Will we ever get to have fully auto weapons?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I know some people say, Incorporation first, and then fully automatic weapons and what not next.



With SCOTUS saying "weapons in common usage" and fully automatic's not being in common usage that doesn't look good, but people say if they were legal then many more people would have them and they would be in common usage..............





What is the chance of us ever being able to possess fully automatic weapons?






Basically a repeal of the NFA Act of 1934 and without having to have a Class 3.




(Sorry, I was in a hurry when I the OP.)
.

 

[Jim K]

In most states, you can legally have auto weapons right now.

But without restrictions and with new manufacture for public sale? In theory, possible. In reality, so unlikely as to be impossible. About on a par with Congress suddenly legalizing heroin, cocaine, counterfeit money, and mass murder. Don't hold your breath.

(BTW, "fully semi automatic" is a contradiction in terms. I assume you mean automatic weapons, i.e, machineguns.)

Jim

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Yep...pay the tax and fire away.

 

[TexasRifleman]

What is the chance of us ever being able to possess fully automatic weapons?

Depends on your income. They are legal already.

But like Jim says, as far as the registry goes, "snowballs chance" is the term I'd use.

Doesn't mean it's not worth fighting towards, but it's a tough vote for a politician to openly vote "for legalizing more machine guns".

Maybe, just maybe, an amnesty in the next decade for war bring backs etc, if it's not too late.

 

[cbrgator]

As the others have said, they are legal right now. But they are heavily regulated and very rare. If your question is more towards easing restrictions on manufacturing and acquisition, it would take an amazingly radical shift of public policy to amend or repeal the NFA Act of 1934.

 

[General Geoff]

If your question is more towards easing restrictions on manufacturing and acquisition, it would take an amazingly radical shift of public policy to amend or repeal the NFA Act of 1934.

That or a really sneaky pro-gun congresscritter who throws an NFA amendment into a totally unrelated "must-pass" bill at the eleventh hour...

 

[spartywrx]

That or a really sneaky pro-gun congresscritter who throws an NFA amendment into a totally unrelated "must-pass" bill at the eleventh hour...

Hey now, where did you pick up a copy of the Brady's playbook?


But seriously, this is what needs to be done. Look at the credit card bill and the Amtrak amendment and what we almost got with the Thune amendment. They've done it to us for decades, lets start playing the same dirty game back. It worked for them, why can't it work for us?

Sure it would be immoral or against our principles, but this is politics. Principles get you nowhere in D.C.

 

[mljdeckard]

MT and TX are working on legislation to directly challenge the .gov's jurisdiction to interfere with firearms that never leave their state. Meaning, the .gov uses the interstate commerce clause to claim that they have a reason to control, guns, but if a gun is made and used in a particular state, and never leaves that state, and is stamped as such, it's not the .gov's problem.

Utah is working on a similar law, and (so they say) it is being written in a way so as to make it stronger than the MT and TX laws. Now understand, the intent of these laws isn't really to let you buy an Uzi, it's to set a strong precedent to assert states' rights over the federal government.

And like the two posters above, I am all for some devilish dealing if it gets us where we need to be. A year ago I never would have believed that we would get park carry attached to the commerce act AND have it pass, OR that we would be within two votes of a nationwide reciprocity bill. (Even if a lot of those votes were butt-kissing to constituents for lawmakers who knew the bill wouldn't pass anyway.)

 

[AKElroy]

Gosh, I hope not. Far too dangerous. We have way too many full auto's already licensed in this country with the predicted horrific bloodshed. Just in the last 60 years, there have been like TWO murders attributable to these doomsday machines of death. Not in my country, brother.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I think the '86 manufacturing ban will be repealed by a tack-on to a healthcare bill or something like that. Start hitting up your congress critters. I want an auto-sear on my Glock.

 

[Deus Machina]

Nothing as easy as getting a rifle right now.

I can see the pre-'86 requirement being appealed at some point, but probably with higher taxes on the entire NFA bunch.

I think it's at best a bargaining chip, to force places like Chicago and such to pull back. "Fine, we won't require registration/ban concealed carry/ban NFA items, just don't make us accept new machine guns!"

In fact, I can actually see the anti's point in this one--if you can go and pick of an M16 from the local shop (or, in this example, break in and steal it), gang violence is likely to cause more injuries on innocent bystanders, and more affective robberies--anyone can wave an Uzi around. So, as it is, I'm not opposed to the tax and registration on automatic guns. But if we're not constantly fighting to loosen the laws, we've seen what happens to registrations.

Personally, I'd be happy enough with a registration and storage requirements (a safe and trigger lock, which I would have anyway, but know it's only a matter of having more around to steal before they're on the streets) on automatics, but dropping the taxes on SBRs and SBSs. I mean, look how well that law has worked.

