View Full Version : Pre '86 Question
Bobert0989
03-07-12, 10:56
This is a completely hypothetical question asked of me by a friend. We are both genuinely curious, and I figured I'd ask it here to get a broader spectrum of speculation on the topic...
If a stash of unregistered M16's came up somewhere, and were manufactured before the 1986 ban, can they legally be registered and entered into the circulation of firearms currently obtainable by normal citizens? I guess my main question is pertaining to value projections when purchasing a full-auto, because my thinking was, "If I spend $20k on this M16, and next year they enter another 10,000 rifles into the market, have I lost a lot of my investment value?"
So, is it safe to say that nearly all of the pre-'86 weapons available to the market are already in the market? And if someone DID unearth a huge supply cache full of "legal" full-autos, can they be entered into the market at this time?
I know it's not a very technical issue, but we were genuinely curious...
Thanks for any insight on the matter!
~Bobby
Nope. If it's not registered then it's contraband and will be destroyed. The only thing that could change it would be an amnesty.
Bobert0989
03-07-12, 12:04
Nope. If it's not registered then it's contraband and will be destroyed. The only thing that could change it would be an amnesty.
That's good news in a way, for collectors anyway. So there's no type of current registration process openly available for them? I'm assuming that when that bill passed, they offered a timeframe to register them, and if they missed the deadline they were out of luck?
Thanks for the help!
Now, what type of amnesty are you talking about?
Negative. If they are not registered and in the registry already that's it. In 1968 (IIRC) there was a brief amnesty to allow people to register bring backs. It was poorly advertised and explained to people.
That's good news in a way, for collectors anyway. So there's no type of current registration process openly available for them? I'm assuming that when that bill passed, they offered a timeframe to register them, and if they missed the deadline they were out of luck?
Thanks for the help!
Now, what type of amnesty are you talking about?
Nope. If it's not registered then it's contraband and will be destroyed. The only thing that could change it would be an amnesty.
Not necessarily destroyed. But they would be post bans and could never be transferable.
I was just quoting the BATFE party line that I read somewhere when it was asked.
Not necessarily destroyed. But they would be post bans and could never be transferable.
hotrodder636
03-07-12, 12:50
I find it odd that this law hasn't been changed or updated or repealed after all these years. Are FAs really that evil?
FA's are a form of Government Monoply. It all depends in what day and year paperwork was written for a certain serial number which determines who can have what.
If M-16's were discovered in that manor, they could go be used for LE, Military, or Post Dealer Samples, OR, be stripped and the lowers destroyed with the rest being sold as parts kits.
I'm a Claas 3 FA owner, and it pisses me off that the Gov has created the monster, it's a form of testing the waters for all gun registration. (Last part is just conspiracy, but with an open mind it makes sense)
I was just quoting the BATFE party line that I read somewhere when it was asked.
I know the typical ATF line is "surrender or destroy" but there are a few options.
You can lawfully donate them to a museum or LE agency. And in the case of a "discovered batch" they would probably be government or agency owned so they could also be sold to SOTs with a PD letterhead.
But the important thing for this discussion, as you noted, is there is nothing that will make them transferable to individuals. At best they could be cut into parts kits and we'd see a flood of uppers similar to the cheap M-16 uppers CDNN had about 5 years ago.
I find it odd that this law hasn't been changed or updated or repealed after all these years. Are FAs really that evil?
The problem is the law is attached to FOPA 86 and related to the 1934 NFA and if you open it up for change we stand to lose FOPA and they stand to have the 1934 NFA overturned and nobody on either side wants to run the risk.
We'd be much better off going after the sporter clause in the 68 GCA.
hotrodder636
03-07-12, 17:21
Mostikely showing my ignorance but what is an SOT?
FOPA?
If a stash of unregistered M16's came up somewhere, and were manufactured before the 1986 ban, can they legally be registered and entered into the circulation of firearms currently obtainable by normal citizens?
Highly unlikely, but never say never as there is Case Law allowing MGs to be registered as late as 1993. Not aware of anything more recent.
The problem is the law is attached to FOPA 86 and related to the 1934 NFA and if you open it up for change we stand to lose FOPA and they stand to have the 1934 NFA overturned and nobody on either side wants to run the risk.
When most people refer to the MG ban as the "law", they mean 922(o) only, not the entire FOPA.
