Discussion in 'Legal' started by Dmack_901, Dec 27, 2004.
Anyway, if we could, would you want to?
And I wholeheartedly support it. I would go to the range a lot more if I had a couple of submachineguns. I would love a full auto krink, mini-uzi and maybe something belt fed as well. I have pretty much every other type of gun I want already.
MP5 and all its cousins
M60, MG42, Vickers, M1919, etc (new manufacture is the only thing that will ever make these mostly sheetmetal (but rare) guns affordable again)
M4 (tho I guess you could just combine an M4 upper with a funswitch lower)
Probably a billion others I forgot about.
Not to mention the relatively "affordable" uzi, mac and sten series of guns would go from multiple thousands down to a few hundred per gun. The transfer tax would be most of the cost of the gun actually.
Plus, NFA dealers will love the ban being lifted since it will actually let them sell more than half a dozen guns a year. Would you rather make 10 percent profit on a super expensive machine gun or 20 percent profit on a cheap one that you can sell 1000 of in a year?
Firearms Owners Protection Act.
So we could end up with cheaper machine guns, but national gun registration ... in which case we'd be closer to having to use those machine guns
I believe we'd have to roll back the '68 GCA to get those babies. It was, someone correct me if I'm wrong, made illegal to import foreign machineguns for civillian use in 1968. That's why the only "real" MP-5s that you can get as a civilian (not sear conversions) are dealer samples. Of course you have to become a dealer to get a dealer sample and then drop it (assuming it is a pre-86 DS).
I suspect sporting purposes will have to fall before 86 MG ban gets lifted. If the MG ban falls first, it will require local manufacture to get most of the cool guns. We especially wouldnt be able to get military surplus from other countries through that route.
Not to mention, sporting purposes is a much easier part of the law to get rid of politically. If most people agree guns are for self defense (40 out of 50 state legislatures cant be wrong), then obviously a "legal purposes other than self defense" test is bogus. The justifications for lifting the MG ban are more difficult to justify to a non-gun person. There are many angles of attack though, including attacking NFA directly, or by posing it as a revenue generation measure.
Any help for the slow guy??
Nope. Gun Control Act of 1968 made all automatic weapons imported after 1968 dealer samples (that's why we have pre-may dealer samples, those were all imported after 1968). Any transferable FALs that were imported after that were semi-auto when imported, and converted later.
Yes, it was jammed into the bill by an anti. Same way Feinstein killed the firearm manufacturer protection bill with the AWB renewal part.
Not true. Congress could easily pass new legislation amending that portion of the US Code, rather than repeal the whole law. Stuff like that happens all the time.
Sure, although I doubt I'd buy a fully automatic firearm even if the prices suddenly became reasonable: I enjoy loading my own, but not that much.
Amending the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 to once again allow civilian manufacture and ownership of Class III weapons manufactured since the date of the act's enactment will encourate American ingenuity in arms development, and help us more strongly fight the war on terror. Criminals and terrorists don't jump through all these hoops - give us more ammunition to fight with!
You are correct ... I just worded that poorly. I was trying to say that the only way to get political support to repeal it would probably require making a "deal with the devil" (one of those anti devils like Feinstein) and getting rid of the "good parts" of the '86 FOPA as well as the bad.
But, yes, although it is not on the top of my list.
AND the '34 NFA
Something to be said for hitting something with one shot
I'd get a "fun gun" in .22(cheap to feed), and a SHTF gun, in a reasonable caliber. That inspires a thread.
Incorrect, the prohibition on national registration of owners was a seperate clause of the FOPA from the MG prohibition. The NFA is not a registration list, its a list of tax compliance, SBSs and SBRs must still be registered.
922(o) is the section we're looking at:
The law outlawed the possession of all MGs, except for pre-86 ones.
All Congress and President Bush have to do is pass a law that says "Title 10, Section 922(o) is repealed." and we get cheap MGs (under the 1934/1968 rules), but the rest of the FOPA remains intact.
I'm not talking about how the law works or is written, I'm talking about political viability.
In order to get rid of the machine gun ban that exists within the '86 FOPA, the antis and liberals would require a bit of quid pro quo ... they would only support the repeal of the entire '86 FOPA in order to get the machine gun ban overturned.
Of course if we can get the machinegun ban part of the '86 FOPA overturned without having to give up something else, then I say go for it ... I just don't see that happening (just look at what the libs did to the bill to prevent frivolous law suits against the gun industry...we'd either end up losing our protection against registration, or we'd get another AWB or some other bit of anti gun legislation)
Just repeal the nasties in '86... I don't mind paying the manufacturing tax - I wanna make my own Sten!
I just _love_ reading SGN or gunlist in the cafeteria at work... Folks will ask me if I can "just order a gun through the mail" with a horrified look on their face. That's when I get to explain to 'em that "yes, I can do that..." but that I also have to have it sent to a licensed dealer, and jump through all the other hoops... And that life's been this way since 1968...
Why would the antis get quid pro quo? We control Congress and the White House, there's no need for compromise. We just need to get those that lean pro-gun to stand up for their beliefs, just like how the FOPA was originally passed.
Separate names with a comma.