If 1934 and (1968) hadn't of happened?

[glove]

The world would be a much nicer place.

 

[barnbwt]

"I mean, honestly, the NFA wasn't that big a hindrance to machine gun ownership in the later years before the Hughes amendment, yet not that many people bothered."
That's back when Fudds roamed the Earth and AR15s were very expensive compared to other options. But on that note, without the NFA/GCA/AWB, we'd probably all still be complacent Fudds ourselves, ready to endorse restrictions for "common sense." There's a reason those laws passed in the first place.

TCB

 

[X-Rap]

All this love for the NFA, like it wasn't registration ?

 

[Officers'Wife]

What might have been is more a matter of personal preference than accuracy. As for the NFA, IIRC most of the "gangsters" that law was supposed to get the automatic weapons away from stole them from National Guard armories. How many of the citizens that actually obeyed the act had such weapons is not within my knowledge set so I have no starting point to base a comparison on.

As for the 1968 Omnibus Crime Bill, I'm told that was a cynical de-facto protective tariff to prevent cheap imported military firearms from flooding the lagging markets of the time all wrapped up in a pretty ribbon billed a crime control. If not for that bill we would have a lot more Enfields, Mausers and Mosins available and the shareholders of Remington, Marlin and Colt would have seen less dividends in 1969.

 

[jerkface11]

Don't forget without those laws we would have mail order RPG-7's!!!

 

[mboylan]

"I mean, honestly, the NFA wasn't that big a hindrance to machine gun ownership in the later years before the Hughes amendment, yet not that many people bothered."
That's back when Fudds roamed the Earth and AR15s were very expensive compared to other options. But on that note, without the NFA/GCA/AWB, we'd probably all still be complacent Fudds ourselves, ready to endorse restrictions for "common sense." There's a reason those laws passed in the first place.

TCB

It actually was because the ATF did not recognize revocable living trusts as a valid entity for purchasing NFA items until a ruling about 15 years ago. That left two options, a corporation purchase or CLEO signature. Most CLEOs back then would deny machine gun purchases.

Less than 100,000 transferable machine guns are in private hands. The other 85,000 or so belong to police departments in non-NFA states and museums.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It actually was because the ATF did not recognize revocable living trusts as a valid entity for purchasing NFA items until a ruling about 15 years ago. That left two options, a corporation purchase or CLEO signature. Most CLEOs back then would deny machine gun purchases.

Very cheap and easy to create an LLC or S corp. Trusts are just preferred for tax reasons.

As for the "most CLEOs would deny" comment, well..........that seems speculative at best. I'd say the reason there are relatively few of them on the market is the same reason most people never realize many of their goals; laziness. If it proves to be any more onerous than the individual initially expected, they simply abandon.

And to be honest, I'd have a lot more NFA stuff if it weren't for the wait. Though I don't like them, the paperwork, the registry and the $200 aren't the aspect I find unpalatable.

Less than 100,000 transferable machine guns are in private hands. The other 85,000 or so belong to police departments in non-NFA states and museums.

Last I checked it's 174,000. Still not enough, of course.

 

[.338-06]

There would be fewer gun stores, you would buy through the mail or at your local hardware store like when I was a kid.

 

[joem1945]

The 1934 GCA was a effort to raise $$$ for some government programs. It was/ is a way to get more money. Later it morphed into gun restrictions and in 1968 it got worse.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think the 1934 and 1968 Acts would have happened anyway just with different dates. But in the interest of the thread topic, I would say that fully automatic firearms would be priced closer to semi-auto firearms (probably 30-50% more). Suppressors would be more popular I am sure. Civilian ammunition use would be higher. Select fire switches would be common.

I suspect that I would probably own two select fire rifles now rather than none. I doubt I would shoot fully automatic much due to cost of ammunition whether that be now or 20 years ago. I would own suppressors for a couple handguns.

 

[Walkalong]

I would have a full auto AR because they would be fairly cheap. I would have a few suppressors. Smaller guns from overseas would be readily available.

 

[barnbwt]

The 1934 GCA was a effort to raise $$$ for some government programs. It was/ is a way to get more money.

Weapons grade bull. The tax was enormous (thousands, adjusted for inflation), approaching the cost of the guns thenselves, and was clearly passed out of fear of the Bonus Army protests by servicemen wielding service weaponry, but passed off as a response to wildly-exaggerated "gangland" violence --notably the St. Valentines day massacre (which was probably committed by crooked cops, not "gangsters dressed as cops," which even in light of today's Mexico Americans have trouble accepting). The Act was targetted at all concealable arms, pistols especially, but this was a bridge too far and (most) of the language was removed (hence the moronic remainder short barrel vestiges)

TCB

 

[22-rimfire]

Be glad that the tax was not automatically adjusted for inflation.

 

[SuedePflow]

Someone would have necked up .50 BMG to .75 WTH and it would be awesome.

hahaha!

 

[MachIVshooter]

The 1934 GCA was a effort to raise $$$ for some government programs. It was/ is a way to get more money. Later it morphed into gun restrictions and in 1968 it got worse.

Nope. The amount of revenue generated from NFA tax stamps is less than a pittance-even in 1935 dollars.

Today, the interest and fines levied against any one large company by the IRS easily surpass a year's worth of NFA revenue in a single day.

Imposing the tax was a way for them to heavily restrict without enacting a law that wouldn't pass constitutional muster. And so far, it has worked; in 80 years of challenges, the NFA has not been found unconstitutional.

 

[22-rimfire]

The 1934 tax was iniciated to encourage regular people not to have fully automatic weapons. In 1934, $500 was a lot of money for a regular person who probably was lucky to make $50 a week.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The 1934 tax was iniciated [SIC] to encourage regular people not to have fully automatic weapons. In 1934, $500 was a lot of money for a regular person who probably was lucky to make $50 a week.

