Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What if BATF Adds Semi Autos to the NFA?

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by SharpsDressedMan, Dec 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. reggie_love

    reggie_love Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Massive noncompliance.

    I would rather chew glass than deal with the BATFE. I would rather deal with the hardest, most tattooed Crips; I'd probably be safer anyway.
     
  2. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    Location:
    Virginia
    I had no problems with them when I had my FFL and SOT. If you act decently with them, and obey the rules, you can expect to be treated likewise. Act like a wise guy, and they'll push back.
     
  3. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,138
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Wait times would likely go from 6+ months to 6+ years
     
  4. Kiln

    Kiln Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,465
    Keep in mind that these guys are part of a regulatory government branch. They're not there for your own good.

    I don't want to have to "play by the rules" to own a semi automatic rifle. Good luck taking it from me without creating a public outcry anyways.
     
  5. reggie_love

    reggie_love Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    I make a point not to disrespect anybody, but forgive me for not trusting an over-armed tax agency with wanton massacres to its name.
     
  6. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Sounds like Obama would need to hire a bunch more government employees. Shovel ready jobs and whatnot...
     
  7. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Texas
    I would not bet on the government compensating the owners for confiscation of their property. Just look back at history and you will see that they have confiscated property previously with no compensation. That's what the government did with respect to the slaves in the Civil War. Like it or not, at that time, slaves were legal property and the government declared that you cannot own that property anymore and confiscated them (i.e. set them free).
     
  8. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Texas
    The ancient Chinese had a torture / punishment that was called "Death By a Thousand Cuts". I have to wonder if the way that we are allowing the antis to take away our 2nd Amendment rights is best compared to this or the case of boiling a frog starting out in cold water. With each generation, we lose more of our 2nd Amendment rights and people grumble a bit and then go about their business. At what point do we take a stand and say, "NO MORE"?
     
  9. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Texas
    It's not like they would be opposed to that. Just look what they did to the Branch Davidians in Waco, just so that they could manufacture an incident to get the Brady Bill passed.
     
  10. VVelox

    VVelox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Chicago
    txnative1951, that is a truly terrible analogy as the "property" in question was sapient. It also makes you look like a southern sympathizer.

    A much better analogy would be drugs.
     
  11. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't want to hijack this thread, but the facts of the matter is that at that time, slaves were legal property and the government took them away without due compensation. Don't use the morals of today to judge our ancestors.

    You're probably right about the drugs though. I seem to remember that at one time, certain drugs were completely legal, but they ended up being controlled substances and were no longer legal. Now, whether these drugs were actually confiscated by the government, I do not know. I have to suspect that most of them ended up just being used and their replacement was then illegal / controlled.
     
  12. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Texas
    I would like to think that they would not be able to pass it, but the mere fact that these leftists are going to use the CT incident as an excuse to pass it should have us a bit nervous.

    Hell, they can't even agree to be fiscally responsible and I think that is something that is supposed to be in their job description.
     
  13. 552BDL

    552BDL Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    19
    Location:
    WY
    This.

    Thumb-hole stocked rifles/shotguns are included to be registered w/NFA. I've a bolt action with a factory built thumb-hole stock!

    Furthermore, the ATF is provided with additional funding to help make this happen, in the legislation! Don't think it aint going to happen, and start some serious planning NOW!
     
  14. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Texas
    Just like the Democrats -- trying to take away our rights and increase the size of the government all at the same time.
     
  15. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,523
    The way I read her summary on her website thumb hole stocks would be considered a "military feature" similar to pistol grips. The bill would ban new, and require registration for existing, semi auto guns with one military feature. Thus your bolt gun would be safe. However a whole bunch of other guns wouldn't be.
     
  16. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,114
    Location:
    Illinois
    Safe in round #1 maybe.

    As soon as they figure out a competent shooter with a 338 can get kills out to a mile, they'll ban those.

    Then the same with 300 Win Mags and 7mm Magnum once they realize how far THOSE are good for before passing through the transsonic threshhold.

    Then... get the point?

