gyvel
Member
Just coz a guy works for H&K doesn't mean he can afford one.
NFA Amnesty?
- Thread starter kimberkid
- Start date
- Status
Just coz a guy works for H&K doesn't mean he can afford one.
BobTheTomato
Member
If there is an amnesty I'm registering every electric motor I can find to build me some miniguns.
mortablunt
Member
I hope they do away with the HA. However, it's going to take the NRA and a very strong pro-gun tide in order to do this. Start petitioning the NRA folks.
Prince Yamato
Member
I have a hunch that it can be snuck in as a poison pill in any bill.
HavelockLEO
Member
I dont even think the so called "pro-gun" politicians would give it a thumbs up, but thats just me
The only reason for an amnesty would be if the law were made more restrictive (to include handguns, maybe) so I am not sure that is what you folks want. The amnesty in GCS 68 was to allow registration of DEWATs, which previously had been considered "non-guns" and some of which had been "rewatted" or made serviceable.
Jim
Jim
Ar180shooter
Member
Doubtful...
Last edited:
Mike OTDP
Member
I think it's do-able.
There are a substantial number of MGs brought into the country legally...in 1946. 1951. 1967. But the ATF internally admits a 50% error rate on registrations prior to 1968. And when Grandpa passes away, the kids are left trying to figure out what to do with the MP-40 he had in the trunk in the attic. Is it a valuable part of the estate, or an instant felony conviction?
The answer is to use the amnesty power not for an 'amnesty", but for a "re-registration". No questions asked - if the gun could have been owned legally, the assumption is that it IS owned legally but the paperwork is missing. Get the paperwork and records straight. Give people access to valuable assets that can be sold to cover bills.
I can see this being done, easily.
There are a substantial number of MGs brought into the country legally...in 1946. 1951. 1967. But the ATF internally admits a 50% error rate on registrations prior to 1968. And when Grandpa passes away, the kids are left trying to figure out what to do with the MP-40 he had in the trunk in the attic. Is it a valuable part of the estate, or an instant felony conviction?
The answer is to use the amnesty power not for an 'amnesty", but for a "re-registration". No questions asked - if the gun could have been owned legally, the assumption is that it IS owned legally but the paperwork is missing. Get the paperwork and records straight. Give people access to valuable assets that can be sold to cover bills.
I can see this being done, easily.
MasterSergeantA
Member
I would offer that the NRA is not on the side of NFA owners. From what I have seen, we are sort of like the crazy old uncle that everyone wishes would not show up at Thanksgiving. We seem to embarrass them. So I would expect little or no support from the NRA.
NRA Life Member
NRA Life Member
AlexanderA
Member
That sounds like an excellent idea. It's fairly well known (from congressional testimony, even) that there are errors and omissions in the NFA registry.
A while back, I got a letter from the Virginia State Police (Virginia has its own MG registry) asking me to check the list they had for MGs that I own. Well, it turned out that they still had me down for two MG's that I had sold years earlier, and regarding which I had notified them at the time of the sale.
If the ATF's list is at all like this, it definitely needs to be refreshed.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
S.W.G. - Do you have a citation for the total number of NFA prosecutions? I have been keeping my eye out for something quotable for years.
Also, the Blackwater guys who shot up Nisour square were charged in a United States District Court with using a machine gun to commit crime. I would assume that those MG's were legally supplied by the Department of State. Arguably, this would count as well.
Also, the Blackwater guys who shot up Nisour square were charged in a United States District Court with using a machine gun to commit crime. I would assume that those MG's were legally supplied by the Department of State. Arguably, this would count as well.
Ingsoc75
Member
Most likely the only way Hughes is going to get repealed is by compromise on both sides and this is even after it gets "snuck" into a larger bill and it found out by anti-gun legislators who try and kill it.
Something like this: "Okay we will repeal this so you can have more machine guns but we're gonna raise that $200 stamp tax to $800 or $1000."
Even at $1000 a stamp, it's cheaper than $16,000 for a FA AK-47 right now.
Something like this: "Okay we will repeal this so you can have more machine guns but we're gonna raise that $200 stamp tax to $800 or $1000."
Even at $1000 a stamp, it's cheaper than $16,000 for a FA AK-47 right now.
AlexanderA
Member
The $200 tax stamp is not the serious impediment to FA ownership. The serious impediments are, in order: (1) the high cost of the weapon itself, (2) the hodgepodge of state laws and prohibitions, (3) the need for a CLEO signoff, or, alternatively, the complexity of setting up a trust or corporation, and (4) the inordinately long wait for the paperwork to be approved. If the cost of the stamp is increased (and I'm not in favor of that), the increased revenues should at least be dedicated to hiring more examiners in the NFA Branch in order to expedite the paperwork processing.
OP
OP
kimberkid
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,654
1) The cost of the weapon is only high because of the limited supply.
2) State laws really have nothing to do with it ... either they are allowed or they are not.
3) I spent $10 for software and set up my own trust ... as long as its signed and notarized its legal ... maybe there is a state difference on this.
