

Was a law not passed some years ago, I think in the 80s, that outlawed the manufacture or import of any new machine guns except for military or police?
That said, I guess BATFE, USPS, and a dozen other organizations must be one or the other.
Heck, in my state, even most semi autos have recently been banned.
Lonely dark slide to the bottom.

 

[CapnMac]

Was a law not passed some years ago, I think in the 80s

That would be the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act. in 1986.

The Hughes Amendment was passed, with more than some controversy as to the legality of its timing, as a "poison pill" meant to prevent passages of FOPA.

All it did was close the NFA Registry to new MGs unless to M & P.

It does not criminalize creation of new MGs by SOT (Special Occupation Taxpayers) FFL. But, it does prevent the sale of such items to anyone not having the correct sorts of "letterhead" documentation.

This was not done as a specific law, nor argued as such. It was merely a procedural thing to amend an existing part of 18 USC 922.

 

[usaral63]

Not to the military, Mac. As an arm of the Gov't they are exempt..........PD's can, but have to paper their acquisitions.

 

[AlexanderA]

Who knows, maybe if we see enough of an increase in machine gun ownership, we'll get new ammo producers, ammo costs will go down, and current owners will get to shoot their collection more frequently.

Under current conditions, it's not really practical or wise to actually shoot a registered, transferable machine gun (unless minimally, for testing purposes). The reason is twofold: the cost of the ammunition (like setting fire to bundles of cash), and the wear and tear on the gun. Yes, I know that some people do it, but they have more money than brains.

 

[entropy]

Dunno Geoff, a hundred years ago was only about one decade before that travesty, the '34 NFA's birth. Surely many of the legislators that supported it were sitting in Congress a hundred back.

The Hughes prohibition and especially the manner in which it passed was and remain, a disgrace. It speaks loudly of the character of those supporting it and of their respect for our founding document.

Or lack thereof.

The one legislator we do have to worry about sitting in Congress at the time is Joe Biden.

 

[Space Ghost]

Under current conditions, it's not really practical or wise to actually shoot a registered, transferable machine gun (unless minimally, for testing purposes). The reason is twofold: the cost of the ammunition (like setting fire to bundles of cash), and the wear and tear on the gun. Yes, I know that some people do it, but they have more money than brains.

That's BS.

Man, I've heard that ignorant "more money than brains" argument way too many times. Yeah, I know it's expensive to own one of those things. I wish like hell I could afford one, and I can't, but I can't go pooping on those that can... just because they can.

That's like saying anybody that owns a Lamborghini shouldn't drive it, because you'll wear it out, and maintenance cost too much.

Not everybody who is wealthy is an arrogant prick... I just wish I was wealthy, no, strike that... I wish the law was such that I didn't have to be... just to buy a MG.

Ammo right now... yeah, that might still cost a bundle.

 

[jmorris]

I still can’t find anyone with an unusable, worn out, transferable machinegun they want to part with, even if I cover the transfer cost…maybe why the BAFFE is wanting photos of stuff now…

 

[AlexanderA]

That's BS.

Man, I've heard that ignorant "more money than brains" argument way too many times. Yeah, I know it's expensive to own one of those things. I wish like hell I could afford one, and I can't, but I can't go pooping on those that can... just because they can.

By your admission you don't own any machine guns. I do. So let those of us with actual experience determine whether it's worth shooting them, or not. Speaking for myself, I'm 78 years old, long retired, and I don't feel good about burning bundles of cash. The guns, yes; the ammo, no.

 

[Space Ghost]

By your admission you don't own any machine guns. I do. So let those of us with actual experience determine whether it's worth shooting them, or not. Speaking for myself, I'm 78 years old, long retired, and I don't feel good about burning bundles of cash. The guns, yes; the ammo, no.

No, I don't, but if I did, I'd find a way to go out and shoot it once in a while. Even if it was just a couple mags at a time. I'd curb my other hobbies.
So... Mr Experience, that begs me to ask this question... Why bother owning something you can't afford to use? If it bothers you so much to shoot it due to the cost of ammo, you don't fit into the aforementioned "more money than brains" category, so what category ARE you in?

