SBS/SBS or Automatic

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

If you could choose to have one prohibition stricken from both Federal and all state laws today, choosing between either the ban on the importation of automatic weapons/having to pay the tax to purchase OR the ban/tax on short barreled rifles and shotguns, which would you choose. Basically, if you could have one or the other become totally unregulated overnight, which would you rather have?

 

[PTK]

Undoing the Hughes Amendment in the 1986 FOPA would be my choice. I figure you meant that, not "importation" of MGs, since even if we could import those we couldn't own them due to the Hughes Amendment.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm not trying to be super specific with statutes and case laws here. There are a lot of restrictions on various government levels on guns that can shoot more than once per trigger pull. There are a lot of restrictions at various government levels on rifles and shotguns that have barrel lengths less than 16 or 18 inches. If you could all of a sudden just go to a gun shop and buy either an SBR/SBS or a MG with about as much hassle and paperwork as it takes to buy any old hunting rifle, which would you choose?

 

[Gord]

I'd rather have free reign over SBR and SBS mods. I can think of a lot of practical and just-plain-fun applications for shortened barrels or stock kits for handguns, sans $200 tax. I'd chop my 870 down to 14" this instant if I could.

Full-auto, on the other hand, just makes me wince at the thought of ammo costs. Besides, I can't see why I'd ever want anything more than a Lage-11, and those are only, what, $6k or so? That really isn't too bad. I'd pay that and likely will someday.

Of course, suppressors should be added as an option as well.

 

[PTK]

Okay, it's just that your original question seemed to specifically address the importation of MGs.

From a practicality standpoint, I'd say MGs would be best off being completely unregulated - give the citizens back our teeth, is all....

 

[TheCol.U.S.M.C.]

Full Auto all the way

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

As for me, I would prefer SBR/SBS. There are so many more weapon configurations that open up if the restrictions were lifted. Having a compact carbine in the trunk of a car, or a small shotgun inside a backpack. Even just being able to put a standard Glock into a stock system for extra support and accuracy. As a .mil guy, I do get the option to use select fire weapons at training, and honestly, full-auto is pretty useless outside of vehicle mounted crew served weapons. And that's with essentially unlimited ammunition. As a civilian, even if I had an M4 with 3rd burst or FA, I would never use it. It really is just a fast way to burn through mags with little value in combat. I personally see the utility of a small carbine that one can conceal or wield easily indoors to be of greater practical value.

 

[Rail Driver]

I say SBS/SBR. I'd love to get a 10" upper and put it on my rifle without paperwork, wait times, and $200. (no discussions about constructive possession and all that crud please, this is a hypothetical)

 

[PTK]

As a .mil guy, I do get the option to use select fire weapons at training, and honestly, full-auto is pretty useless outside of vehicle mounted crew served weapons. And that's with essentially unlimited ammunition.

...which is why, of course, almost no military forces currently deployed by the USA or any other modern country have full-auto weapons in each and every person's hands.

 

[LHRGunslinger]

I'd like to see some parts of the Clinton-Yeltsin trade agreement removed so I could get my hands on the MP412 REX. A .357 Magnum top-break revolver.

 

[Shytheed Dumas]

When it comes to pure inexpensive fun, it would be very hard to beat a full auto .22 and I would own one immediately if the silly restrictive laws were lifted.

 

[CHEVELLE427]

I had to go with the short barrel guns,
I cant fork out 5-15k for an automatic,
But I can take a saw to my old shotgun.

 

[41magsnub]

Having to pick one..MG definitely.. the costs would go way down. They are only high right now due to the artificial limited supply enforced by the Hughes amendment. After everything shook out I imagine a full auto AR-15 would only be a little more than a semi-auto one, and even then just because of the novelty of it since the MFG costs are the same either way. SBR/SBS/suppressors are not THAT hard to get right now. Annoying, but not difficult.

Additionally, there would be new makes and models available which we haven't seen in the US for a long time.

 

[forindooruseonly]

There should be a suppressor option, to me that is the most annoying of the regulated items. Other than that I voted MGs because of the limited supply. Open it up and make it cheap. I can build an SBS anytime but there are no new machine guns entering the registry, but more and more shooters interested in them.

 

[CleverNickname]

Machine guns have no barrel length or OAL limits so you could have both by just getting the laws on machine guns removed. Well, I guess single shot or manually operated SBRs or SBSes would still be restricted...

As for ammo costs, it's called "select fire" for a reason.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

^ that was my thoughts. MG overrides length restrictions.

I had to go with the short barrel guns,
I cant fork out 5-15k for an automatic,
But I can take a saw to my old shotgun.

Remove the Hughes amendment and they'll be back down to the same price as semi-auto variants. The reason they are so expensive is the artificial supply cap due to that amendment (that apparently didn't pass but they stuck it in the FOPA anyway, thanks a lot guys ).

 

[TraditionalCatholic]

Would have to vote for select fire weapons. It would be very nice to be able to purchase a brand spankin' new full auto off the shelf at a dealer.

 

[waterhouse]

I have little to no desire to own a full auto. I've shot a lot of them, and always had a good time, but I wouldn't want to pay for the ammo. I do love the full auto .22 conversion ARs, but given the choice I'd still pick shorter barrels.

As for ammo costs, it's called "select fire" for a reason.

This is true, but since I wouldn't choose to use the full auto feature I'd prefer to have shorter barrels, which I do find useful.

It isn't worth $200 tax to me to go from 18" to 14", but if the barrel cost was the only issue I'd already have a 14" barrel for my shotgun.

Given the choice, my first pick would be no laws on suppressors, then SBS/SBR, then full auto.

 

[CHEVELLE427]

full auto would be tons of fun, but i would run through my ammo stash a hurry,
like shooting a 22, once i start i don't want to stop. for some reason running 10 fast rounds out of that ruger just feels good

 

[dovedescending]

SBR/SBS. I think a few super-portable "long" guns would be just the ticket.

 

[desidog]

Um, all of the above?

I'm surprised that no-one has used Heller yet as a means to legalize barrels of any size.

My interpretation of 2A is that civilians should have firearms to rival an oppressive government; which in this day and age is a moot point since fighter jets and ICBMs have changed the game since the flintlock...so yes to F/A as well.

Further, I imagine that my neighbors would like me more if i had a suppressor. In Europe it's rude to bang away at the range and force the guy in the next lane to double up on his hearing-protection; and being next to a guy with a big muzzle brake is just plain not fun.

I think the only way this will happen is after the next revolution...Design revolution that is. All us gun-toters will be laughed at by the guy with the +/-40 Watt Phased-Pulse Plasma Rifle. I mean, the military standard M16/M4-design is older than the majority of the guys in the military who use it. A lot of the lower receivers too.

 

[Hanzo581]

I don't know a whole lot about the laws here, but wouldn't allowing full auto without special paperwork a much more substantial change? Right now unless you are well off you can't afford a MG, but anyone willing to fork over $200 can buy a SBR fairly cheap right?

 

[41magsnub]

I'll explain my position another way. I can have any sort of SBS/SBR/Suppressor I want (as long as it does not stray into MG territory) with some hassle and a $200 tax stamp. However, I cannot have an MG MFG'd after 1986.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Right now unless you are well off you can't afford a MG, but anyone willing to fork over $200 can buy a SBR fairly cheap right?

Ha. I wish.

 

[devildog32713]

To me it seems best to keep the regulation on laws with machine guns, BUT, do away with the machine gun had to have been manufactured before May 1986, that rule makes no sense, doesn't help anyone except Brady