What "reasonable restrictions" should we accept for full auto

[maestro pistolero]

First, I am of the opinion that an M16 or similar weapon ought to be the MOST protected arm, because absent this right, the ability to intimidate a government gone truly awry would be severely diminished.

That said, my standard for what constitutes a truly tyrannical government is very high, and I think we are currently so far away from needing to actually exercise this aspect of our liberty, as to relegate it to an academic discussion, for now.

I believe the Heller decision is pretty good evidence that our system of government, cumbersome though it may be, has not completely lost it's ability to correct it's course.

To the question: If the right to have a newly manufactured, fully automatic weapon were restored, should there be any restrictions beyond what are usual for any other lawfully possessed weapon?

For example: What about laws that would require that, except for any arms currently being employed, that safe storage (i.e. a gunsafe) is mandatory.
In other words, If I were to own 5 M16s, 5 auto pistols, and 5 bolt actions rifles. Would it be reasonable, in order to prevent fully automatic rifles from being stolen from my home and turned against my neighbor, to be required to have any arms not currently in use for whatever lawful purpose, to be secured from theft?

Should there be any additional training required? How about basic psychological screening by a third party, (not the government)?

What other reasonable restrictions if any, should there be, if this right were to be restored?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

To the question: If the right to have a newly manufactured, fully automatic weapon were restored, should there be any restrictions beyond what are usual for any other lawfully possessed weapon?

Any restrictions on all the other weapons should be gone and then the response to the question would be the resounding retort, "What restrictions?"

Until then, I'll just say, "No."

Once we start locking up violent felons, the mentally untrustworthy, and restore responsibility for our youth in their parents(guardianship), there will be no cause for restrictions that are unconstitutional to begin with.

Woody

 

[Jdude]

A requirement to lock firearms not set aside for self defense or in current use either in a safe or a secure room? On the surface, I cannot see a problem with it, except that places like CA and DC will require multi million dollar rooms to store a box of .22s.

I would probably support a safe storage requirement on explosive devices, so long as they are not capricious.

But making it law that the owner must prevent theft of his property?
Stealing my truck is already illegal. Why would you want me to be punished for forgetting to lock the door?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Stealing my truck is already illegal. Why would you want me to be punished for forgetting to lock the door?

To make it more expensive, difficult, and intimidating for you to own a truck.

The only difference between a single shot and a fully automatic firearm is the cost of ammunition.

 

[RP88]

it isnt just full-autos, it's everything that the NFA covers -- from SBRs, full-autos, destructive device-type firearms, etc. You would basically have to oust the entire ATF. It is something that I hope to see the day of, but severely doubt that it will ever happen.

 

[COMPNOR]

I wouldn't be opposed to a mandatory training class. Get them to know the ins and outs. Even fire it. Who knows, maybe they'll realize that they really don't want a full auto to begin with.

Is it infringement? Perhaps. But I've seen too many idiots at the range who shouldn't be owning a semi-auto, that I would not want to be next to them if they had a full auto.

I don't know about gunsafes being a requirement, simply because if you're already owning a lot of firearms you should probably have one already. To me it just seems like the logical thing to do. A Full Auto might not be any more deadly, but its certainly no less deadly than a semi-auto or other, so why not apply the same requirements?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

should there be any restrictions beyond what are usual for any other lawfully possessed weapon?

No, there are already too many. I don't think there is ANYTHING that has the safety record of legally owned MGs and their owners.

 

[Drgong]

As a note, the heller case still allows for "reasonable" restrictions, just as say, speech is also limited in some ways ( you cannot yell "Fire" in a theater for example.) Example listed in the case was no firearms in Elementary Schools or a courthouse.

I think that if they removed the restrictions on production I would have no problem with the NFA background checks for Class 3 weapons.

I would be very happy though if the rules where less Byzantine in nature, and this goes from purchase of a long rifle to purchase of a machine gun.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Great comments, thanks, keep 'em coming.

 

[Zoogster]

I agree with you that a militia weapon, defined as the same type of select fire weapon currently employed by most nations is technicaly the most protected right.

