Help me change the NFA

[Remo223]

First thing I would do is link C&R with concealed carry permits. If you have a permit, you are automatically C&R licensed.

This would be linking a state record (carry permits) to the Feds. I don't like that idea.

I don't either. That's why this sentence is there:

"Maybe "license" isn't the correct term since what I am proposing is that a carry permit enables a citizen to purchase C&R guns the same way black powder guns are currently purchased."

So I guess what I meant was to link the C&R CONCEPT to the permit, but to do away with C&R licensing.

 

[hso]

Open the registry and allow everything now considered "Post 86" and you'd see a lot of people getting into machine-guns. The price would plummet and the $200 tax would be a relatively minor extortion by the Fed for most.

 

[bigfatdave]

Just opening the registry to the passing generation's relics from WWI/WWII would be a huge step.

Imagine the ability to point out the machineguns that sat in attics bothering nobody for decades ... and then to ask why a new full-auto is more dangerous in the hands of a law-abiding citizen?

 

[Remo223]

oh yeah, if they opened up the registry for already existing WWII and older machine guns I might have to start a collection...

grease gun
tommy gun
sten gun

lets see, what am I missing?

 

[AK103K]

You'd think with the state the economy is is in right now, they'd be happy to get any and all tax money they could get too, wouldnt you?

 

[belercous]

I wouldn't mind complying with the NFA if my state would only let me. My state is more of a problem for me than the NFA.

 

[FROGO207]

I already own multiples but more for less is better for us all.

 

[LJ-MosinFreak-Buck]

My vote:
"I would own multiple registered firearms if the price was greatly reduced"

My feelings on it:

I think, as long as you are a law abiding gun owner, with nothing against you owning a firearm what-so-ever, then you should be able to own one, without need to pay for a tax stamp. But, if they were legal all across the states (all 50 states) I wouldn't mind paying the 200 dollar tax stamp if the firearm wasn't so damned expensive.

I think if the government started allowing to sell citizens full auo capable weapons, then it would boost the economy, and help us get out of this debt, while they won't get every penny directly, they will have the tax involved in it.

 

[MushroomxSpider]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the decision from McDonald v. Chicago would allow a case to be made that state laws completely banning NFA firearms are in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

In a nutshell, the supreme court decided that the 2nd Amendment is the right of every individual citizen, and furthermore cannot be interfered with by the State or City government. To most of us this seems obvious, but it took until 2010 for a case to come up that finally forced that ruling to become official. The case admits that certain regulations of firearms are constitutional (denying felons, mentally ill, etc), as long as it does not deny an upright citizen the right to keep and bear arms.

As for the post-1986 machine gun ban, that is from the last-minute "Hughes Amendment" to the otherwise awesome Firearm Owners Protection Act. That bit too, it would seem, is unconstitutional since McDonald v. Chicago. The amazing thing about that case is that the Chicago city laws deemed unconstitutional weren't even outright bans, they were collections of laws that amounted to a virtual firearms ban. That makes real bans stand out even more as constitutional violations.

Just my 0.02

 

[ctbullseye]

The right to BEAR arms is a constitutional right, just like the right to free speech, in fact, how ironic, the 2nd amendment follows that right of free speech. I don't need a license to speak freely and I don't need a tax stamp to talk fast or Short Bursts of Retort ( SBR ). WHEN THE PEOPLE WAKE UP AND FINALLY SEE THE GREATEST FLEECING OF RIGHTS IN THE WORLD, WE WILL OWN FULL AUTO, UNTIL THEN, WE ARE STILL IN OUR FENCED IN AREAS.

 

[merlinfire]

An incremental removal of restrictions makes more sense. Ideologically I'm like some here: "repeal all guns laws evar!"

But that's not really pragmatic. I'll take a real improvement over wishful thinking any day.

 

[Sig88]

I would love a NFA device but do not want to pay the inflated cost, $200 stamp or extra scrutiny by the ATF. However down the road when I hopefully make more money I may try going down this route. I definitely wish it was cheaper though if nothing else.

 

[CraigC]

Realistically:
Step 1: make SBR/SBS no longer NFA items
Step 2: Open Machine Gun Registry
Step 3: Reduce Cost
Step 4: Repeal

What he said. Maybe reduce the tax to $100, allow easier procurement of suppressors and SBR's and open machinegun registration for new stuff.

 

[MushroomxSpider]

Personally, I don't mind the $200 tax. I have yet to purchase an NFA device, that tax being a huge part of why I haven't, but at the same time I think the $200 tax makes for a good incentive for government to make it easier for citizens to procure NFA devices.
If the machine gun registry were open, the artificial MG bubble would finally deflate and MANY people would gladly pay $700 + $200 tax for a new full auto; who would never have paid the inflated $5,500 pricetag for a pre-1986 model. And the people who WOULD have been willing to pay that inflated price will now spend the same money to by 3 or 4 machine guns. That's a lot of tax flow to the US government.

