FOPA of 1986 in danger
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
I don't wanna sign a book for a box of .22 shorts, and it would be so nice to just take the interstate straight when I go to Wyoming rather than try to work around arrogant counties. I'll pass on the machine guns for now. In many ways, that's one place they've pretty much won. By limiting them, they've kept the number of owners from growing, which reduces the number of people that might otherwise be interested in a repeal of 922(o). Some of us will call for the repeal of the poison, but many who might otherwise won't, due to lack of exposure.
As for DTOM, I'm seeing a problem. We're supposed to get stuff done when we have the majority, not just maintain the status quo(that's when we're split like we are now). Apparently a Republican majority isn't enough.
I should have no feeling for non-nfa owners same as when all your non-nfa ogrs felt about us.
So you have to sign for 22 ammo. Wha Wha Wha! I can then at least make any MG I want instead of spending a fortune.
Now. How do you like being on the other side of gun ownership?
The anti's will keep banging away at us all time for all the FUDDS to wake up and all gun owners stick together cause if we don't we will all go extinct
Gifted
AW bill died and no new hurtful laws passed during the 12 years. Gee mad at Bush and the republicans lets cut our own throats to show them by voting Dem, Great job look what’s coming hope you guys like it cause here is the result. Back right where we were in 94.
So you have to sign for 22 ammo. Wha Wha Wha! I can then at least make any MG I want instead of spending a fortune.
Now. How do you like being on the other side of gun ownership?
The anti's will keep banging away at us all time for all the FUDDS to wake up and all gun owners stick together cause if we don't we will all go extinct
Gifted
AW bill died and no new hurtful laws passed during the 12 years. Gee mad at Bush and the republicans lets cut our own throats to show them by voting Dem, Great job look what’s coming hope you guys like it cause here is the result. Back right where we were in 94.
Sharps-shooter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 488
The devil called.
I just got off the phone with Satan.
He said he's glad to see that good people are so divided as to render themselves ineffective.
He further notes that, while it may not be for the "greater good", sacrificing others' particular interests to protect your own particular interests will, at least, get you through your own life. And who cares beyond that? If you're a shotgunner, he says, just stand up for shotgun rights. If you're not an FFL, he says, don't worry about what any changes might mean for them. and if your circumstances don't require a machinegun, why worry about their availability? For posterity's sake? buddy, when posterity comes, chances are you'll be long gone either way; so don't worry about it.
He said to wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to make the world a safer and more respectful place. Then he started laughing and hung up.
I just got off the phone with Satan.
He said he's glad to see that good people are so divided as to render themselves ineffective.
He further notes that, while it may not be for the "greater good", sacrificing others' particular interests to protect your own particular interests will, at least, get you through your own life. And who cares beyond that? If you're a shotgunner, he says, just stand up for shotgun rights. If you're not an FFL, he says, don't worry about what any changes might mean for them. and if your circumstances don't require a machinegun, why worry about their availability? For posterity's sake? buddy, when posterity comes, chances are you'll be long gone either way; so don't worry about it.
He said to wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors to make the world a safer and more respectful place. Then he started laughing and hung up.
No, you didn't get my first post. I'll quote:
I added some emphasis there for you. I voted mostly "L" in the last election. I plan to do so again.
THAT in and of itself is really a seperate problem. If we can get out of the vicious circle of a supposed two party system, it might work. Perhaps if four million+ voters followed their concience rather than the lesser of two evils. Here's how it works:
EVIL--Dems, and gun control.
LESSER EVIL--Repubs, and no NEW gun control(and a ban with a sunset clause-keywords there).
GOOD--Any of two or three parties(libertarians included) that actually want to repeal gun control.
I'll have to look into joining the NRA, if only so I can fuss at them and be justified about it. They could arrange local elections to put truly pro-gun people in power, and also for a coalition between those reps/senators.
jeff-10
Member
I know a lot of gun owners seem to be naturally pessimistic, on the Internet atleast, but that statement is blatantly false. After all we did get back a lot in October 2004 and there was a time that shall issue CCW laws were virtually non existent in most places.
If there was ever a bill one could attach a "poison pill" to, it's this. All the R's (and a couple D's from southern states) have to do is:
On balance, I'd rather put together lots of machineguns and spend more time at the reloading press, so I would welcome FOPA going away (in totality).
