Prevalence of MGs Pre-86??

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vegaslaith

Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
312
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Hi guys. THR always seemed to pop up when I googled a question about firearms so I finally dedided to join. I had a couple of questions. First, did most people know full autos were legal during the 80's before the '86 ban?.Or, was it only the hard core gunnies that knew or did everyone know but just not care? I'm 21 now and just found out about a year ago that they were in fact legal in the not so distant past. :confused:

Second, what effect will DC v Heller have on NFA law? Most ranges that rent MG's have this "never gonna happen" attitude and that's really sad I think. just wanna see what the consesus seems to be.:D
 
First, did most people know full autos were legal during the 80's before the '86 ban?.
Click to expand...

Yes. Why would you think otherwise?:confused:

There were magazines devoted to full auto, full auto shoots, books, etc.

Before Black Tuesday there was a huge surge in the manufacture of MGs as makers hired extra typists to work around the clock typing Form 1s.

I'm 21 now and just found out about a year ago that they were in fact legal in the not so distant past.
Click to expand...

You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding. Machine guns are legal today as long as you comply with the NFA.

The market is "frozen" in that thanks to the Hughes Amendment to the '86 FOPA.

Second, what effect will DC v Heller have on NFA law?
Click to expand...

The issue in Heller in a Washington D.C. possession of a handgun in the home statute, thus, no effect. That said, Hellercould be used to effectively challenge the NFA at some point in the future.

People seem to think that every single "gun control" statute, federal and state (I've seen questions about CA law or IL laws or carrying pistols or what have you, now the NFA), is at issue in Heller. The Supreme Court does not work like that. Once Heller is decided expect waves of litigation to come back before the Court.

Most ranges that rent MG's have this "never gonna happen" attitude and that's really sad I think
Click to expand...

It's not sad, it is just the way it is. However, don't be sad you can contribute to the NRA so the NFA will be challenged some day.
 
a little off topic ...but the goverment should let soldiers serving in combat zones bring back full autos and register them as transferable.im sure anyone of them could use an extra ten or twenty grand.
 
join the NRA?

I don't have a problem with the NRA, except for one thing--their lack of any descernible effort to re-open the NFA registry. With such a large bankroll and political power why not just shoehorn it into a bill late at night the same way it was passed? I contacted them by phone and their reply was something like "there's just not a lot of support for something like that" I disagree. But what do you guys think? What percentage of people in the gun community would favor a repeal of Hughes? 20% 80% A lot of people my age are completely in the dark on MG laws? Would cowboy action shooters care less than say, hunters or CCW advocates? Any thoughts?
 
"With such a large bankroll and political power why not just shoehorn it into a bill late at night the same way it was passed?"


The US congress was run by our so called pro-gun friends for six years. They could not even get country wide concealed carry passed.
 
I don't have a problem with the NRA, except for one thing--their lack of any descernible effort to re-open the NFA registry. With such a large bankroll and political power why not just shoehorn it into a bill late at night the same way it was passed? I contacted them by phone and their reply was something like "there's just not a lot of support for something like that" I disagree. But what do you guys think? What percentage of people in the gun community would favor a repeal of Hughes? 20% 80% A lot of people my age are completely in the dark on MG laws? Would cowboy action shooters care less than say, hunters or CCW advocates? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Politics does not work that way. The NRA is an effective organization, but it is limited like any organization it is limted by countervailing opinions. Fighting to repeal the 86 machine gun ban would be a fruitless venture, and would require the NRA to use precious resources when they could use those resources on an issue where they have a chance to make an impact.

To use Congress the way that you describe is not how the political process generally works. Think of all of the steps needed to get a bill passed. First, you need a Senator or a Representative to introduce the bill. That is easy enough; Ron Paul would probably go a long. Once the bill is introduced however the Speaker has complete control over its survival. The Speaker can kill a bill at whim, with little or no recourse for the bill's author. So let’s say the Speaker allows the bill to survive, and for some reason it makes it out of whatever committee it assigned, it then has to go to a general vote. That is where the NRA is correct when it says it does not have enough support. Getting 51% of representatives to support machine guns is just not something that is politically advantageous, especially when you have to get re-elected in 2 years if not less. Now if for some crazy reason it makes it out of the House, it would then have to survive the Senate, where it would have to survive committee and the potential for a single senator to stall the bill. If the bill makes it out of the Senate then it must go to a conference committee between the House and the Senate. If it makes it out of the conference committee then it must voted on again, and then finally it makes it way to the President for approval, who could veto it if he wants.