The problem is the law is attached to FOPA 86 and related to the 1934 NFA and if you open it up for change we stand to lose FOPA and they stand to have the 1934 NFA overturned and nobody on either side wants to run the risk.
We'd be much better off going after the sporter clause in the 68 GCA.
This. If the last 25 years have taught us anything, it's that all your gains overtime can be lost by a single overreach. The antigunners screwed up with the idiotic and nonsensical '94 AWB. It went so far that the public, getting more used to the notion of firearms as a right, created backlash. It can just as easily happen the other way if we try to go too far too fast. We lost our rights like a frog in a pan of water that starts to boil. We need to gain them back the same way to avoid a public backlash that reverses all our gains over the last quarter century. Imagine the field day for the Brady bunch when they can say "The NRA wants to make machine guns and grenade launchers into over-the-counter transactions." We need to get the public more acclimated to NFA items before we try to go whole-hog. The current efforts to ease suppressors into the mainstream is a great example of this. Think of it as our camel's nose under the antigunners' tent. Once the public realizes that suppressors aren't the demon assassin tools they've been told about, then we can move on to other things, like SBRs/SBSs and AOWs. It's a far smaller step from SBRs to MGs than it is from Fudd rifles to MGs.
That's why I worry about things like constitutional carry. Yeah, we want to get their eventually, but we should go after the low-hanging fruit first, and gradually get the public acclimated to the notion of gun rights. Cultural shifts don't generally happen overnight. They happen over generations.
Bobert0989
03-07-12, 17:52
Thanks for all the great info... And sorry if this thread strays too far from our typical realm of discussion. It just hit me suddenly while talking to my friend about why MG's are so expensive to own, and he said, "What if I found a cashe burrows on the arm or somewhere with 10,000 of these... What would that do to the market price?"
I was kinda stumped... But figured along the same lines as your responses. I thought the market was pretty well closed at this point. So, I understand that the rifles themselves couldnt registered, but would the sears become available in the market? As a kit, could the sears become registered and transferable? I'm feeling that it's the same boat as the rifles... But am just very curious as to how solid the market is in today's time.
Once again, thanks for the time and consideration!
Bobby
bsmith_shoot
03-07-12, 20:00
I had the same question about a German MP43. My question wasnt fiction though. I had an old man, physically, show me one he had in his barn. This was 5 years ago, and he died in 2010. I went back to his home a month or so later, and it was gone. I wish it would have been there, it was pristine. I would have jumped on giving it to a museum just to show off that piece of history.
I always wondered if it was possible that it did make it through the amnesty, and he didnt know or remember. Theres no way of knowing now, and thats a shame.
Brandon
QuietShootr
03-07-12, 20:23
That's good news in a way, for collectors anyway. So there's no type of current registration process openly available for them? I'm assuming that when that bill passed, they offered a timeframe to register them, and if they missed the deadline they were out of luck?
Thanks for the help!
Now, what type of amnesty are you talking about?
I think you should kick your own ass for even thinking that thought. Sickening.
Most likely showing my ignorance but what is an SOT?
FOPA?
Many people refer to Title II firearms (Silencers, SBR, SBS, and Machine Guns) as Class 3 firearms or weapons. The Class 3 terminology is generally used with a dealer license and not a type of weapon but a license. SOT means special occupational tax and refers to the tax due upon transfers of items restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (Generally $200 except for Any Other Weapons, which have a tax of only $5).
If you purchase a Title II firearm from a dealer or individual out of your state, you will need to use a class 3 transfer agent to move the items across state lines. If you purchase from an individual within your state then no transfer agent is required. Interstate and dealer transfers occur on a BATFE Form 3. Intrastate dealer to individual and individual to individual transfers occur on a BATFE Form 4.
FOPA is the Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986. It was an overall win for gun owners and federally licensed firearms dealers, but had one prominent amendment authored by anti-gun Senator Hughes (D-N.J.) that made it into the final law that was bad. That was the ban on machine guns registered after May 19, 1986 on the NFA registry for civilian ownership. Any full auto firearm registered after May 19, 1986 may only be possessed by the military, a certified law enforcement agency, or a Class 3 dealer with a "post sample letter" from a LE agency for each firearm. This created a finite supply of legal to possess full auto firearms, which dramatically spiked the prices. In 1985, you could buy a full auto Colt M-16 for less than a thousand dollars. That same gun today will cost you around $15,000, while an LE agency will still only pay around a grand.
