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. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,564
    No. I would not support such a "compromise." Registering all the weapons that would fall under feinsteins definition of assault weapons is an unprecedented step in gun control and not worth the prospect of more affordable full autos. Further, they aren't really interested in any actual compromise. Rather, they simply want you to forfeit more of your rights.

    IMHO Feinsteins bill violates the second. Your proposed compromise does not better serve the purposes of the second amendment than the status quo. It also does not better serve most gun owners. You are aware that Feinstein's bill defines this as an assault weapon and would require it to be registered?

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVsDEMWW5N6oJrz0tUYEZr5MseGQL1ArHd-ISNWynf44oaGZh9sg.jpg

    I'd rather save my pennies for a full auto than to sign on to incredibly wide spread gun registration and the other crap being called for by Feinstein and her ilk.
     
  2. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,781
    Location:
    Central PA
    Except as an idle thought exercise these "how about XYZ compromise" debates really serve no purpose. Not only would we NOT support registering millions of legal firearms already in circulation for some trade-off, but they aren't ASKING what "we" want in return.

    Notice that "compromises" in gun control don't work like compromises elsewhere. "They" don't GIVE things, don't offer to loosen regulations in exchange for clamping down elsewhere. They aren't getting the public all riled up over the attack in CT in order to reopen the machine gun registry. :rolleyes: That's just NOT going to come up.

    Unless... unless OUR side introduces it as a "poison pill" amendment to some piece of legislation.

    Otherwise, no.
     
  3. kell490

    kell490 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    In politics they aren't going to ask anyone it will come down to a bill being floated around to see how many of them will support it and amendments will change the bill. My bet is Feinstein's bill will not be introduced except maybe at committee level. Obama will probably tell her to wait until Biden's liberal committee gets done. What they will do is create a comprehensive bill with some sort of mental health twist much like 94 crime bill where new AW ban will be a part of it. If they learned anything from 94 if they just do a gun ban it won't get very far. Feinstein's bill is way too restrictive in it's current form to go much of anywhere anyway. They might be able to get a 10 round mag ban again on any new manufacturing much like the old ban. Also depends on if we have more mass shootings seems like last few years there have been a lot of these nut jobs. Actually I hope they do try to pass just a gun ban because that will insure it won't pass Feinstein is stupid to try and push this ban now all it's doing is rallying gun owners. Liberal activism against guns has never been in high numbers as the NRA, and gun owners.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2013
  4. aka108

    aka108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,988
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    The current Administration will do as it pleases, Constitution and other laws be damned. It will impose its will and when questioned will simply say sue us.
     
  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,781
    Location:
    Central PA
    Fortunately the administration doesn't pass laws, and it's executive order powers are a lot more limited than most folks (at least on gun boards) seem to believe.
     
  6. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,564
    It doesn't pass the laws but it does help to drive the legislative agenda in a number of ways. It also signs them into law. There is a reason the health care law is called obamacare and not pelosicare or Reidcare.
     
  7. helotaxi

    helotaxi Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,218
    The power of an executive order is only restrictive when Congress has the stones to challenge them or someone does in fact sue them. Until then...

    Laws have been struck down by the courts in the past as being disproportionately burdensome on law enforcement. There's no way that this proposal could be construed any other way.
     
  8. kell490

    kell490 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    A friend thinks Obama will use a provisions in the Patriot act to ban firearms using executive orders. The courts have struck down Exec orders when they use them to create laws. Usually the president can only use it when a law has been written allowing for it. Like Bush H used the 1968 GCA to ban imports of non sporting weapons.
     
  9. jon_in_wv

    jon_in_wv Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,816
    Executive orders only apply to implementation of policy of government agencies or to existing laws. He can't change or create laws, I should say legally at least.
     
  10. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,781
    Location:
    Central PA
    Right...and what?

    Biden said they might try to implement some executive orders. Of course. He doesn't say that executive orders give the President the power to ban guns, make magazines illegal, raise taxes, make ARs NFA firearms, etc... and stops short of saying ANYTHING that he thinks those executive orders could do at all.

    Nothing new there...
     
  11. YunGun

    YunGun Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    Location:
    KS
    On the contrary - that will be one of the few rifles NOT classified as an 'Assault Weapon' were it to pass (unless that wasn't a .22 caliber rifle?).

    Direct quote from the NRA-ILA memo:
    "Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s."

    Those'll probably be next though....


    ...First they came for the assault weapons......
     
  12. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,564
    Good to see, in some ways anyhow. They may have received a more fleshed out version of her proposals. What she initially had as a summary on her website, would have included that gun.

    We shall see what she actually submits. That is the language that will really count.
     
  13. kell490

    kell490 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    So I'm riding home today I hear that Obama is going to use Executive orders now the only way I can see him doing something that could do much is to try and reclassify all what they call, "assault weapons" as non sporting and required to be registered under NFA like they did with the street sweeper. It will take court action to stop it. NRA will probably get an injunction from a federal court. Hopefully this takes long enough to get to mid term elections. You know Obama would not even say this unless he knows that the house GOP isn't going to pass anything.
     