However I must disagree with you that it is what strikes fear into the hearts of evil doers in government, corrupt military, the national guard that would be used for tyranical purposes, the security contractors, or the LEO agencies.

A .223 is easily defeated by the body armor most wear, and would wear while confiscating your arms or performing other tyranical activities, as well as the transports used by the politicians making such decisions.

Here is a video of a guard unit performing confiscations and entries into homes during Katrina:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8&feature=related

An entire team with M4s and wearing body armor is not dissauded by a home owner with a rifle, espcialy one in .223. Of course at that point anything shy of a cannon or explosives like grenades wouldn't do much good.

What is scary is someone with an extremely powerful accurate rifle that can be used to snipe and disappear. In Iraq for example insurgents build sniper positions into vehicles, fire one shot from a supressed rifle (which makes telling the direction more difficult while reducing muzzle flash) and the spotter/driver continues to drive blending right in with other traffic in what appears to be a vehicle occupied by one person.
Some of such positions fire from tail lights, under the bumper, and other places.

As body armor capabilities increase the required power of such a rifle and the performance requirements of the projectile do as well.

Of course during such an occupation or tyranical action people that have registered NFA items, like the supressor on the rifle mentioned above would be the first people visited. They would also be the first suspected or investigated if an NFA item was used.

Such units jump at the chance to face individuals in open combat. They train for it and many look forward to it. They are however afraid of being killed by an enemy that does not take them head on or present the opportunity to retaliate, whether with sniper fire, IEDs etc.
So arguably select fire weapons in intermediate calibers provide less deterent than many other things, like long range hunting rifles in powerful calibers. The kind kept for sporting purposes, like Elephants and other large African game.
Which is why in places like CA they are attacking and outlawed even single shot weapons chambered for things like the common .50BMG.
Gun control is about power.

The latest body armor capability they are aiming to provide widespread protection against is .308 or 7.62x51 AP rounds (which penetrate better than hunting ammo in the same caliber.) So even battle rifles in that cartridge may be obsolete in the near future.
What can be defeated 10 or 20 years from now by widely employed body armor will be even greater.


Select fire only provides a deterent in something like a Ma Deuce. Or an auto cannon and above.

 

[Ridgeway]

as far as select fire weapons if new registrations are allowed i don't see a need for any more changes in either direction

the nfa is probably the most reasonable restriction on full auto- i don't see a need for anything beyond it
it already has a safe storage req in it, in a sense- in that no others may have access to it, thus you are forced it put it in a safe if you live w/anyone else
probably not unreasonable for full auto
so i'd say the nfa is as it should be in regards to select fire

the process will keep such weapons easily out of the hands of criminals, yet still allow lawabiding owners access (i think a few forms and $200 is a small price to pay)

 

[bobbarker]

My buddy and I were actually talking about this the other day, and the conclusion we reached(As a FIRST step, not as a Final decision! Bear that in mind, before I get a BUNCH of nasty retorts) would be to allow Select fire weapons for those who are given training and use the weapon in conjunction with work. IE: Military, Police, personal bodyguards, Armored Car guards, Security for High Value Assets, etc. This would help to open the door to allowing all civilians to own them, AFTER GIVEN PROPER TRAINING! I do firmly believe, that even if all civilians that are allowed firearms are allowed to own select fire, they need to be adequately trained, and show capabilty to safely use the weapon.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The safety rules for proper handling and use of machine guns is the same as for any gun.