This was a controversial amendment, because when it was heard in the House, only a voice vote on it was recorded. When someone requested a recorded vote, presiding cahirman Chales Rangel (D-N.Y) ignored it and moved on. The amendment was subsequently adopted in the Senat version and Ronald Reagan signed it into law.
I think you should kick your own ass for even thinking that thought. Sickening.
There's nothing wrong with thinking it so long as you figure out why it is wrong. It is certainly something a normal person considers as they ponder spending 20k on a single firearm. I can't fault anyone for not wanting to take a bath in devalued firearms where your collectible $20k machine gun becomes a used $1k machine gun because the law changed.
It actually takes a special person to "not care" because they can now buy 20 new machine guns for what 1 used to cost. Sadly I think everyones investments are pretty safe.
Many people refer to Title II firearms (Silencers, SBR, SBS, and Machine Guns) as Class 3 firearms or weapons. The Class 3 terminology is generally used with a dealer license and not a type of weapon but a license. SOT means special occupational tax and refers to the tax due upon transfers of items restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (Generally $200 except for Any Other Weapons, which have a tax of only $5).
Actually that is the NFA tax. The Special Occupation Tax is the tax paid by a FFL to be a dealer in NFA items. And it is typically $1000 or $500 depending upon the amount of business you do.
I find it odd that this law hasn't been changed or updated or repealed after all these years. Are FAs really that evil?
I would imagine that would dramatically decrease the value of current machine guns if there was a law that allowed more into the registry... There would be some very pissed off owners...
Reagans Rascals
03-07-12, 23:58
"The NRA wants to make machine guns and grenade launchers into over-the-counter transactions."
the bad thing is.... most dumb, uneducated, high and mighty, "citizen of the world" liberals believe that restricting the legal rights of non-offenders, somehow limits the amount of violent crimes committed by those who have no intentions of doing things legally....
its typical bullshit, moronic, illogical fallacy, slippery slope jibber jabber...
its like saying we'll cut down on DUI fatalities by not allowing cars.....
the absurdity of their plight literally astounds me, I honestly believe liberalism is a mental health disorder and should be treated as such... and should be listed in the DSM IV as "Blinded By Rainbows Syndrome"
they are so enamored with their own great ideas, how they will change the world, that they fail to see the actual reality of their doings... they only see what good "could" come, not the bad or what actually does occur, simply ignore all of that and focus entirely on what good it may possibly one day result in.... aka... they live in fantasy land
"The NRA wants to make machine guns and grenade launchers into over-the-counter transactions."
if only that were true, by my observation the NRA wants to avoid MGs all together and stick with trying to say a civilian AK or AR should not be banned because its semi auto thus making in no different and the same kind of rifle as a remington 750.
All true, which is why we need to play the game to win. The anti-gunners did a masterful public relations job over 60+ years, gradually depriving us of our rights and conditioning the public to accept it as 'normal'. And you know what? It worked, until they got greedy and tried for too much, too fast. We should learn from their experiences, and copy what works, and avoid what backfired. That's the only way to win in the long term. Like a frog in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil.
All true, which is why we need to play the game to win. The anti-gunners did a masterful public relations job over 60+ years, gradually depriving us of our rights and conditioning the public to accept it as 'normal'. And you know what? It worked, until they got greedy and tried for too much, too fast. We should learn from their experiences, and copy what works, and avoid what backfired. That's the only way to win in the long term. Like a frog in a pot of water slowly brought to a boil.
But I want my Ulitmax 100 NOW.
:D
Actually that is the NFA tax. The Special Occupation Tax is the tax paid by a FFL to be a dealer in NFA items. And it is typically $1000 or $500 depending upon the amount of business you do.
I stand corrected. That's what I get for trying to post while bleary eyed! :(
We should learn from their experiences, and copy what works
sneaking amendments into bills at the last moment when the amendment has little if anything to do with the bill yet the bill being important enough to pass by any means necessary seems to do the trick.
QuietShootr
03-08-12, 08:02
I would imagine that would dramatically decrease the value of current machine guns if there was a law that allowed more into the registry... There would be some very pissed off owners...
And that would be another group of people who should be kicked so hard they'd be wearing their asses for a hat.