It's $200, always has been.

$200 in 1934 is the equivalent of $3,500 2015 dollars, though.

Of course, I'd happily pay $3,500 for the stamp and $1,200 for the M16 versus the $200 stamp and $16,000 rifle situation we have today.............

 

[JIMMYK]

Ever read a book called Unintended Consequences, by John Ross?

 

[22-rimfire]

Goes to show you how interested I am in NFA firearms as my memory was $500 versus $200. I would not pay $3500 in tax to own a fully automatic rifle that I would seldom ever shoot fully automatic anyway.

Yeah, I have read most of Unintended Consequences. I got bored with it and really didn't like the central character as he developed. Have the hard back. Want to buy it?

 

[mboylan]

Very cheap and easy to create an LLC or S corp. Trusts are just preferred for tax reasons.

As for the "most CLEOs would deny" comment, well..........that seems speculative at best. I'd say the reason there are relatively few of them on the market is the same reason most people never realize many of their goals; laziness. If it proves to be any more onerous than the individual initially expected, they simply abandon.

And to be honest, I'd have a lot more NFA stuff if it weren't for the wait. Though I don't like them, the paperwork, the registry and the $200 aren't the aspect I find unpalatable.



Last I checked it's 174,000. Still not enough, of course.

My numbers do add up. We have under 100,000 transferables in private hands out of a total of 174,000-183,000. The other transferables belong to law enforcement agencies and museums. Pre-86, CLEOs were much less informed of NFA laws than today and denials were a very serious issue.

 

[Skribs]

I don't think suppressors would be a whole lot more common unless they were required. However, I think SBRs and SBS would be, and I think guns capable of dumping money faster than a top-heavy company would be bought, used once, and then stored.

 

[leadcounsel]

There'd be a lot less people in prison for arbitrary legal violations which impacted nobody. I remember hearing of a guy in the midwest who was convicted for possessing an AR that defectively fired full auto. I imagine there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans convicted for either innocent or knowingly possessing full auto weapons, when that was really their only crime. That's the biggest tragedy - ruined lives over stupid bureaucratic laws.

There'd be a lot more awesome historic guns in the the world - thinking of all those illegal guns that were dumped in the oceans or otherwise cut up and smelted or crushed. Piles of Thompsons, Uzis, AKs, Grease guns, MP40s, M16s, etc. Ticks me off...

Innovation is clearly negatively impacted by the lack of a civilian market. After the AWB sunset, look at the innovation - Look at the explosion of innovation once a company finds a niche in some gun related item, like Magpul and accessories. Overnight, high quality mags from various sources flooded the civilian market. More companies started making guns that could accept high capacity mags. Overnight designs of guns that didn't exist a decade ago - AK, AR, PTR91 pistols which have flooded the market.

Concealed carry laws swept the nation over the last decade. Now, look at the massive flood of innovation in smaller pistols, lighter pistols, and holsters.

Similar innovation would have occurred if these GCAs were never in place. I agree we'd see really cool innovations in terms of suppressors, burst capabilities, and compact designs. We'd basically have full auto internally suppressed MP5 style weapons available by Glock, Sig, SW, Ruger, etc. ranging in all common pistol and small rifle calibers.

HK would be thriving in civilian purchases with MP5s selling like hotcakes.

Those AK and AR pistols would be internally suppressed SBRs with 10-14" barrels and collapsing stocks (similar to HK designs, flush collapsing).

Semi-auto or pump shotguns would definitely get re-evaluated as king of home defense if suppressed fully auto 9mm or 556 SBRs were common and affordable.

We'd have really cool Short Shotguns with innovating magazine designs.

We'd have full auto pistols like the Glock 18 or Beretta 92 full auto. Stick mags would be much more common.

There'd be several (rarely used but collected) crew served weapons in my collection, and probably millions in circulation. Love to have a some of those pieces.

BUT ---

There's a fair bet that we would have also seen more LA style shootouts with full-auto weapons too - if they were widely available and just as common or affordable as their semi-auto versions. It would be a logical conclusion that you simply replace the semi-auto weapons used in historic shootouts with full auto versions. And that means, logically, more ammo dumps, and more bullets needing targets. What that amounts in is anyone's guess.

Take any shooting incidents with LEO, and replace the semi-autos with full autos. More shots fired, likely.

 

[WestKentucky]

I don't see a huge difference. Before the ban we had BAR, thompson, and other available on the free market but few buyers. I do think we would have more buyers today because of the target tactical crowd, but not hugely different than then. The big draw now is that prohibition. If you tell a person they can't have a FA-MG then even if they have never considered that possibility then they start to and they want it simply because it's off limits. It's the forbidden fruit type situation. Had they never been banned people would look at them as ammo eating inaccurate contraptions that cost too much to use. The possible exceptions would be inexpensive guns like ak47 but as others have said, typically used on semiauto.

The interesting thought is how FA availability might change competition.

 

[22-rimfire]

There'd be a lot less people in prison for arbitrary legal violations which impacted nobody.

That is an important point and something that should be changed regardless. The nature of a "violation" would need to be carefully defined.

My personal opinion is that a law would have been passed severely restricting the use of fully automatic firearms by civilians after such events as Sandy Hook and other shoot outs which I would guess would include more fully automatic weapons being used. There would likely be more deaths associated with these events.

I'm all for opening up the sale of new fully automatic weapons for civilians under the current registration and taxation system.

 

[Thermactor]

Someone would have necked up .50 BMG to .75 WTH and it would be awesome.

It would be a wicked subsonic round!