Woody

 

[Drgong]

as far as select fire weapons if new registrations are allowed i don't see a need for any more changes in either direction

the nfa is probably the most reasonable restriction on full auto- i don't see a need for anything beyond it
it already has a safe storage req in it, in a sense- in that no others may have access to it, thus you are forced it put it in a safe if you live w/anyone else
probably not unreasonable for full auto
so i'd say the nfa is as it should be in regards to select fire

the process will keep such weapons easily out of the hands of criminals, yet still allow lawabiding owners access (i think a few forms and $200 is a small price to pay)

>>>>+1<<<<<

 

[Ridgeway]

My buddy and I were actually talking about this the other day, and the conclusion we reached(As a FIRST step, not as a Final decision! Bear that in mind, before I get a BUNCH of nasty retorts) would be to allow Select fire weapons for those who are given training and use the weapon in conjunction with work. IE: Military, Police, personal bodyguards, Armored Car guards, Security for High Value Assets, etc. This would help to open the door to allowing all civilians to own them, AFTER GIVEN PROPER TRAINING! I do firmly believe, that even if all civilians that are allowed firearms are allowed to own select fire, they need to be adequately trained, and show capabilty to safely use the weapon.

that doesn't make sense to me
why would you want to further restrict them?

they are already legal, so talking about opening the way to civilian ownership is fruitless, b/c they are already legal- the only issue is that we should be able to purchase weapons made post 1986
what you describe is a more severe iteration of the present status quo
@ least now we can buy them if we can afford them; your hypo necessitates further restrictions upon ownership and training reqs


to the idea of training though- why should we require training just b/c an m16 shoots faster than an ar15?
if some1 wants to waste $ downrange, spraying @ watermelons it's their business
training won't do anything one way or another
we don't require training to drive a viper, despite it being a difficult car to drive
i'd rather shoot next to some1 w/an mp5 then drive next to a 18 yr old in a new viper

then who is going to decide what is adequate training?
if you can follow the basic safety rules i don't see a rationale to require some1 to go through extensive paramilitary training just to buy a gun that shoots 30 rds with 1 trigger pull instead of 30

there is no safety difference between your neighbor having a m16 or an ar15 in his safe; why impose further regulations than we presently have?

i guess i'm just rather surprised anyone would advocate imposing further restrictions on select fire than we presently have; now i just need $18k for an mp5...no reason to require training unless some1 wants to carry it- sure perhaps training would be suitable if some1 decides to try carrying a g18

(that said i agree most any responsible gun owner will seek training, but it's not the govs responsibility to require it in most scenarios- @ least in the context of only using the gun for plinking)

 

[Zoogster]

Next we will only need literacy tests and training requirements in additions to taxes/fees to vote.

In fact I am tired of some people excercising thier First Amendment rights and spewing out dangerous garbage. I say we also require reasonable restrictions, permits, and fees for anyone that wants to speak about politics or other important topics in public. In fact the Internet is arguably public, and even children get on and can see dangerous information and ideas presented. I think we need an internet license!

Public discussions are like full auto, and require more reasonable restrictions in place than private conversations!

Religions can be dangerous, in fact more people have been killed for religious differences than for most other reasons. So I say we also require licenses to be a part of various religions.

The First Amendment needs the same 'Reasonable Restrictions' as the Second Amendment.

(sarcasm)

 

[TAB]

as far as select fire weapons if new registrations are allowed i don't see a need for any more changes in either direction

the nfa is probably the most reasonable restriction on full auto- i don't see a need for anything beyond it
it already has a safe storage req in it, in a sense- in that no others may have access to it, thus you are forced it put it in a safe if you live w/anyone else
probably not unreasonable for full auto
so i'd say the nfa is as it should be in regards to select fire

the process will keep such weapons easily out of the hands of criminals, yet still allow lawabiding owners access (i think a few forms and $200 is a small price to pay)

for the most part I agree with this...For full auto anyways.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Perhaps this ought to be a new topic, but what would it take to allow new registrations? Is there just one law that would need to change? Then, assuming incorporation of 2A, would he States then not be able to ban them?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

the process will keep such weapons easily out of the hands of criminals, yet still allow lawabiding owners access (i think a few forms and $200 is a small price to pay)

I see your point but I have to respectfully disagree. $200 isn't a small price to pay on a $200 or $300 suppressor, or to shorten your barrel. It's only a small price to pay on MGs because of inflation. Back when they started this act (giving the reasons you stated) that tax cost as much as a Thompson, which was a very expensive sub gun at the time.
Gangsters still got them because they had money and cops in their pockets. The law abiding couldn't afford them for the most part. Adjusted for inflation that's over $3000 today just for the tax.
Bad people don't usually acquire guns through legal means so the $200 tax isn't an issue for them. Registered NFA items aren't used in crimes. Illegally modified ones or stolen/black market ones are.
I could live with the paperwork and even the $200 (for MGs, not AOW,SBR,SBS) if they reopened the registry and increased the staff to cut down on transfer times. If you think transfers take long now imagine how many would come through if they reopened it!

but what would it take to allow new registrations? Is there just one law that would need to change?

