View Full Version : REPEAL FULL-AUTO BAN OF 1986 !!!
Folks ... Gun Owners of America (GOA) already has a lawsuit filed in an effort to repeal this unconstitutional restriction. Please support this effort and related litigation and legislation whenever it is seen. Thank You !!! :cool:
If you click on the image you get a better picture.
41421
Eurodriver
09-12-16, 21:40
I thought molon labe meant we can build whatever we wanted? Line in the sand and all that? Will not comply?
I'll start to think this MIGHT be possible the minute suppressors are removed from the purview of the NFA
It is an unconstitutional law to begin with and worse yet it was passed under some very strange circumstances.
I hope GOA wins the lawsuit. The more support they have the better chances they, and we, have of it being repealed.
If the SHTF it won't matter who has what selector as ATF will have their hands full just protecting themselves. Otherwise at present it's not worth the 10 year USBOP vacation you'll win if caught.
I got that from a FB friend's wall. If you check out the FB page (inscribed below the word "REPEAL") there might be more information from their particular end.
I'll start to think this MIGHT be possible the minute suppressors are removed from the purview of the NFA
I think GOA is working that one too. I agree, it could be a likely and welcomed domino effect. It's long overdue and was illegal to start with IMHO.
My understanding is there currently is more than just mere support for suppressor removal. We can only hope, pray, and support those that spearhead it all through for us.
There is a much greater chance to get suppressors removed from the NFA than getting the prohibition on building new, transferable full autos repealed.
There is a strong health and safety argument for suppressors to prevent hearing damage and loss.
Honestly, full auto is cool and but anything not belt fed is not really useful.
Please support this movement even if you don't care to own one yourself. This is fine if this is your opinion but folks that think otherwise should still be able to purchase new and/or modify to full-auto if they so desire. The guvmint has a right to tax but they don't have a right to prohibit that in the small arms class.
I agree it may not happen for a long time if at all but the best way to get this right back is to approach it in baby steps.
I really cannot see a clause NOT allowing initially at minimum past/present LEO(s) and military to purchase a $200.00 tax stamp and own one.
Please support this movement even if you don't care to own one yourself. This is fine if this is your opinion but folks that think otherwise should still be able to purchase new and/or modify to full-auto if they so desire. The guvmint has a right to tax but they don't have a right to prohibit that in the small arms class.
I agree it may not happen for a long time if at all but the best way to get this right back is to approach it in baby steps.
I really cannot see a clause allowing initially at minimum past/present LEO(s) and military to purchase a $200.00 tax stamp and own one.
I'm not against it but I think there are higher priorities for gun rights, for example national CCW reciprocity and removing suppressors from the NFA.
Eurodriver
09-12-16, 22:15
I can.
I'm not against it but I think there are higher priorities for gun rights, for example national CCW reciprocity and removing suppressors from the NFA.
I agree with you on the CCW reciprocity but I cannot agree that suppressors is an actual priority over a full-auto repeal.
CCW reciprocity has never passed then outlawed. That alone makes it far easier to pass. Removing suppressors from the NFA is cool and necessary but at east you can still get them. This is not the same with full-autos. I've never understood why suppressors were so controlled anyway.
Please support this movement even if you don't care to own one yourself. This is fine if this is your opinion but folks that think otherwise should still be able to purchase new and/or modify to full-auto if they so desire. The guvmint has a right to tax but they don't have a right to prohibit that in the small arms class.
I agree it may not happen for a long time if at all but the best way to get this right back is to approach it in baby steps.
I really cannot see a clause NOT allowing initially at minimum past/present LEO(s) and military to purchase a $200.00 tax stamp and own one.
Please note my grammar correction ... (my apologies).
This will never happen and any select fire weapon beyond an SMG or a Beltfed is kinda pointless. I think, however, suppressors off NFA could happen with the right amount of wherewithal.
Once the dummies accept that it doesn't make every gun go "pjeet pjeet" like the spy movies it might gain traction.
I've had access to suppressors and they are still quite audible. Really I just want one because even doubling up earpro; indoor shooting is still messing your ears up.
I'm already half deaf and not yet 40
Let's devote our time to the small victories that matter like suppressors or SBRs removed from the NFA not chasing something that isn't going to happen like machine guns.
Here is an excerpt of something I wrote on another website, so forgive me is some of the info is redundant for us here, I wrote it for people who know nothing about guns but I feel that it applies here.