    There's some people on this board who can get high-confidence head shots with a 30 cal out to 1000 yards.
     
  17. doom

    doom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    Illinois
    If I'm not mistaken, semi-auto pistols would also fall under this, guys, instead of playing what if, let's actually do something productive. Call your legislator, get involved, if more people had done that in prior years, we would not have been dealing with silly NFA taxes or some of the other crap we're contending with. Get of your duff and stop being afraid, tell your representative to vote no on feinsteins bill from hell.
     
  18. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,816
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    ATF business regulators and inspectors are one set of people; the criminal investigators are another.
     
  19. MenaceMan47

    MenaceMan47 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    116
    The thought of having to register what I already have owned for years did kinda spook me. I already have an sbr ar15, but I do own a Norinco MAK90 made in 1993 which I've owned for about 10 years now. It was bought privately, and I don't have a receipt for it (used to, but it got misplaced :p)

    How would someone go upon proving ownership in my situation, if this God-awful ban were to ever be passed? I would imagine many people would be in this situation, having to prove they ALREADY owned it before the would-be ban went into effect.

    Honestly, given the educated replies on this post, it looks like this new ban would not be feasible at all. But... you never know.
     
  20. txnative1951

    txnative1951 member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    Texas
    I have to wonder at what point the people will finally decide that they've had enough of this excrement, rise up, and take action against these traitors to our constitution. Although there are more gun owners than there are cops and military combined, I suspect that the government is relying on the fact that most people just don't want to cause waves. They figure that as long as they are just slightly reducing our rights each time, no one will stand up to them. Unfortunately, they're probably right. Maybe with a few high profile cases of people standing up to the government when they come to confiscate our firearms, there might result in a movement aimed at restoring our freedoms.
     
  21. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    Vegas
  22. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,523
    Safe under this particular bill, which was the topic being discussed and thus the context in which the statement I made ought to be read.

    As to street sweepers and USAS 12s being reclassified. Their being semi auto or not is largely irrelevant.

    The ATF was able to reclassify the street sweeper and USAS 12 because they had statutory authority. The statute did not require the street sweeper to be semi auto to be reclassified. The applicable statute is 18 USC 921(4)(B)

    Do you see a semi auto requirement? The thing could be a break action single shot if the attorney general finds it is not generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and it has a bore greater than .05". The street sweeper and the USAS 12 had .72" bores and thus were at the mercy of the AG's determination. He would be limited in some respects as to what he could find not suitable.

    Now after reading the statute (it's funny how often that can clear up misconceptions) it should be pretty apparent that Obama cannot simply tell the AG to reclassify ARs or all semi autos. Your typical AR has a .223" bore and thus cannot be found to be a destructive device under this section of the code. What semi auto rifles are you aware of that have a bore over .50" and are currently not classified as DDs? That is the universe of what could be reclassified without changing the statute.
     
  23. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    Location:
    Virginia
    Yes, but it took a constitutional amendment (the 13th) to do so. Keep in mind that the previous Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves -- it applied only to areas that were not under Union control. I don't think a constitutional amendment confiscating guns without compensation would have any chance of passage. There are plenty of legal precedents that say that destroying the economic value of something -- say, by making something illegal to sell or transfer -- is a "taking" that would trigger compensation under the 5th Amendment.
     
  24. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,931
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    I have my doubt that this is possible. Look at the UK; guns turned in, violent crime goes through the roof, now they are going after knives to be turned in as well, citizens being prosecuted for defending themselves from a violent attacker inside their own home by using a knife as a defensive weapon. When you see the UK rise up and demand their rights back, you'll see the line drawn where the people take a stand.

    We have a loooooong way to go before we get to where they are today.
     
  25. kell490

    kell490 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    Would you support a compromise that would allow them to ban what they define as a Assault weapon, but only allow transfer and new manufacture as an NFA weapon. Also drop the 1986 Machine gun ban allowing newly manufactured Machine guns to be sold again and allow importation as well. Most states where they ban machineguns like California and New York already have AW bans. Would you give up one for the other? This would in effect create registration for a big portion of semi-autos in America.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page