Are you one of the few who bought it as an investment? Did you just buy it for the cool factor? I don't get it? I understand "more money than brains"... seen lots of them, I don't understand "less money and even less brains"... or whatever would cause somebody to spend that kind of money on something... and then be afraid to use it... Where is the joy of ownership, if it can't do, what it was designed to do?

Why drive a powerful car, if you don't take it to the track every so often?
Why marry the woman you love, and not take her out dancing?
Why have a dog, and not go out and throw the ball with her?
Why have a machine gun, and not shoot it?

 

[Space Ghost]

I still can’t find anyone with an unusable, worn out, transferable machinegun they want to part with, even if I cover the transfer cost…maybe why the BAFFE is wanting photos of stuff now…

NO... and there's lots of people sitting on them, afraid to shoot them because "ammo cost to much".
These people have $30,000+ machine guns, and they're afraid to spring for a case of ammo once in a while.
I don't get it...

Now, I'm living on VA disability, so I can't afford a MG, but if I had one, I sure as hell wouldn't let the cost of ammo stop me from going out and shooting the damn thing.

 

[usaral63]

Hey, I'm older than dirt........even got a few years on Alexander no less! Still own my M/2 carbine and manage to dump a few mags a year (reloads, at that). Been known to dump a 30 round into the ground at New Year as well!


Believe me it's no less fun at 80 some!

 

[AlexanderA]

Why bother owning something you can't afford to use? If it bothers you so much to shoot it due to the cost of ammo, you don't fit into the aforementioned "more money than brains" category, so what category ARE you in?

Simple reason. I'm a lifelong collector of U.S. military weapons. Such a collection cannot be complete without at least a few of the fully automatic ones.

If I wanted to, I could afford the cost of the ammo. But I have never been much of a shooter, and I certainly didn't buy the guns as an "investment." The Hughes Amendment, and the runup in values thereafter, caught me by surprise.

That said, I know how to shoot them, and I've made sure that they all work.

 

[rubberduck]

nobody needs a machine gun unless we are invaded by another country.

 

[usaral63]

nobody needs a machine gun unless we are invaded by another country.

Why?

 

[rubberduck]

to many screwballs out there already killing people.

 

[rust collector]

nobody needs a machine gun unless we are invaded by another country.

We do not use the N word (need) except as in enable. We prefer the W (for want, and whoopee!)

Automatic weapons are objects of desire due to 1. Hollywood, 2. Military experience and 3. Denial, since the Hughes amendment. They helped scare the masses during the prohibition crime sprees into taxing them heavily (although gangsters never worried about taxes) and their reputation is far more fearsome than their capability.

As to the screwballs comment, we all know that they will hurt people any way they can. They are increasingly able to obtain the means to convert Glocks to full auto, yet we cannot use such arms against them if we follow the law.

 

[entropy]

nobody needs a machine gun unless we are invaded by another country.

Why would you need one then? Aimed semi automatic fire is more effective, unless you're facing human wave tactics, in which case it is invaluable in elimination of command structure.
Few who haven't served in the military know how to properly employ fully automatic weapons. It would just be a huge waste of ammo, as evidenced by enemy FA use in the sandbox. Their poor performance with them is what prompted a shift to IEDs.
Properly trained people with full autos are a force multiplier, but not directly for the reasons you suppose. The need for full autos for a civilian is akin to the need for a person who doesn't race for a living owning a Lamborghini, except owning a car is not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Owning guns is.
I do not support Hughes Amendment like legislation on Lamborghinis, nor the Hughes Amendment.

 

[usaral63]

/Really, what has 'need' got to do with any of it.....by that criteria we could all get by quite easily with a single bbl shotgun and a very limited capacity rifle, if that (by your likes we'd adopt the same user restrictions as Russia from what I've read).....no need or reason for handguns at all!!!

 

[rubberduck]

i did not say that.