 

[clance]

My concerns isn't the cost but the fact that by owning a NFA allows the BATF to enter the property where the firearm/devise is registered without warrant, at anytime of the day or night.

Who in their right mind would surrender their 4th Amendment right to own a NFA firearm/devise?

Work on repealing this provision of the law then I'll worry about the cost.

 

[AK103K]

The stamp doesnt give them that right. They still need a warrant to come in.

 

[Sam1911]

owning a NFA allows the BATF to enter the property where the firearm/devise is registered without warrant, at anytime of the day or night.

Wow, that is one persistent misconception. I know shooters in real life who simply refuse to give it up, too, even when shown that it is incorrect.

Wonder where this baloney got started?

 

[AlexanderA]

We have only ourselves to blame for paying the inflated prices. Prices for full-automatic arms are at insane levels because of artificial scarcity, the "greater fool" theory that someone else will come along to pay an even higher price, and, frankly, the greed of many dealers and owners. Back in the mid-70's, one could buy a nice Thompson for $750, plus the $200 tax stamp. (I know, because I did this myself.) Now, the closing of the registry didn't affect the number of transferable original Thompsons, and, on the other hand, the number of prospective buyers isn't that much greater. (In other words, supply and demand are more or less the same as they were in the mid-70's.) A "normal" price, then, should be the $750, adjusted for inflation. Anything else is just simple gouging.

This is a classic bubble, like the Dutch tulip mania of the 1600's. The point to be made is that classic bubbles always burst. Look at what happened to people that bought houses at the peak of the housing bubble.

To put things into perspective, full-automatic capability is just a "feature" of some modern firearms. It's not even that useful except in certain military tactical situations (suppressive fire, anti-aircraft, stopping massed charges, etc.), and for those situations, we're talking about crew-served, mounted weapons. To civilians, any way you look at it, a full auto is just a "toy." There's a limit on how much people will pay for toys.

If you're well-off enough to be able to drop a few thousand on a toy, by all means go for it. Just don't think of it as an "investment." You're liable to lose big.

 

[Sam1911]

A "normal" price, then, should be the $750, adjusted for inflation. Anything else is just simple gouging.

Not big on "supply-and-demand" economics, are we?

When you have an item and two folks want it (or several thousand folks might want it) and one offers you more money than the other, it is only reasonable to sell it to whomever will pay more for it. Repeat this through thousands of iterations -- thousands of guns changing hands several times each over the course of twenty-five years -- and you'll see a spontaneous, natural development of price points based on scarcity and desirability. This is how almost every item is traded almost everywhere (that's not part of a controlled/planned economy).

Yes, the scarcity is 'artificial,' in that it is caused by a government regulation, but the market's reaction to that scarcity is no more illegitimate than it would be (and is) for any rare, scarce, desirable item.

Look, a first pressing of a Beatles album may sell for tens of thousands of dollars. There's no government regulation preventing more from being made/sold. They're worth more than their weight in vinyl. Is that "gouging?" Do you honestly feel that someone who finds a first edition of the White Album in their attic should refuse to charge more than $3.50 for it -- cause that's what it sold for in 1968? Or maybe $15 because of inflation? Or should they sell it for its perceived value to some potential owner in 2011, which might be $10,000?

Is there any possible way this is different for machine guns, S&W Registered Magnums, or any other limited-availability item that people desire to own? Let's not apply a pejorative term like "gouging." No one is dying because they can't afford a 1928 Thompson. It is a luxury item, "worth" whatever someone will pay to own it.

As for a bubble that will burst? Yup. Also part of supply and demand. The demand for full-autos has somewhat lessened in these tough economic times, and the market price points have come down a bit in the last couple of years. If the registry was reopened, the supply side of that equation would change dramatically, also causing the prices for most MGs to fall.

Most. Not all. A vintage M1 Thompson with paperwork to prove it saw Omaha Beach is still going to be worth a LOT of money because it is very rare that that weapon made it there, survived, and was sold into civilian hands. Is selling such a thing for $40,000 "gouging?" More could be made, but more couldn't be sent into combat on that day in that place. That's a pretty artificial condition. Not really "fair," seems to me. Maybe the owner should do the righteous thing and sell it for the value of its parts.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I agree with the previous posts that closing the registry is the bigger issue and bigger infringement of rights than the tax stamp.

