President Trump Expected to Appoint Kash Patel as Acting ATF Head

[Gordon]

View attachment 1252512

View attachment 1252513

Yet many here whine " what has Trump done pro 2nd amendment " in last 30 days !

 

[Gordon]

With $200 being relative chump change in 2025, the internet making the NFA process much easier to understand and undertake by the average gun owner, and the explosion in popularity of the AR platform which is particularly well-suited to full auto controllability, I think there would be a whole lot of machine guns being made and bought today were the registry never closed.

and that would be bad ? U mean like not registered gang banger Glock "switches"?

 

[General Geoff]

and that would be bad ?

No?

 

[Gordon]

No?

I think the ill-conceived act of 1986 closing the NFA registry for new automatic weapons to duly registered citizenry was an infringement to the constitution and a stupid move. Thats why I mentioned the thousands of unregistered Glock "Switches" the criminals spay bullets around the US with presently or the other noncontrolled modifications and builds. All newly manufactured full auto weapon holders should pay the fee to be vetted by the background checks and be register the weapon to the citizen or trust in good standing with the law and storage of such. What should be eliminated is the SBR and SBS category as they do not increase a firearm's potential danger over barrel length or overall length.

 

[hso]

While we can dream of short barrel and suppressors being treated like any other firearm or accessory, machine guns won't ever come off NFA (or some similar regulation) but the registry might be opened for new machine guns.

 

[General Geoff]

All newly manufactured full auto weapon holders should pay the fee to be vetted by the background checks and be register the weapon to the citizen or trust in good standing with the law and storage of such.

What's funny is that prohibited persons are explicitly not required to register machine guns under the NFA, because compelling them to do so would be a violation of their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. See Haynes v. United States (1968).

 

[Miami_JBT]

I think the ill-conceived act of 1986 closing the NFA registry for new automatic weapons to duly registered citizenry was an infringement to the constitution and a stupid move. Thats why I mentioned the thousands of unregistered Glock "Switches" the criminals spay bullets around the US with presently or the other noncontrolled modifications and builds. All newly manufactured full auto weapon holders should pay the fee to be vetted by the background checks and be register the weapon to the citizen or trust in good standing with the law and storage of such. What should be eliminated is the SBR and SBS category as they do not increase a firearm's potential danger over barrel length or overall length.

NFA as a whole is unconstitutional.

 

[hso]

NFA as a whole is unconstitutional.

None the less, as far as machine-guns are concerned it is unlikely Congress would change it and the courts are unlikely to.

 

[jmorris]

If the NFA did not exist, or if the registry had not been closed, there would be a few machine guns out there, but not nearly as many as the penned up demand created by the NFA would create.

I disagree, people already spend more than a Form 1 costs for other stuff that makes a semiauto closer to a full auto. Like the AW SIM, Akins Accelerator, Slidefires and forced reset triggers.

 

[old lady new shooter]

What should be eliminated is the SBR and SBS category as they do not increase a firearm's potential danger over barrel length or overall length.

1000%

 

[entropy]

I think the ill-conceived act of 1986 closing the NFA registry for new automatic weapons to duly registered citizenry was an infringement to the constitution and a stupid move. Thats why I mentioned the thousands of unregistered Glock "Switches" the criminals spay bullets around the US with presently or the other noncontrolled modifications and builds.

Did you just assume a bullet's gender?

 

[AlexanderA]

While we can dream of short barrel and suppressors being treated like any other firearm or accessory, machine guns won't ever come off NFA (or some similar regulation) but the registry might be opened for new machine guns.

The plausible route for NFA reform would involve a give and take by both sides of the gun debate. That is, take silencers and SBRs out of it, and open up the machine gun registry, but add so-called "assault weapons." Unless we are prepared to see "assault weapons" federally regulated, none of this is going anywhere. However, even though that might be the nominal framework, the details of the implementation could be advantageous to us. For example, there could be a provision that the federal AW regulation (under the reformed NFA) would preempt all state-level AW bans and restrictions. And the procedure could be streamlined so that registration of an AW would be no more onerous than the current Form 4473.

The fact that the NFA is basically a tax statute means that all this is doable under the budget reconciliation process, sidestepping the Senate filibuster. All the pro-reform forces need is a bare majority in both Houses, plus the signature of the president.

 

[Miami_JBT]

The plausible route for NFA reform would involve a give and take by both sides of the gun debate. That is, take silencers and SBRs out of it, and open up the machine gun registry, but add so-called "assault weapons." Unless we are prepared to see "assault weapons" federally regulated, none of this is going anywhere. However, even though that might be the nominal framework, the details of the implementation could be advantageous to us. For example, there could be a provision that the federal AW regulation (under the reformed NFA) would preempt all state-level AW bans and restrictions. And the procedure could be streamlined so that registration of an AW would be no more onerous than the current Form 4473.

The fact that the NFA is basically a tax statute means that all this is doable under the budget reconciliation process, sidestepping the Senate filibuster. All the pro-reform forces need is a bare majority in both Houses, plus the signature of the president.

Nah bro, forget your compromise.

Your logic is broken. MGs are already illegal in a number of states.

