am i crazy for not wanting to register an SBR?

[298436]

If you have researched the concept of data mining then you would know that the previous posters are right -- they know more about you than you might think.

Some interesting videos: search Google Videos for "Suspect Nation". May want to also look for the Youtube user "Nufffrespect" and the "Conspiritus" series.

There will be RFID planting in people, there will be one world government. You are going to die anyways, as someone I know adores to say, so enjoy it while it lasts

[RetreatHell]

Just buy the SBR and register it.

Relax, enjoy your SBR.

Amen!

[Artos]

I overhear 'admitted chl carriers' who do not want to get class iii items AND in some cases do the nics/4473's & prefer face to face deals between buddies on hunting rigs. Talk about irrational & missing out os some cool tools.

[SteyrAUG]

is that really true? my understanding was that there are no records kept by the ATF, only the local guns store? I get your point that there ARE records out there, but are title 1 records as accessible as NFA?

Not quite.

When I do a background check they DO NOT get the make, model or serial number. They know only that you are doing a background check to purchase a handgun, long gun or both. Could be a single break open shotgun or (5) AR-15s...they don't know.

Now from time to time ATF does compliance inspections and will inspect 4473s to insure they are being filled out properly. And as proof of that compliance they will often make photocopies so there is a chance some of your 4473s have been photocopied by ATF.

Now quite the same thing as the NFA registry, but just the same they could know what you have. It also stands to reason if you do 6 background checks a year (or only one for that matter) it is safe to assume you own firearms so you really aren't off the radar completely. This is why some folks will only buy guns from private sellers.

It is also important to remember that while we have bans on further importation of foreign military style rifles and had a 10 year ban on domestic production of military style rifles we never got a ban on ownership. That is because the government can get away with regulating importation and production of certain firearms (due to the sporter clause of the 68 GCA) but has no basis to ban ownership without running smack dab into the second amendment.

The second amendment is the critical difference when you talk about the UK and Australia and then compare it to the US. Like NFA weapons, eventually military style semi autos will be "regulated" beyond the means of the average joe to own one. So you either got one when the getting was good or you are willing to pay the price of your average car to own one. And that will suffice for the .gov as far as they are concerned.

[perna]

Also have to remember to never use a credit card to buy anything gun related, or ammo, because that is just as easy to get, or "they" already have it.

If you want to take the chance of becoming a felon for having it, that is your choice. If you ever have to use it in self defense it will look really bad.

[Army Chief]

This has come up before, of course, but if you look at precedent, I believe a case could be made that the SBR route might actually be "safer" where potential confiscation is concerned. In view of the 1986 FOPA machinegun ban, you might be tempted to conclude otherwise, but keep in mind that this legislation did not make existing machineguns illegal; it simply put an end to the manufacture and sales of MGs made for private use after May 19th, 1986. In simpler terms, the government moved to halt future commerce in new MGs, but it made no attempt to confiscate those that were already on the books.

Fast forward to the 1994 AWB. Again, we saw a broad ban enacted, but there was no associated confiscation proposal. Our legislators know that any confiscation attempt would be political suicide, so even if they oppose the 2nd Amendment in principle, they have generally been wise enough to avoid a frontal assault. If we can agree that the government's approach has generally been to restrict or halt future sales, rather than to confiscate, the question then becomes "if they ever DO attempt a confiscation, who or what will they likely be going after?" In my view, this is where the NFA registry could potentially serve as a powerful shield. Want to mandate strict registration? Already done. Want to force would-be owners to go through even more rigorous background checks? Done. Want to keep close tabs on who actually has the weapons, and where they are kept? Done. Virtually every "good idea" that the anti-gun lobby can advance has already been put into motion with the NFA registry.

Now, I'm not going to suggest that this makes the NFA registry good law, but it does make it very hard to propose to the citizenry that we should confiscate weapons from those who (a) have already complied the most demanding codes we have on the books, and (b) are overwhelmingly NOT involved in the commission of crimes. Given that any future confiscation effort will surely be tied to crime prevention, it makes it all the more dififcult to look at NFA owners and seriously propose that their weapons are a part of the problem. What I'm saying is this: if anyone could have any hope of proving that there is such a thing as a responsible gun owner, it would be the man with one or more guns on the NFA registry.

As SteyrAUG observed, England, Australia and our neighbors to the north never enjoyed the specific protections under the law that we have in the United States, nor did they have the same "gun culture" that has been woven into the fabric of our nation since the Revolution. Thus, their losses were significant, but they were also somewhat predictable. Here at home, we've seen nothing to suggest that confiscation has ever been seriously considered, much less attempted -- nor I do expect us to reach that point in our lifetimes. What can (and likely will) happen is that the government may significantly raise fees, put an end to future transfers and permit states to continue to restrict possession of certain items that federal statutes otherwise permit. We're already seeing some of this, of course, and while we may question the Constitutionality of such actions, it is important to note that none of them have involved someone coming to your door to collect your weapons.

I'm not (at all) a tin-foil hat kind of guy, but I will say this: should we ever actually arrive at "that" day, I suspect that legality will be just about the last thing on your mind, as you, me and the rest of our Airborne buddies will have long since headed for the hill country. In the meantime, as our laws allow for the registration and use of such weapons, a responsible citizen should avail himself of his freedoms by complying with the law and encouraging others to do the same.

ATW!
AC

[ABN Monk]

lots of good info. Be advised, I follow the laws, and don't currently have an SBR. If I ever do get one, it will be becuase i have resigned myself to registration and done the NFA paperwork.

[Iraqgunz]

Please clarify how one would become a felon for having it and how using it in a self-defense scenario will look really bad.

Also have to remember to never use a credit card to buy anything gun related, or ammo, because that is just as easy to get, or "they" already have it.

If you want to take the chance of becoming a felon for having it, that is your choice. If you ever have to use it in self defense it will look really bad.

[Cameron]

Please clarify how one would become a felon for having it and how using it in a self-defense scenario will look really bad.

He is talking about the consequences if you make an SBR without getting the required Tax Stamps.

I am pretty sure the OP meant he was considering just sticking with a non SBR, rather than getting an SBR and going the Tax Stamp route.

Cameron

[Omega_556]

am i crazy for not wanting to register an SBR?

Yes

I'd like to hear some reasoned arguments for or against going the SBR route as it applies to confiscation. What say you?

From a financial standpoint, think if you asked this question about a machine gun in 1985? You would be kicking yourself in the ass today! What if like machine guns in '86, all title 2 firearms are outlawed beyond a given date? I can see SBRs and suppressors greatly increasing in value.

The Gun Control Act of '86 Hughes Amendment outlawed the ownership & transfer or machine guns after May 19, 1986, but weapons registered before May 19 cuttoff could still be owned and transfered by civilians.

The AWB of '94 had provisions to grandfather existing weapons.

Even the 2000 Assault Weapons ban in the state of California allowed grandfathered weapons to be registered with the state, only future weapons were outlawed.

We all know that there are those in our gov't would like nothing more than outlaw all weapons. It seems to me the best way to ensure your ability to own an SBR in the distant future is to properly register one now, and who knows depending on future legislation it could someday be quite valuable...