As for the poll -- I have no interest in owning full auto stuff for the fun, "me make thunder" monkey brained part of it (got that out of my system a long time ago with the .mil) but could see myself being interested in owning some real/restored/recreated examples of historically significant .mil weapons. (I've always thought it would be cool to have one of the early Vietnam era Advisor Guns -- the M2 carbines locally chopped down to SBR length that a lot of guys out with the ARVN pre-M16 carried, for instance.)

SBRs and suppressors are a whole other issue, and I'd agree with some of the posters who've talked about changing the laws or modifying them for those items.

 

[AK103K]

The problem with doing it piecemeal is, youre basically telling them that you agree with them, and they arent all wrong about whats considered a "right", and you are are willing to compromise and offer up some of your rights for their review and control.

Its either a right, or it isnt. There are no conditions or exceptions.

 

[AlexanderA]

Sam1911 wrote:

Not big on "supply-and-demand" economics, are we?

My point was that the MG market doesn't follow the normal rules of supply and demand, under which a fair market price is what is arrived at "between a willing buyer and a willing seller, both having all knowledge of the relevant facts, and neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell." The MG market is distorted by various psychological factors, such as the fear of further restrictions, a false sense of the rarity of the items, and the idea that prices will keep going up and up and that someone will always be found to pay more. This is a classic "panic" or "bubble," and historically this kind of market tends to unravel rather quickly once a price ceiling has been reached and the psychological fears/hopes have been disproved.

When it comes to C&R machine guns, the supply today is the same as it was in the 1970's, after the 1968 amnesty and the 1968 freeze on further imports. The 1986 closing of the registry had no effect on C&R's -- no more were being made then, and no more are being made now. The number of original, transferable Thompsons (for example) is just about the same now was it was in the 1970's. As to the demand side, I can't imagine that there are more potential buyers now than in the 1970's, especially given the meteoric rise in asking prices. That's why I say this is a crazy market. What would be reasonable would be a steady increase, say, like the increase in the Dow Jones stock average over those years. This meteoric rise carries with it the seeds of its own downfall. (Which, after all, might be good because it would make MG's affordable again.)

 

[ny32182]

Between the cost of the item itself, the paperwork PITA, and the processing time, the 200 bucks is about the least painful part of acquiring a new SBR, new suppressor, or MG. If the 200 bucks had been modified to keep up with inflation it would probably be several thousand bucks by now, and a lot less people would be into NFA stuff at all. Luckily that wasn't the case, but I would strongly suspect that the total number of registered items has gone up exponentially in recent years, first as a result of the 200 bucks representing steadily less investment over time, and secondly as a result of the internet spreading information on how the process works for anyone to easily find.

If I could eliminate only individual provisions, I would, in order, pick:

1) Re-open the MG registry.
2) Reduce processing time... it shouldn't take 3-6 months to read a one page form and lick a stamp.
3) Eliminate the individual-to-dealer tax, in order to give SBR and suppressors SOME kind of resale value.

 

[ny32182]

AlexanderA, in this case you have a capped supply (not so with houses) and ever more buyers. The only thing that will ever make the price drop significantly is a major change in the laws that control the supply, such as banning them completely or re-opening the registry. As you can see we have what most people consider a major dip in the economy, and only a relatively slight dip in MG prices (again, unlike houses).

If you drop $15k on a MG that would be worth $1000 in a non-NFA world, you are taking a chance on one of those scenarios happening, but overall I would still consider a MG the safest "investment" in firearms.

A real "bubble" in guns did just happen however; witness the semi-auto market (uncapped supply) during and after the Obama election. One example; the Colt 6920 reached $1800+ at the peak; it is currently worth $1100... that is a major downward swing, way beyond anything that will ever be seen in the MG market in the absence of a change in the laws.

 

[Lunie]

I would like to own items regulated by the NFA...

Silencers/mufflers:
I despise that these must be registered, and strongly dislike the tax aspect.
I'd love to put cans on some of my rifles, so that I could shoot them and better protect my hearing.


Full auto toys.
I'd like to have some. I strongly dislike the artificial limit on the supply of these items, I strongly dislike the registration requirement, and of course, strongly dislike the $200 tax.

SBS/SBR
I might like to have some of these.
Same song and dance. Do I really need to repeat how I feel about the tax and registration?



As long as the requirements for registration are in place, I will probably not own these items. If the taxes were reduced, it would certainly lead to me purchasing more of them (without the registration requirements).




If there was going to be a push, I'd like to see the registration of silencers/mufflers removed first, followed closely by a repeal of the 1986 limitations on full autos.


Take them down one piece at a time if we must, but I would avoid taking too small a "bite" at a time. Reducing the tax would be a good step, but I would push for a rather substantial reduction.