Nothing would make it DOA faster.
On balance, I'd rather put together lots of machineguns and spend more time at the reloading press, so I would welcome FOPA going away (in totality).
Unfortunately, as others have said, even some current owners of automatic weapons would be against a repeal of the MG ban.
Their reasoning:
1) The high expense keeps the guns out of the hands of "riff-raff."
2) A repeal would greatly drop the value of current legal automatic weapons. That Colt M-16 thats worth $15-20k, not after a repeal.
There is a great deal of money locked into these weapons from 20 years of limited supply.
I know there are many on this board who are not this way but;
My impression from some people that I have met who own auto weapons, is the "I have mine now, sucks for everyone else."
Their reasoning:
1) The high expense keeps the guns out of the hands of "riff-raff."
2) A repeal would greatly drop the value of current legal automatic weapons. That Colt M-16 thats worth $15-20k, not after a repeal.
There is a great deal of money locked into these weapons from 20 years of limited supply.
I know there are many on this board who are not this way but;
My impression from some people that I have met who own auto weapons, is the "I have mine now, sucks for everyone else."
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
jeff-10 said:
Yeah you got tons back in October 2004. Yay for bayonet lugs. And you wouldn't even have gotten those back if a sunset hadn't been written into the law.
CCW laws are nothing but feel good legislation for pro-gun people. They get to point and say "See we're getting things done" while they sign away another chunk of their rights.
Smurfslayer
Member
I'm going to raise the ugly specter of a previous poster's comments containing a high quantity of male bovine fecal matter, arranged in a large, steaming pile...
Substantiate this. Actual facts. Names, THR or other forum user names, numbers addresses, or admit that you made it up.
Substantiate this. Actual facts. Names, THR or other forum user names, numbers addresses, or admit that you made it up.
Smurfslayer,
I specifically mentioned "some" and the reason I brought it up is that I was at a range over the weekend that allows class 3 stuff.
I asked a few owners of class III stuff if they thought the ban would be ever be repealed.
One of the guys said no, and proceeded to say that the ban was better left in place as it keeps automatic weapons out of the hands of "riff raff."
Take that as you will, but I interpreted that as a desire to see it remain in place to protect his investment.
I don't know who you think you are to question my post in such an arrogant and abusive way.
I think that my posts on THR have contributed to the discussions at hand. Have your posts done the same?
Smurfslayer
Member
A class 3 owner, and shooter, knowing several other Class 3 owners and having met hundreds. I would say that if it is "your impression" that current transferable MG owners would prefer to keep the ban in place that's one thing. However, the opening statement of your previous post- which I quoted - declared it as if it were fact and that is another thing.
Many C3's have spent in the high 5 / low 6 digit in dollars in the sport. Of the ones I've met and encountered in which the topic came up, none of them ever supported the current ban, and all of them agreed it would be better to take a "scored of thousands of dollars" bath and eliminate the ban. That is not to say there isn't a single transferable MG owner who feels as you assert, but this topic has come up numerous times on Subguns, and other boards. It comes up at machine gun shoots, gun shows and in gun shops. The outcome of the discussion is consistent and we're clearly not "seeing" the same thing.
I merely said "some", and I agree with you that there is a consistent desire among MG owners for the elimination of the ban. I am simply saying that there are some (as in at least a few) that support the ban for various reasons.
I did state that as fact that some feel that way. I did not quantify that "some," and I admit that I really how no idea how pervasive that feeling is. I suspected, rightfully so after reading about your experiences, that the number is very small. I do not dispute that. However, it is much easier to prove that at least one owner exists who supports the ban than to prove that all owners are against the ban.
I really don't want to start a huge argument over this. I stated my experience of meeting one person who is in favor of the ban and I assume there are others with the same opinion. I don't see why you are so angry at me for raising this "evil specter." It clearly exists, minute as it may be.
pacodelahoya
Member
Smurfslayer, allow me to chime in here. I know two owners of machine guns personally. Both have stated that they are fine with things the way they are. One has an ego the size of Mount Everest and since the chances are slim that any of his friends would realistically be able to own a MG, he gets to be the coolest kid on the block. The other is in it strictly for the money. to quote him " I hope they never reopen the mg registry, I would lose my a**"
I also agree with those who say vote third party. The Democrats constantly attack us and the so called republicans only use us gunowners to win elections then hang us out to dry.