"The 2AUSC was written at a time when the country was at time of war for its freedom from the Crown of England. Contrary to proper belief the Militia was the people, there was a small army to fight this war but they were not consider the militia. Almost all of the arms used were on loan from private citizens, Even the cannons were privately owned. now people want to state that the average citizen does not need to own weapons of war, but I strongly disagree. I believe that the 2AUSC was written for the average citizen to rebel against their government if the government started to become a tyrannical government. meaning any weapon that the average solider would have on him in battle should, in my eyes, be accessible to the average citizen. there is even a court case to support this theory.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, (1939)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/174.html
in this case Miller, was a bootlegger, but he was caught with a shotgun that was regulated by the NFA, crossing state lines, he fought the NFA all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), and my bet is he would have won but he met his end of funds and his life before he could take on the US government. In the statement the SCOTUS put out, that defend my theory is as follows:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Meaning if a weapon fits the criteria of
1. "any part of the ordinary military equipment"
2. "that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Then the NFA would be in violation of the 2AUSC, thus making it a unconstitutional law."
SBRs, and suppressors and yes even machine guns can fit that definition, I don't think machine guns should be the priority.
So yes I agree that machines gun need not be regulated or registered, I feel that it is the wrong battle to focus on right now. Let's start small (or as small as we can). Machine guns are something the average citizen wouldn't agree with to be legal but we can get them on our side for suppressors and maybe even SBRs, so let's fight that battle. Not only do we need history, law, and common sense on our side we also really need public opinion probably more than anything, they need to stand with us, again I don't see that happening with machine guns.
Edit: Or more important is the sporting clause. Let's get rid of that. There's a lot of battles need to fought, but machine guns should be towards the bottom in my opinion.
Repeal of the Sporter Clause and 922(o) are the most important priorities.
I've shot many a select fire weapon. I really don't see any benefit, outside of a lame YouTube "coolness" factor FA gets you.
IMHO, suppressor removal needs to be FAR higher than any FA.
I agree with you on the CCW reciprocity but I cannot agree that suppressors is an actual priority over a full-auto repeal.
CCW reciprocity has never passed then outlawed. That alone makes it far easier to pass. Removing suppressors from the NFA is cool and necessary but at east you can still get them. This is not the same with full-autos. I've never understood why suppressors were so controlled anyway.
You can get full autos, just not ones made after 1986. But then again if they made all machine guns legal, would that affect current value of pre 1986 Machine Guns in collectors and gun owners hands now?
JulyAZ, your point is practical, but I disagree. You think libs gained so much ground with that approach? Talk about legal FA, work towards th small steps, but push for more, then compromise for the small steps. If you push for small steps, you'll compromise for steps back, which is what conservatives have been doing for years on multiple issues.
JulyAZ, your point is practical, but I disagree. You think libs gained so much ground with that approach? Talk about legal FA, work towards th small steps, but push for more, then compromise for the small steps. If you push for small steps, you'll compromise for steps back, which is what conservatives have been doing for years on multiple issues.
I disagree. The libs win because they are relentless with the baby steps and incremental compromises. They see the end zone but their content pushing the ball 3 yards at a time.
JulyAZ, your point is practical, but I disagree. You think libs gained so much ground with that approach? Talk about legal FA, work towards th small steps, but push for more, then compromise for the small steps. If you push for small steps, you'll compromise for steps back, which is what conservatives have been doing for years on multiple issues.
This pretty much nails it. We CAN get there ... just stay convinced it's possible. It's irrelevant which gets passed first. Support them all regardless of what you feel is more priority and/or useful or not. Any and all gains, regardless of personal preferences, is positive and should be supported IMHO.
I thought molon labe meant we can build whatever we wanted? Line in the sand and all that? Will not comply?
School yard bullies are tough until they get punched in the face, unfortunately we're the bully who gets punched in the face. Molon Labe means "Yes Sir, Mr. ATF sir" DTOM and the Gadsden flag, means "I talk loud but I don't want to go to jail, but my pickup needed a sticker for the back window."
A lot of people in the gun community are the guys out on a Saturday night and start talking and screaming loud in the parking lot pretending that they want to get in a fight so that somebody will call the cops, if they really meant it they would be the quiet ones who take you in the dark ally to kick the shit out of you when no one's looking and they're not doing it for the glory, they're doing for the cause.
At least that's my impression.
It is not supportive of our 2nd. Amendment rights to say I can see how this should be done first but I don't see how you value what you're supporting so I'm not going to support that.
Any gain is good. MegademiC is 100% correct; when in an uphill battle ANY gains, however small and incremental are positive for all.
I was talking to some folks the other day that are known to have certain politician's ears. I gave them a baby-step scenario regarding suppressors and one regarding full-autos. Personally I think these folks were basically centrists and not really interested in NFA modification(s) but when we finished the conversation they were 100% in agreement with what I had proposed with both topics, amongst others.