  14. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,781
    Location:
    Central PA
    ONCE MORE: HE CAN'T DO THAT by E.O. The "street sweepers" were reclassified easily because ALL firearms over .50 cal are technically Title II "Destructive Devices" unless exempted as particularly useful for sporting purposes. Shoguns normally are covered by a blanket exemption as inherently sporting weapons BUT that's rescind-able, and was rescinded in the case of a few particularly scary-looking models.

    This is all in the text of the law known as the National Firearms Act. The government already had, and has, the power to change the classification of weapons falling under that description.

    Declaring a semi-auto rifle, of greater than 26" overall, and having a barrel over 16" long, and a bore of less than .50 cal to be an NFA firearm would take a re-writing of the NFA, and that can ONLY be done by congress.
     
  15. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    Can everyone take a deep breath and remember who is saying this?
     
  16. Agentxman

    Agentxman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10
    let me ask this question. If we were to register our semi autos under nfa. what would stop someone from milling out their lower receiver and make it full auto?
     
  17. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,781
    Location:
    Central PA
    There are five different general types of "firearm" (including silencers) that must be registered now under Title II of the NFA.

    Registering a Short Barreled Rifle doesn't let you ALSO make it a machine gun. Registering a machine gun doesn't ALSO let you build a silencer into it.

    Different registrations for different firearms.

    If somehow, some way, ARs were reclassified as falling under an expanded Title II, they'd be added as another type of registered firearm.
     
  18. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    To add to what Sam said, what would stop someone from milling out their lower to make it FA is what stops them now...the threat of jail time and a serious fine. If you showed up at a range with your recently registered AR-15 and began firing full automatic, you might draw some unwanted attention. If said attention was in the guise of an ATF agent, you could be asked to produce your Form 1 or 4. The Form would show that your AR was registered (under the new rules) as a SA gun. Bad juju.
     
  19. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,054
    Location:
    Virginia
    I agree with what is being said about the various categories of NFA items, and that a new category (military-style semiautomatics) would not necessarily affect the existing categories. But registering literally millions of new guns would be a massive undertaking. The Registry is already a mess. It's quite plausible that the legislation would be worded so as to provide an across-the-board amnesty for everything, so that the ATF would be able to purge the system, and go to better database management. It would be prudent to prepare for any such eventuality.
     
  20. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,781
    Location:
    Central PA
    To that note, I posted this in another thread:

    And, the pie-in-the-sky plan to make AR-15s and/or other "military style auto-loaders" fall under Title II and be registered has about a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law. Forcing registration of approximately 50,000,000 firearms -- but who knows really how many? -- would just about grind the fed.gov to a halt. The ATF is processing about 105,000 Title II registrations a year right now and it takes them 6 months + to get each one done. So, register all semi-auto rifles of the most common type? Yeah...THAT'S 238 YEARS WORTH of registrations they'd have to swallow. You can expect your registration papers back in the year 2251. And they can't nail you for it if they haven't gotten around to processing the paperwork on your "grandfathered" registration...

    Still think this is going to happen?

    Now look at Canada and their firearms registration law. It was so comprehensively IGNORED throughout most of the country that it became an absolute joke. Unenforced and unenforcable, it eventually was retracted as it showed the government to be utterly too weak to enforce the laws it had passed. The US Congress will not risk passing a law that the citizens have the physical ability ... in fact, almost utter certainty ... of ignoring and refusing to comply with, with near certain immunity.
     
  21. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    Well said, Sam!
     
  22. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    ^^ Concur.
     
  23. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,054
    Location:
    Virginia
    The idea for Title II registration of military-style semiautomatics was a desperation move on Feinstein's part. She has to find a way to avoid an outright confiscation, because that would trigger a 5th Amendment "taking" for which compensation would be required, and the government simply doesn't have the money. So the antis think that these guns can be choked with red tape, bringing them under the NFA registry. This obviously won't work. What "experts" are advising these people?
     
  24. BigRugerLover

    BigRugerLover Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    Ozarks
    Advice please - the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, mentioned several times in this post, refers to private property "taken for public use." If they take my guns under this clause, it won't be "for public use" - they will destroy them. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know about this - will a knowledgeable person please add your two cents worth?
     
  25. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,054
    Location:
    Virginia
    There have been court cases (going all the way to the Supreme Court) that held that if the government destroys the economic value of something that was previously legally owned -- for example, by confiscating it -- that's tantamount to a "taking for public use." I don't have the citations off hand, but I'm sure someone could look them up. The big exception, of course, was the freeing of the slaves, but it took a Civil War and a constitutional amendment to do it. If the South hadn't fought the Civil War, the owners would have had to have been compensated for the value of their slaves.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page