4) I can't believe its still $200 ... back in 1986 that was a good chunk of money ... in 1965 it was a months wages for a lot of people. Even if it was a $1,000 now, thats only a case or so of ammo ... but 30 day processing would be nice.
AlexanderA
Member
kimberkid wrote:
Repeal of the Hughes amendment would go a long way towards solving that problem. Even C&R's (the supply of which would still remain fixed) would be indirectly affected as to price.
It's more complicated than that. For example, in Connecticut, you can own a full automatic but not a selective-fire weapon. (That's just crazy.) In other places, you have to have an FFL to own a full automatic. Several states have what's known as the "Uniform Machine Gun Act," which introduces more red tape and complexity. I'd like to see federal preemption of laws regulating NFA weapons -- that is, that the federal NFA would represent the full scope of regulation, and state laws to the contrary would be disregarded. (This could be drafted under the Commerce Clause so as to be constitutional.) As it is now, state laws can be more strict than the federal law, but never less strict. Gun owners have nothing to lose with this change.
And the CLEO signoff requirement has got to go. This serves no purpose since the feds are well aware of local laws, and conduct their own background investigation anyway. Maybe just notify the local law enforcement, as a courtesy, once the approval has been granted.
This is very dangerous. A boilerplate trust may not be suitable for the special circumstances of NFA weapons. It's well worth the $300-500 that a local lawyer versed in the this area would charge.
In 1934, $200 was about what a Thompson would sell for, so it was a 100% tax, thought to be all but prohibitive. By 1975 (when I bought my first Thompson), the tax stamp represented about 20-25% of the cost. In 1986 (just before the Hughes amendment) it had fallen to 10-15% of the cost. (These figures would vary depending on the specific gun, etc.) The tax stamp has been a relatively token amount for a long time now.
Repeal of the Hughes amendment would go a long way towards solving that problem. Even C&R's (the supply of which would still remain fixed) would be indirectly affected as to price.
It's more complicated than that. For example, in Connecticut, you can own a full automatic but not a selective-fire weapon. (That's just crazy.) In other places, you have to have an FFL to own a full automatic. Several states have what's known as the "Uniform Machine Gun Act," which introduces more red tape and complexity. I'd like to see federal preemption of laws regulating NFA weapons -- that is, that the federal NFA would represent the full scope of regulation, and state laws to the contrary would be disregarded. (This could be drafted under the Commerce Clause so as to be constitutional.) As it is now, state laws can be more strict than the federal law, but never less strict. Gun owners have nothing to lose with this change.
And the CLEO signoff requirement has got to go. This serves no purpose since the feds are well aware of local laws, and conduct their own background investigation anyway. Maybe just notify the local law enforcement, as a courtesy, once the approval has been granted.
This is very dangerous. A boilerplate trust may not be suitable for the special circumstances of NFA weapons. It's well worth the $300-500 that a local lawyer versed in the this area would charge.
In 1934, $200 was about what a Thompson would sell for, so it was a 100% tax, thought to be all but prohibitive. By 1975 (when I bought my first Thompson), the tax stamp represented about 20-25% of the cost. In 1986 (just before the Hughes amendment) it had fallen to 10-15% of the cost. (These figures would vary depending on the specific gun, etc.) The tax stamp has been a relatively token amount for a long time now.
OP
OP
kimberkid
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,654
Well for those of you that are interested, the reason I asked about the possibility of another NFA Amnesty is I was considering making a purchase.
Back in 2008-2009 when the stock market crashed ... like a lot of people we took a beating and to this day are still way down. Due to the current uncertainty of the current market, the wife and I decided to pull almost completely out of the stock market, pay off the house and rental property and be debt free except for monthly bills ... as we were making our plans I mentioned that "machine guns" nearly doubled in price between 2004 and 2008 and are still climbing, and now they are legal in Kansas. She said if I find a good deal, go for it ... I told her that even if the value drops 90% it will never be zero like all of our GM stock ... so in another 6 months or so when I get my stamps I can bring home my new to me toys.
Back in 2008-2009 when the stock market crashed ... like a lot of people we took a beating and to this day are still way down. Due to the current uncertainty of the current market, the wife and I decided to pull almost completely out of the stock market, pay off the house and rental property and be debt free except for monthly bills ... as we were making our plans I mentioned that "machine guns" nearly doubled in price between 2004 and 2008 and are still climbing, and now they are legal in Kansas. She said if I find a good deal, go for it ... I told her that even if the value drops 90% it will never be zero like all of our GM stock ... so in another 6 months or so when I get my stamps I can bring home my new to me toys.
Bubbles
Member
I wouldn't purchase a machine gun as an investment in anything but freedom.
giggitygiggity
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,251
In the grand scheme of things, I don't think the $200 tax or the paperwork and wait is the big issue... I mean $200 is nothing compared to how much I am willing to throw down for some guns.