Repeal the Hughes amendment to the FOPA of 1986 for domestically made guns. I think for imports, all or part of the GCA of 1968 would be repealed (to allow AKs and others in, although they are pretty easily conveted to FA from what I hear, and there are plenty of semi auo ones in the country).

 

[Zoogster]

NFA firearms are legal in most states. They were legal to purchase brand new until 1986, when a sneaky Hughes Amendment was added by voice vote after many pro gun people had gone home. The voice vote did not even count the votes, just in case. It has been commented it may not have even won the voice vote under those conditions and the nays sounded louder.

It was then signed into law.

This sounds like some type of sneaky conspiracy theory that belongs in fiction, yet it really happened exactly that way right here in the United States on an issue of this magnitude.


Technicaly all that would be necessary is legislation that repealed just the Hughes Amendment. At that point the NFA would revert to being the most strict federal restriction on such arms in addition to 922 compliance laws.
However now that such items have been demonized I imagine many states would pick up the slack and further restrict such items, in addition to those states that already have.

 

[maestro pistolero]

However now that such items have been demonized I imagine many states would pick up the slack and further restrict such items, in addition to those states that already have.

Unless prohibited by a clear and binding federal court decision, right?

 

[3 gun]

None.

 

[macadore]

It seems to me that the restrictions should be the same as driving a car. You should have to take a test and get a license. The tests should cover safe handling and shooting and the legal aspects of owning and shooting a full auto firearm. Once you are certified as a reasonable competent adult, you should be able to purchase any hand held weapon or accessory without paying any additional fees. I doubt that will happen.

Unlike some on this forum, I believe there are some weapons that should not be owned by anyone but the military. Many years ago I saw an ad in Shotgun News for a vehicle mounted, belt fed, remote controlled, machinegun. I don’t want anyone driving around with one of those mounted under his or her hood. That’s why I specified hand held.

 

[Ridgeway]

I see your point but I have to respectfully disagree. $200 isn't a small price to pay on a $200 or $300 suppressor, or to shorten your barrel. It's only a small price to pay on MGs because of inflation. Back when they started this act (giving the reasons you stated) that tax cost as much as a Thompson, which was a very expensive sub gun at the time.

my post was solely in regards to select fire weapons- not sbs, aow's, sbr's, or suppressors (I think removal of the aforementioned with the exception of mg's from the nfa would be a valid argument; or in the alternative imposing only a $5 xfer/making tax on them while keeping them on the registry)

& yes I'd agree $200 was not reasonable back in 1934; but as long as it's not indexed for inflation I don't think $200 is too onerous on a $1k+ rifle
yes i'd rather get rid of or lower the transfer tax, as it serves no purpose, unlike the forms which serve a [arguably] valid purpose

 

[Ergosphere]

First, I think your premise is flawed: it's not what we will accept, it's what we can get. IMO, 18 USC 922(o) will not be overturned.

Zoogster, body armor doesn't provide anywhere near 100% coverage, and a hit to soft body armor can be lethal even if it fails to penetrate. I watched that video, and it's deplorable... national guard breaking into houses with their M4s shouldered. Those people are without honor.

For that reason, and the fact that Heller was decided 5-4, I must respectfully but forcefully disagree with this statement from the OP:

...my standard for what constitutes a truly tyrannical government is very high, and I think we are currently so far away from needing to actually exercise this aspect of our liberty, as to relegate it to an academic discussion, for now.

A month ago, we came very close to falling into the abyss that you call "academic"... only one man's vote prevented that fall.