I also agree with those who say vote third party. The Democrats constantly attack us and the so called republicans only use us gunowners to win elections then hang us out to dry.
jerkface11
Member
The republicans held congress for 12 years and passed ONE progun law. At this rate they'd need to be in charge for 1000 years or so to fully restore our rights. Maybe it's time for a change.
Smurfslayer
Member
Fair enough. We can only go on faith in the accuracy of what is posted here to make a judgement. Paco, if indeed you know current MG owners of the persuasion Guido ID'd, and I am not calling your veracity into question, then they're certainly not our friends.
Guido, the intro to your post made it seem as if that 'class' of mg owner was prevalent (you didn't use that word, I know) as if somehow these people were/are 'mainstreaming' into the c3 community. I know there are a substantial number of collector only people coming into the community, but even these folks I've met didn't give me this 'impression'.
By way of your clarification of 'some', and as Paco indicates, you're correct, we do have owners in the c3 community who aren't supportive politically, almost like a form of snobbery. All of the shooting community have examples like this. As you did point out, the buy in is very high, so does this keep out riff raff? well... maybe a certain kind, but one can certainly make the argument that a poor ambassador to the community is every bit as bad.
Here's probably what I find most disturbing about your comments though - and not from any form of criticism but as an observation:
That stinks. We've got gun snobs, ok... Some will 'only buy American made machine guns', or only 'German WW2 guns', and all other are pieces of cr@p. But we do also have enthusiasts. We have our share of loudmouths, blowhards, keyboard commandos, but what strikes me about the C3 community as a subset of the firearms community is generally the willingness to help.
Speaking only from my experience, my shoulder starts to hurt after about 5-6 thousand rounds through a long gun, not to mention my support arm gets tired too. Not wanting to lug all that ammo back home, it's a benefit to me if someone helps me dispose of all that excess lead and powder. I've seen guys at MG shoots who bring only ammo or money to get trigger time. Most I've met graciously allow it. Hopefully your future encounters with C3's will be more reflective of the community as a whole. In furtherance of this, I'd suggest finding a machine gun shoot to attend. They're fun, loud, you see some pretty neat stuff, and... you get to shoot tannerite...
Guido, the intro to your post made it seem as if that 'class' of mg owner was prevalent (you didn't use that word, I know) as if somehow these people were/are 'mainstreaming' into the c3 community. I know there are a substantial number of collector only people coming into the community, but even these folks I've met didn't give me this 'impression'.
By way of your clarification of 'some', and as Paco indicates, you're correct, we do have owners in the c3 community who aren't supportive politically, almost like a form of snobbery. All of the shooting community have examples like this. As you did point out, the buy in is very high, so does this keep out riff raff? well... maybe a certain kind, but one can certainly make the argument that a poor ambassador to the community is every bit as bad.
Here's probably what I find most disturbing about your comments though - and not from any form of criticism but as an observation:
That stinks. We've got gun snobs, ok... Some will 'only buy American made machine guns', or only 'German WW2 guns', and all other are pieces of cr@p. But we do also have enthusiasts. We have our share of loudmouths, blowhards, keyboard commandos, but what strikes me about the C3 community as a subset of the firearms community is generally the willingness to help.
Speaking only from my experience, my shoulder starts to hurt after about 5-6 thousand rounds through a long gun, not to mention my support arm gets tired too. Not wanting to lug all that ammo back home, it's a benefit to me if someone helps me dispose of all that excess lead and powder. I've seen guys at MG shoots who bring only ammo or money to get trigger time. Most I've met graciously allow it. Hopefully your future encounters with C3's will be more reflective of the community as a whole. In furtherance of this, I'd suggest finding a machine gun shoot to attend. They're fun, loud, you see some pretty neat stuff, and... you get to shoot tannerite...
Smurf,
Sorry to have sounded like I was painting broad strokes about the C3 community, I meant it in an extremely narrow case.
What I didn't say was that the other guys I have met have been more than helpful and even let me fire some of their guns.
That said, I'm with you on sharing, I love to let other people to try out my guns.
If you know of any MG shoots in the MD/VA area, shoot me a PM, I'd be interested in going.
As far as the MG ban and FOPA, I wonder how a case like Fincher's could play in.
Granted, he got railroaded, but there is always a chance something could happen in the appeals (slim I know).