However, the issue for me is the 1986 date. There are so many machineguns made before 1986 and that date is getting further and further away and those pre 1986 guns are getting older and more used and abused and more expensive with each passing day. If they lifted the date restriction, those individuals selling their pre 1986 machineguns would no longer have the finite supply of machineguns and wouldn't have as much leverage to sell them for inflated prices (ie a mac for $5000 that probably costs about $100 to make).
I never plan to commit a crime with my NFA weapon so I don't care if they register it and charge me $200 for it. I would just like to be able to go into a gun shop and see a AR15 in semi-auto and an M-16 or M-4 in semi/burst/auto in the same price range. If that M16/M4 requires me to pay the government $200 and do some paperwork, so be it; it's better than having to pay $20,000+ for an M-16/M-4.
However, the issue for me is the 1986 date. There are so many machineguns made before 1986 and that date is getting further and further away and those pre 1986 guns are getting older and more used and abused and more expensive with each passing day. If they lifted the date restriction, those individuals selling their pre 1986 machineguns would no longer have the finite supply of machineguns and wouldn't have as much leverage to sell them for inflated prices (ie a mac for $5000 that probably costs about $100 to make).
I never plan to commit a crime with my NFA weapon so I don't care if they register it and charge me $200 for it. I would just like to be able to go into a gun shop and see a AR15 in semi-auto and an M-16 or M-4 in semi/burst/auto in the same price range. If that M16/M4 requires me to pay the government $200 and do some paperwork, so be it; it's better than having to pay $20,000+ for an M-16/M-4.
AlexanderA
Member
Bubbles wrote:
I agree -- not at these prices.
An amnesty will happen, but maybe not in our lifetimes. Or, better yet, Congress will come to see that the NFA was based on an arbitrary and meaningless distinction (why are full automatics any more deadly than their semiautomatic clones?) and repeal it, or the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.
In the meantime, if you want an investment, stock up on machine gun parts. The originals are getting more difficult to come by every year. They're going to be needed if the ban is ever lifted.
I agree -- not at these prices.
An amnesty will happen, but maybe not in our lifetimes. Or, better yet, Congress will come to see that the NFA was based on an arbitrary and meaningless distinction (why are full automatics any more deadly than their semiautomatic clones?) and repeal it, or the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.
In the meantime, if you want an investment, stock up on machine gun parts. The originals are getting more difficult to come by every year. They're going to be needed if the ban is ever lifted.
SharpsDressedMan
member
Add a double domestic homicide in Akron, OH back in the late 70's by the Class III dealer, who was despondent over a divorce. His son ended up killing him with a shotgun when he went after his wife and her friends at the friends residence. I know, as it tied up the delivery of my first MG for a year or more in probate (I had purchaed from the ClassIII). My gun was released by the local sheriff about 15 months after the incident.
Personally I doubt we will ever see another amnesty and I wouldn't want one anyway.
To explain the second part of the statement first:
- An "amnesty" is a limited time offer for someone to admit to an illegal action and have it forgiven. There has been one at least and I believe there were several. Many who could have applied for it did not for fear it was a trick to catch them and prosecute them. With our current BATFE I would believe that more than any news reporting of an amnesty. In addition, an amnesty would only cement the concept of machine guns being banned. It would result in people (who trusted the amnesty) registering old war relics and any frame they could convert within the time limit. Many of those would no longer support a repeal of the ban.
As to why I doubt we will ever see one:
- The BATFE is on fecord as saying that an amensty would jeopordize ongoing investigations. In addition, the average non gun owner doesn't understand NFA weapons and woudl be easily convinced that this would allow "terrorists" to legaly own machine guns. No politician (Ron Paul being a possible exception) would support it. Lastely, if it was added as a "poison pill" to legislation going through it would likely kill that legislation.
To explain the second part of the statement first:
- An "amnesty" is a limited time offer for someone to admit to an illegal action and have it forgiven. There has been one at least and I believe there were several. Many who could have applied for it did not for fear it was a trick to catch them and prosecute them. With our current BATFE I would believe that more than any news reporting of an amnesty. In addition, an amnesty would only cement the concept of machine guns being banned. It would result in people (who trusted the amnesty) registering old war relics and any frame they could convert within the time limit. Many of those would no longer support a repeal of the ban.
As to why I doubt we will ever see one:
- The BATFE is on fecord as saying that an amensty would jeopordize ongoing investigations. In addition, the average non gun owner doesn't understand NFA weapons and woudl be easily convinced that this would allow "terrorists" to legaly own machine guns. No politician (Ron Paul being a possible exception) would support it. Lastely, if it was added as a "poison pill" to legislation going through it would likely kill that legislation.
As a note: The anti's would point out there are "amnesties" run all the time for people who want to get rid of illegal machine guns. They are called "Gun Buy Backs".
That would be used to discredit any one prosecuted for grandpas war bring back. They would just say they could have disassembled it and brought it to the next gun buy back.
That would be used to discredit any one prosecuted for grandpas war bring back. They would just say they could have disassembled it and brought it to the next gun buy back.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