But if we get the chance to loosen those laws? Fight tooth and nail for unrestricted, untaxed production and sale of the whole NFA group, and compromise only enough to get it passed.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Isn't the 1986 Hughes Amendment (full auto ban) a federal infringement on the 2nd Amendment? And didn't Heller remind the country that, at the very least, the federal gov't cannot infringe upon the 2nd Amendment?

 

[TexasRifleman]

And didn't Heller remind the country that, at the very least, the federal gov't cannot infringe upon the 2nd Amendment?

Heller didn't say that, wish it had. Heller said that the Federal government COULD infringe as long as it was "reasonable" but did not define what that means.

A TOTAL ban, like DC was unreasonable so the case would have to be argued that Hughes is the same. Possible, not likely.

 

[bababooey32]

In fact, I can actually see the anti's point in this one--if you can go and pick of an M16 from the local shop (or, in this example, break in and steal it), gang violence is likely to cause more injuries on innocent bystanders

Good grief.

The gangs aready have MGs. That's the point! This is a law that (once again) only punishes law abiding citizens. Thugs will file their sears down, we won't. Thugs will steal MGs, we won't. Thugs will import MGs, we won't. If the "ban" were repealed, do you really think your local Bloods/Cripps/MS-13 Procurement officer will be accepting bids from RRA and Colt for M16's?? No! They will continue to file/steal/import MGs. The difference is, their intended victims will now be on equal footing.

Why do you want to keep laws that ensure you are undergunned?

 

[Deus Machina]

I didn't say none of the criminals have them, but track down the actual statistics on that; it's exceedingly rare that they have one that was originally built as an automatic, and filing a sear down can only be expected to work on open-bolts, which are themselves rare.

Which isn't to say it doesn't work, or can't be made to, on just about anything, but your average mugger doesn't want to put the time and effort--and possibly money and risk into someone else doing it--into converting one, he wants something cheap that he can dump if he's on the run.

On the other hand, this is open back up for manufacture, there will be more, they will get stolen, and they will be on the streets.

Whether or not it will make a difference, I'm not sure. I doubt very much that the crime rate would rise in any area you can CC in, but the rate of injury and death may. I don't know, I'd have to see it. If someone actually enforced all the appropriate laws, I doubt it would change much.

What I would like to see is to drop the pre-'86 requirement, drop the price of automatics a good bit, but allow a registration on them. After all, you know none of our congresscritters would vote for a sudden drop on it all, and it would hardly be the worst bargaining point in that regard.

Then, once the media got over its 'blood running in the streets' spiel, the market for them has leveled out, and it's evident whether or not it causes a rise in the crime rate (see two spaces up), then challenge and muscle out the registration.

Edit to note: One of the reasons that automatics are so rarely used is that thugs prefer to conceal--thus, handguns, and my thought that the automatic rifles would only really be used in the occasional bank robbery (not much difference there) and more-than-occasional gang shooting. And that latter is just the problem fixing itself, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ijosef]

The feds have created a false economy surrounding fully automatic weapons, with the pre-'86 rule, the Class III requirement, the NFA tax, etc. There's a reason why machine guns cost an arm and a leg, and it's not because they're that more expensive to manufacture (I know I'm preaching to the choir here).

Think of all the AK parts kits that have been shipped over to the States throughout the years, then think of all those guns having never been altered and shipped over in their original form. I'd be willing to bet that without any restrictions (no gun control acts of 1934 or 1968) and no panic, you could pick up a full auto AKM for a couple hundred bucks.

Will we ever be able to have accessible full auto? I highly doubt it.

If we ever get some sort of requirement to be licensed to own and operate firearms in general (which I oppose of course), I would be willing to make a compromise. Let's say all gun owners are required to be licensed to operate firearms and take a class much like the CCW classes in order to obtain said license. If this were to be the case, then this license should be equivalent to a personal FFL of a sort. You'd be able to receive shipments of firearms to your person without having to go through the typical FFL transfer channels, and you'd be able to own and operate fully automatic firearms. The license would also be a carte blanche CCW permit across the country.

 

[billwiese]

I know some people say, Incorporation first, and then fully automatic weapons
and what not next.

Nobody rational is saying FA next.

Post-incorporation, we still have work to do to get rational gun rights for all across the country.
We still have to take down AW laws, CA's Roster, and other arbitrary blocks to ordinary gun ownership & acquisition. We have to allow someone from State X to buy a handgun in non-adjoining State Y; we still have to force RKBA rights to apply to someone who comes back to USA for short stints (but lives abroad) and has no US residence to buy guns, too.

With SCOTUS saying "weapons in common usage"

Um, the actual phrasing refers to "dangerous and unusual".

It always amazes me that people wanna reach for the gold ring before RKBA is fully entrenched, 100%, for more ordinary firearms throughout the country.

Alan Gura specifically ditched the issue in Heller to bring Kennedy on board.