However, with the way his case was handled, I am just doubtful that we'll get a judicial solution.
It seems like incremental legislation is best hope in the short term.
Sorry to have sounded like I was painting broad strokes about the C3 community, I meant it in an extremely narrow case.
What I didn't say was that the other guys I have met have been more than helpful and even let me fire some of their guns.
That said, I'm with you on sharing, I love to let other people to try out my guns.
If you know of any MG shoots in the MD/VA area, shoot me a PM, I'd be interested in going.
As far as the MG ban and FOPA, I wonder how a case like Fincher's could play in.
Granted, he got railroaded, but there is always a chance something could happen in the appeals (slim I know).
However, with the way his case was handled, I am just doubtful that we'll get a judicial solution.
It seems like incremental legislation is best hope in the short term.
Smurfslayer
Member
Funny you should mention that... It won't be anywhere near the scale of knob creek, but I was hoping to get something put together in the near future. Consider yourself on the PM list.
pacodelahoya
Member
Smurfslayer, while I realize two MG owners are a small percentage of the total, they are 100% of the mg owners I know.(did that make sense?)
Any shoots near Pittsburgh?
+1 about snobs, I spend a lot of time at my favorite gunstore (owner is a personal friend) and I could go on for hours about the snobbery committed by some. I always try to call them on it in a most politeful way of course.
Any shoots near Pittsburgh?
+1 about snobs, I spend a lot of time at my favorite gunstore (owner is a personal friend) and I could go on for hours about the snobbery committed by some. I always try to call them on it in a most politeful way of course.
Outlaw Man
Member
The one, true Firearm Owner's Protection Act is in a glass case in the National Archives.
Any law that, in whole or in part, restricts private, individual ownership of ANY firearm is not only unconstitutional but also a serious threat to our fundamental rights. To me, anyone who would support such legislation is an enemy of those rights and should be watched under close scrutiny to insure they are not allowed to further infringe upon those rights.
Granted, the FOPA might not be the best of those illegal laws to attack first, but at least people are on the offensive. Sure, there will be more paperwork that won't disappear. The laws that allow that are the next laws to go after. With the way things work in Washington, if you're not pushing forward you are falling backwards.
I doubt we would be having this discussion if there were a law, that people were trying to get repealed, that made it so you didn't have to register an internet domain name as your own but outlawed peaceable picket lines. Everyone would be crying to have that law removed. Why are we so much more willing to compromise?
Any law that, in whole or in part, restricts private, individual ownership of ANY firearm is not only unconstitutional but also a serious threat to our fundamental rights. To me, anyone who would support such legislation is an enemy of those rights and should be watched under close scrutiny to insure they are not allowed to further infringe upon those rights.
Granted, the FOPA might not be the best of those illegal laws to attack first, but at least people are on the offensive. Sure, there will be more paperwork that won't disappear. The laws that allow that are the next laws to go after. With the way things work in Washington, if you're not pushing forward you are falling backwards.
I doubt we would be having this discussion if there were a law, that people were trying to get repealed, that made it so you didn't have to register an internet domain name as your own but outlawed peaceable picket lines. Everyone would be crying to have that law removed. Why are we so much more willing to compromise?
TacMedic4450
Member
Hey guys new to this forum already seen some interesting things. It seems to me that If we can get them to leave FOPA alone a better solution for the MG ban would be a judicial one. US vs. miller they wouldnt consider the sawed off shotgun because it didnt have a direct military purpose right? So all we need is some philanthropist to want to purchase a fully auto firearm designed after 1986 maybe like one of the new FN designs, or some newer automatic weapon that is actually used directly by the US army (I dont know if they use anything designed after 1986 yet for small arms) and have him sue the government for it. If it was a wepon specifially used by the millitary with no other purpose than to kill people or defend our freedom then the supreme court would have to look at the constitutionality of the MG ban. Now we cant do anything judicial about the NFA cause they have already agreed with the government that on the face of it the nfa is a revenue collecting tax, not a gun control measure (although at the time $200 was basically a 100% excise tax). But that would force them to actually interpret the 2nd amendment once and for all, and if you actually read the AG's oppinion on the 2nd there really isnt any way the supreme court could rule it is anything but an individual right. And If we finally had a supreme court ruling on the 2nd we wouldnt be have any concern about the Anti's passing some sort of ban. Right?
- Status