Gun control wants you disarmed.

Period

 

[bearcreek]

If the NFA did not exist, or if the registry had not been closed, there would be a few machine guns out there, but not nearly as many as the penned up demand created by the NFA would create.

If the NFA did not exist, most detachable magazine fed semi auto rfles today would be full auto.

 

[AlexanderA]

If the NFA did not exist, most detachable magazine fed semi auto rifles today would be full auto.

Perhaps, but the full auto option would rarely be used. The reason: ammunition cost.

 

[AlexanderA]

Nah bro, forget your compromise.

Your logic is broken. MGs are already illegal in a number of states.

Those state MG bans could go the way of state AW bans, if there was federal preemption under a reformed NFA. That of course would be a key negotiating point from the pro-gun side.

The seven states having the "Uniform Machine Gun Act" would be a little trickier.

Gun control wants you disarmed.

Period

Sure. That's their maximalist demand, just as no gun restrictions at all are the maximalist demand of the "2nd Amendment absolutists." Neither side is going to get 100% of what it wants, as long as political power is as divided as it is. (And that aspect isn't going to change.)

The whole idea of a negotiation is to improve the situation of each side. Unless that result is achieved, there's no incentive for anyone to participate. (A negotiation is the polar opposite of a "surrender.")

 

[Walkalong]

The whole idea of a negotiation is to improve the situation of each side

But we never get anything, so the answer is no, period.

That said, I am all for putting political and court pressure on the antis, but anytime they want any kind of infringement, the answer is no, because they never offer anything for our side, they never have.

I know plenty of Democrats who want to vote for anties hoping/telling themselves they can't get stuff passed, but it bit us in the but with the first semi auto ban, and almost did again with a worse one. Don't fool yourself that they don't want to fully disarm us, and that doesn't happen by giving us anything.

 

[GEM]

Let no one forget that GWB said he would have passed a new AWB or renewal if he got to his desk. Now some said, he knew it wouldn't get there so he did that for politics. My view was the denying for 'politics' is not acceptable. It's just the sajme 4d Chess crap.

No conceiveable Congress will free up full auto and demand states allow them.

 

[General Geoff]

No conceiveable Congress will free up full auto and demand states allow them.

There is a small window of political opportunity to get the registry at least re-opened, if/when Congress is pressured to address forced-reset triggers and similar full-auto-mimickry devices that currently do not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun. That will be our best opportunity to claw back a legal path to purchase/own newly manufactured machine guns for the foreseeable future, via grassroots and organized lobbying.

Frame it as a 'compromise' by adding FRTs and the like to NFA purview in exchange for a repeal of the hughes amendment.


edit; we may end up getting a worse bargain if they decide to update the $200 tax stamp to account for 90 years of inflation, which would bring the tax stamp up to nearly $5,000. But $5,000 for a tax stamp is still better than a frozen supply and no new machine guns at all.

 

[GEM]

No, the Congress will not open up fully auto guns because of trigger issues. There is no window. The filibuster stops any attempt dead. The only process that would alter current gun type restrictions, Federally or on the state level is Scotus. We know that they are not interested in such or at least a majority is not. Alito and Thomas can fume with scorching dissents, which are basically - WOO HOO - We Lost!

 

[General Geoff]

No, the Congress will not open up fully auto guns because of trigger issues. There is no window. The filibuster stops any attempt dead.

You can't know this.

 

[AlexanderA]

The filibuster stops any attempt dead.

The NFA, being a tax law, clearly comes within the purview of the budget reconciliation process. This isn't subject to filibuster.

 

[AlexanderA]

we may end up getting a worse bargain if they decide to update the $200 tax stamp to account for 90 years of inflation, which would bring the tax stamp up to nearly $5,000.

We should expect the $200 tax stamp to be revisited as part of an NFA overhaul. It's certainly going to be indexed going forward. But the question is, is 1934 going to be used as the base, or is 2025? If 2025 is used as the base, the future adjustments won't have much effect. The tax stamp will have the same purchasing power as $200 today.

The base year for indexing would be a key negotiating point. An important part of the overall plan. Other important parts would be free initial registrations (if AW's are added to the NFA), and free amnesty registrations if declared periodically thereafter.

 

[bearcreek]

Perhaps, but the full auto option would rarely be used. The reason: ammunition cost.

Sure. That really has nothing to do with it though. Without the NFA, 90+% of AR's, (at least) would be full auto, for the simple reason that there would be no reason for them not to be.

 

[AlexanderA]

Without the NFA, 90+% of AR's, (at least) would be full auto, for the simple reason that there would be no reason for them not to be.

Public relations attempts by the industry? I'm thinking back to the pre-1986 policy of Colt, in regard to selling FA AR-15's. They could have sold a lot more to civilians, but they wanted to channel sales to law enforcement / military only. So SOT dealers were limited to one rifle and one carbine, presumably for use as sales samples. To get another allocation, a dealer had to prove that indeed his initial guns had been sold to LE.

We see the same industry mentality today regarding Destructive Devices. It would be legal to sell, for example, grenades to civilians (with a tax stamp), but the companies won't do it.