One of my best friends owns a Class 3 collection that wouldn't look shabby even when compared to Reed Knight's toy rooms, and he is solidly behind the idea of a repeal. If he wasn't, that would make him an asshole, and I wouldn't have him for a friend.
QuietShootr
03-08-12, 08:06
There's nothing wrong with thinking it so long as you figure out why it is wrong. It is certainly something a normal person considers as they ponder spending 20k on a single firearm. I can't fault anyone for not wanting to take a bath in devalued firearms where your collectible $20k machine gun becomes a used $1k machine gun because the law changed.
It actually takes a special person to "not care" because they can now buy 20 new machine guns for what 1 used to cost. Sadly I think everyones investments are pretty safe.
I disagree. If you're part of a group of assholes who actually fight actively against repeal (naming no names, but you know exactly who I'm talking about) because they'd LOSE MONEY, then you don't give a **** about what's right, as long as you can make money. THAT attitude is exactly what got this country into the position it's in now, and as far as I'm concerned it's a real litmus test of 'are you really a 2nd Amendment supporter, or just another rich asshole who can afford toys, and doesn't want his rice bowl broken'.
I disagree. If you're part of a group of assholes who actually fight actively against repeal (naming no names, but you know exactly who I'm talking about) because they'd LOSE MONEY, then you don't give a **** about what's right, as long as you can make money. THAT attitude is exactly what got this country into the position it's in now, and as far as I'm concerned it's a real litmus test of 'are you really a 2nd Amendment supporter, or just another rich asshole who can afford toys, and doesn't want his rice bowl broken'.
I'd trade the value of my RR M-16 for the ability to purchase new, reasonably priced MG's in a heartbeat.
QuietShootr
03-08-12, 12:30
I'd trade the value of my RR M-16 for the ability to purchase new, reasonably priced MG's in a heartbeat.
^ This is an example of NOT an asshole. Learn it, know it, and follow it, OP, or find a hobby. This isn't a hobby, it's a right and a way of life.
sneaking amendments into bills at the last moment when the amendment has little if anything to do with the bill yet the bill being important enough to pass by any means necessary seems to do the trick.
Doesn't work anymore. Back when FOPA was signed there was no line item veto.
I disagree. If you're part of a group of assholes who actually fight actively against repeal (naming no names, but you know exactly who I'm talking about) because they'd LOSE MONEY, then you don't give a **** about what's right, as long as you can make money. THAT attitude is exactly what got this country into the position it's in now, and as far as I'm concerned it's a real litmus test of 'are you really a 2nd Amendment supporter, or just another rich asshole who can afford toys, and doesn't want his rice bowl broken'.
There is a difference between people who protect their investments by opposing a repeal and those who consider the soundness of the investment based upon the possibility of repeal. Now if the latter become the former, then that is a different discussion.
A ban repel would not mean the loss of value for all the firearms. Some Firearms have value only by legislation like a mac 10, UZI, converted M1's, or DIAS, or HK sear. Some firearms only have value because its an affordable alternative, like the AC556, people buy it because they can not afford a m16 so the go to a rifle that's half the cost to get their assault rifle. If you could buy a m16 for $1000 no one would want these things, MAC 10 also fits here. Then there are firearms that have real collectors value regardless of legislation, an origional 1921 thompson, MP40, MP44, BAR's. Someone was making semi auto mp40's(part kit builds) a while ago for the price of $3500 I think, and that was when they had stock(which they don't now), so a parts kit build MP40 could go from a low current value of $8000 to $9000, to $5000 or $6000. Same with MP44s, they are shockingly rare in any form, and those Current semi auto Clones( which had many issues) were still priced at $4000, imagine a original.
If someone collection tanks in value because of a ban repel then they only have to blame themselves for a poor choice in firearms. Some firearms are both rare and have demand and no legislation will change that.
There is no high premium between many firearms who have legislative value vs real value, A vector uzi can run $7K vs 8-9K for an mp40, just $1000 more, guess which one would drop like tank in a ban lift. If you can afford to buy a MG then you can afford to make good choices if you are concerned about the value of your weapon. Buying a gun that has purely legislative value when you are concerned about the value is a bad idea, and if you think like that then prepare to cry a river if the ban is lifed and the guy with a MP40 can still get bids over $5K for his mp40 while your lightning like you paid 7K for is worth about .50 cents.