To think that a repeal of the 86 machine gun ban would 1.) survive the legislative process 2.) come out looking like anything the NRA would want, is not in the realm of what is possible. The NRA knows what battles to fight, and knows what battles it can win. The 86 ban is better fought in the courts, if Heller and subsequent cases go our way.
 
Unfortunately it was a scenario that played out kind of like the Assault Weapon Ban business.

Most people knew machineguns were legal but few ever thought the registry would actually be closed. Most people that were remotely interested were of the "oh I will get around to it someday" mentality, until it was too late.

I got 2 SWD Lightning Links just under the May86 wire, it was all the NFA dealer I knew had left to sell.
 
The NRA endorsed the FOPA. The Hughes Amendment was a poison pill to an otherwise good bill.
 
I had never thought about MGs being illegal. In fact, I almost bought a Thompson in the early 1980s, but at the time, $1200, including the stamp, seemed like a lot of money for just a range toy.

Hindsight. :rolleyes:
 
I guess whats bugging me is that if it was in fact widely known that MG's were legal and there were magazines, MG shoots etc, how come ownership wasn't more common? I'm from California (but live in Nevada) and always thought the NFA banned everything--at least thats the impression CA law books give. Was it that no one wanted to jump through all the govt hoops?:confused:
 
The NRA endorsed the machinegun ban. I quit the NRA right after that happened.
Click to expand...

From what I know, the NRA did this so that some of the more restrictive parts of the GCA of '68 would be rolled back. Politics is all about compromise.
 
Yes. Why would you think otherwise?

There were magazines devoted to full auto, full auto shoots, books, etc.
Click to expand...
As someone who may have still been wearing pajamas with feet at the the time of the 86 ban I would have assumed that most shooters did not know machine guns were legal then. Most shooters (as in percentage of people that own/use guns, not percentage of gun owners who care enough to come to forums and talk about them) don't seem to know anything about the legality of suppressors or machine guns today and a very large number seem to just assume they're leo/mil only. Perhaps my sample is skewed since they're now out of most gun stores....

I guess whats bugging me is that if it was in fact widely known that MG's were legal and there were magazines, MG shoots etc, how come ownership wasn't more common?
Click to expand...
I don't know how much of it is truth but this http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob108.html article puts lists 50 rounds of 9mm at $22.50 in 1986. I wonder if high shooting costs could have kept shooters disinterested leading to more apathy...
 
Well Maybe the NRA would have the juice to go after the MG Ban of 86 if they had more than 4 Million members.

With 80+ Million gun owners and only 4M NRA members we have problem.

The other 76M are ridding our backs.
 
From what I know, the NRA did this so that some of the more restrictive parts of the GCA of '68 would be rolled back. Politics is all about compromise.
Click to expand...

That’s what they told everyone. “From my cold dead hands” is compromise? Is that just propaganda?
 
In fact, I almost bought a Thompson in the early 1980s, but at the time, $1200, including the stamp, seemed like a lot of money for just a range toy.

Hindsight.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would really bug me in a way (evene though no one had any real way of knowing until basically the last minute). Kinda makes me glad I was only 12 in 1986. That way I dont have to kick myself for not getting at least 1 MG while they were relatively affordable.
 
You won't get anywhere in politics if u don't compromise.
Click to expand...

Neville Chamberlain would have agreed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

This argument is the same one some hunters use when they support banning handguns, “assault rifles” and anything else they don’t want to own. To paraphrase, “First the came for the machineguns and I didn’t complain because I didn’t own a machinegun…. When they came for my guns, there was on one left to complain”.

The other 76M are ridding our backs.
Click to expand...

That’s what the NRA wants you to believe. The NRA does not represent firearms owners. It represents the firearms industry. They do what Winchester, Remington, et al tell them to, not the firearms owners. Firearms owners are just a necessary evil to be led around by the nose.
 
Yeah look where "no compromise" got GOA. They sure have a lot of influence on legislation don't they? Compromise doesn't have to mean u sell out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Heller and Machineguns
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
IllHunter
I
C
  • Locked
Judging Gun Rights: Are They Inalienable?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
1K
R127
R
S
  • Locked
The media and guns (and tragedy)
Replies
13
Views
1K
alienbogey
A
D
  • Locked
The Gunny Sounds Off On Firearms
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Davo
D
U
  • Locked
Help getting past handgun anxiety
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Dinosaur1
D
Back
Top