Heller generally supports ownership/acquisition of guns that are not "dangerous and unusual". (The connective "and" is very important here.) Most all guns sold today in regular commerce pass that test - including semiauto Evil Black Rifles and "non-approved' handguns in MD and CA. [In fact, I believe AR15 sales over the past couple of years may well eclipse or achieve parity with 10/22 and Remington 700 sales.] When we get into MG territory we're straying out of bounds of Heller, though we could eventually argue that the unusualness was due to gov't decree and consequent reshaping of marketplace.

If we agitate for MG changes too early it can queer the pursuit of post-Heller RKBA issues. We need to keep the pace we're running and not bring extraneous issues. Right now, if you live in many states it's just a matter of money - so take a night job or something, defer Starbucks and drive your used car an extra year or two.

Until folks in DC and Chicago and MA and NYC can have ready access to common handguns, gun ownership doesn't require ridiculous hoops, and until people in CA again have access to rifles with various ergonomic features attached, we simply don't need to overreach. We already have enough baggage to fight regarding 'assault weapons' - but because of CA's stupidity, we can show trivial differences and can take out emotionalism. [We really couldn't do that a decade ago.]

The good news is quite a bit of NFA is likely attackable separately at a lower level - SBRs/SBSes AOWs on arbitrary & capricious issues of length, ergonomics etc.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[j-easy]

Gosh, I hope not. Far too dangerous. We have way too many full auto's already licensed in this country with the predicted horrific bloodshed. Just in the last 60 years, there have been like TWO murders attributable to these doomsday machines of death. Not in my country, brother.

and one of those 2 murders was by committed by a police officer

 

[Prince Yamato]

I still say we should try and slip in a repeal of the '86 law in a bill somewhere. A repeal of NFA '34 is probably not going to happen anytime soon, but the '86 law is more easily repealed. You could even frame it as, "there are probably a bunch of WW2 and Vietnam vets with guns in the attack they are afraid to talk about... we don't think they should fear prosecution... we also don't think they should have to give up their mementos."

 

[Quiet]

Many Title 2 owners believe that MG ownership got "thrown under the bus", in order to get a favorable vote for the Heller case.
Cause if MG ownership had been advocated then one of the judges would have gone the other way and SCOTUS would have voted the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.

The FOPA of '86 does not need to be repealled, just the Hughes Amendement to the FOPA of '86.

Give it about 50 years and we may see post-'86 MGs being made legal to transfer to civilians.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

Cause if MG ownership had been advocated then one of the judges would have gone the other way and SCOTUS would have voted the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.

I coulda sworn the SCOTUS voted 9-0 that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Just the final decision regarding the DC handgun ban was the 5-4 vote.

 

[Zoogster]

The law is over 20 years old. Once Gun Control laws are that old they almost never get repealed. They have become the new "normal" and people don't know what they would do without those laws to protect them.

In 1986 domestic production of new select fire weapons to be sold on the domestic market to regular citizens was prohibited.

In 1968 they prohibited foreign ones from being imported for sale to regular citizens.

Up until 1986 you could modify, build or otherwise create a select fire weapon if you paid your $200 tax with the ATF first.
You could also purchase select fire weapons for no more than semi-auto counterparts.
You could also purchase semi-auto weapons and pay a tax to modify them to select fire, or purchase a cheap part already made that accomplished the same thing as long as you paid the tax.

Some modifications were really simple, and cost far less than the $200 tax itself. For $20 you could turn many semi-auto firearms into select fire weapons.
Consider modern modifications like the Glock FSSG. A simple little device cheap to mass produce, requiring no modification to the firearm which installs on any Glock to give it select fire. Now imagine if there was a huge market with competition, they would be dirt cheap.
They had lightning links for ARs, and people could set up thier 1911s or anything else to be full auto quickly.
Then there were the extremely cheap sheet metal designs like the select fire MAC which cost less than many quality semi-auto pistols or revolvers .
Yet I do not believe most of the public was aware that was completely legal after they obtained a $200 stamp. There was no internet, and only someone that chose to research the information at a library or obtained it from someone who already knew became aware of the process for legal NFA items.

Firearm registration requirements were also very rare at the state levels back then. Even California had great firearm freedoms in 1986. Yet the NFA process requires registration. There was more reluctance to register a gun for potential confiscation at a later date back then.
(Today the licensing processes or purchase processes of several states register firearms, or at least handguns. People also sign up for Concealed Carry regularly now. So signing up as a gun owner with the government is much more mainstream now. It was once seen as a rather foolish thing to do.)

 

[mljdeckard]

^^ At the same time, the national park guidelines got overturned. Difficult doesn't mean impossible.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

the AOW and SBS regs need to be done away with, i still believe that full autos should be registered but the 86 needs to be done away with.

i was looking at a full auto mac at a gunshow and some guy i knew said that when he dealed for law enforcement he said that they were bought for $130. if they got back into making them and 86 was appealed than we would have a cheap MG

 

[General Geoff]

What makes machine guns so special that you feel they need to be registered, but other firearms don't?

And FYI, Mac 10s and Grease Guns cost somewhere around $20 per gun to manufacture.