I have always thought the cance of getting it reversed are nil, but it would be nice if a permanant amnisty was in place, for autos from a certain age were allowed, such as with collector cars. I have seen more and more WW2 Thompsons, MP 40's, 44's, BAR's, MG 34 and 42, Stens, etc showing up, as allot of these are found when a vet passes away and his family find them, or they just turn up from being hidden for so many years, and urban expansion has turned them up.
I have seen more and more WW2 Thompson, MP 40's, 44's, BAR's, MG 34 and 42, Stens, etc showing up
The imported guns would still be illegal as they are prohibited from import since 1968, they would have to be demilled as parts kit and then rebuilt to be considered US guns, I believe without amnesty, simply allowing registration again would make even domestic guns illegal unless demilled and rebuilt.
The only way this could happen is if someone actually registered them back in or before the deadline in 1986 and then kept them stashed.
For example, when Jim McLoud went and bought up the last few thousand M/11 from SWD around 1998 and started to release them / sold them off to dealers. (I believe SWD had gone out of business but still had 2k or so guns that had been registered and was sitting on them and sold them all to Jim. I helped Jim unpack the UPS pallets as he entered them in to his books...)
That is where the M/11 flood that happened 98-2000 came from as Jim sold off a good many of them to other dealers to recoup his capital, and kept a small number for his own sales / inventory.
This is a completely hypothetical question asked of me by a friend. We are both genuinely curious, and I figured I'd ask it here to get a broader spectrum of speculation on the topic...
If a stash of unregistered M16's came up somewhere, and were manufactured before the 1986 ban, can they legally be registered and entered into the circulation of firearms currently obtainable by normal citizens? I guess my main question is pertaining to value projections when purchasing a full-auto, because my thinking was, "If I spend $20k on this M16, and next year they enter another 10,000 rifles into the market, have I lost a lot of my investment value?"
So, is it safe to say that nearly all of the pre-'86 weapons available to the market are already in the market? And if someone DID unearth a huge supply cache full of "legal" full-autos, can they be entered into the market at this time?
I know it's not a very technical issue, but we were genuinely curious...
Thanks for any insight on the matter!
~Bobby
Bobert0989
03-09-12, 21:32
I think you should kick your own ass for even thinking that thought. Sickening.
Umm...
There's nothing wrong with thinking it so long as you figure out why it is wrong. It is certainly something a normal person considers as they ponder spending 20k on a single firearm. I can't fault anyone for not wanting to take a bath in devalued firearms where your collectible $20k machine gun becomes a used $1k machine gun because the law changed.
It actually takes a special person to "not care" because they can now buy 20 new machine guns for what 1 used to cost. Sadly I think everyones investments are pretty safe.
What he said...
:rolleyes:
It is an excellent response for someone who may have just dropped $18-20k on a registered MG, to know that the market is (in a practical sense) CLOSED to new registration. The biggest reasons most people would invest in MG's are probably, "I have $20k to invest, what will NEVER depreciate in value and be fun to keep?" and, "Uncle Sam doesn't like these, so I'll buy one, just to have."
That is also why, in my original quote, I said specifically, "for collectors, anyways," because yes, I would definately buy a FA MG if I could find one legally for the same price as a semi-auto AR-15. Logical Reasoning in this situation would point out that the huge investment a collector makes into a registered MG is much easier to bite when they know it is a very limited market.
Limited guns in the registry = huge investment potential.
New guns added to market = decrease in value across the board
That was my only point in that statement.
I disagree. If you're part of a group of assholes who actually fight actively against repeal (naming no names, but you know exactly who I'm talking about) because they'd LOSE MONEY, then you don't give a **** about what's right, as long as you can make money. THAT attitude is exactly what got this country into the position it's in now, and as far as I'm concerned it's a real litmus test of 'are you really a 2nd Amendment supporter, or just another rich asshole who can afford toys, and doesn't want his rice bowl broken'.
The OP never said anything about supporting NFA, etc. Your jump to conclusions mat is well worn in this thread. A non-charged explanation would have sufficed in place of the militant responses.
Not necessarily destroyed. But they would be post bans and could never be transferable.
They would most likely end up being cut up for parts kits.
I'd trade the value of my RR M-16 for the ability to purchase new, reasonably priced MG's in a heartbeat.
In a second.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.