Trying to make an argument for repealing the entire NFA but submitting it in incremental steps is how we're going to win only a few small victories. We'll never repeal most likely the entire NFA but we can start pressing for certain changes and under certain conditions.
THIS STRATEGY IS HOW THE LIBERALS WILL SUCCEED AGAINST US - ESPECIALLY IF THEY SEE OUR GOALS ARE DIVIDED.
Who cares if the full-auto ban is repealed before suppressors are removed as NFA items, or vice-versa? If one eventually gets you the other you've still succeeded.
Who cares if the full-auto ban is repealed before suppressors are removed as NFA items, or vice-versa? If one eventually gets you the other you've still succeeded.
I get what you're saying and I'm all for it but if you shoot too high and you miss it's a degrading loss and those are hard to come back from but if you shoot small and win you boost morale. Then all you have to do is keep that going to you get to that mountain that you want to climb.
Let's devote our time to the small victories that matter like suppressors or SBRs removed from the NFA not chasing something that isn't going to happen like machine guns.
Here is an excerpt of something I wrote on another website, so forgive me is some of the info is redundant for us here, I wrote it for people who know nothing about guns but I feel that it applies here.
"The 2AUSC was written at a time when the country was at time of war for its freedom from the Crown of England. Contrary to proper belief the Militia was the people, there was a small army to fight this war but they were not consider the militia. Almost all of the arms used were on loan from private citizens, Even the cannons were privately owned. now people want to state that the average citizen does not need to own weapons of war, but I strongly disagree. I believe that the 2AUSC was written for the average citizen to rebel against their government if the government started to become a tyrannical government. meaning any weapon that the average solider would have on him in battle should, in my eyes, be accessible to the average citizen. there is even a court case to support this theory.
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, (1939)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/174.html
in this case Miller, was a bootlegger, but he was caught with a shotgun that was regulated by the NFA, crossing state lines, he fought the NFA all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), and my bet is he would have won but he met his end of funds and his life before he could take on the US government. In the statement the SCOTUS put out, that defend my theory is as follows:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Meaning if a weapon fits the criteria of
1. "any part of the ordinary military equipment"
2. "that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Then the NFA would be in violation of the 2AUSC, thus making it a unconstitutional law."
SBRs, and suppressors and yes even machine guns can fit that definition, I don't think machine guns should be the priority.
So yes I agree that machines gun need not be regulated or registered, I feel that it is the wrong battle to focus on right now. Let's start small (or as small as we can). Machine guns are something the average citizen wouldn't agree with to be legal but we can get them on our side for suppressors and maybe even SBRs, so let's fight that battle. Not only do we need history, law, and common sense on our side we also really need public opinion probably more than anything, they need to stand with us, again I don't see that happening with machine guns.
Edit: Or more important is the sporting clause. Let's get rid of that. There's a lot of battles need to fought, but machine guns should be towards the bottom in my opinion.
Let me ask you this, if I was as negative towards suppressors as you are in your outlook on legalizing full-autos and this caused both issues to be lost what would be your point of view then?
Let me ask you this, if I was as negative towards suppressors as you are in your outlook on legalizing full-autos and this caused both issues to be lost what would be your point of view then?
That is how I see it. If we go for FA and lose, I think it'll lose suppressors too what we would have is a new ruling against us and our future endeavors, but if we get suppressors then SBRs, and the sporting clause then what arguments would be left against full autos?
I'm not trying to be negative against it I'm trying to prevent losing the possibility of gaining more.
I get what you're saying and I'm all for it but if you shoot too high and you miss it's a degrading loss and those are hard to come back from but if you shoot small and win you boost morale. Then all you have to do is keep that going to you get to that mountain that you want to climb.
That's good logic but you have to understand they are both really totally different arguments and equally as hard to get passed.
Again ... suppressors are currently obtainable whereas full-autos are not except with very, very few and unreasonable exceptions, however the same group of people trying to get one passed is relatively the same group trying to get the other passed; gun owners and 2nd. Amendment supporters.
Both arguments will have to be submitted to the same negative adversaries by the same proponents.
The suppressor argument is going to be difficult as you have 2 main arguments; your hearing and hunting conditions. Liberals can care less about your hearing; they will simply tell you to stop shooting and are stupid enough to think this is a sufficient response. As for hunting purposes, you're going to have the liberals AND the animal lovers against you and some of the animal lovers/sympathizers are also gun owners (not all gun owners are hunters).
The full-auto argument is different but just as crazy to liberals. They are going to say the proponents are simply nuts and don't even need to have the guns they have anyway. They will argue these are too dangerous and nobody really needs these other than the military.
The answer; find a national defense issue that will fit both and they will have as hard a time arguing against it as we'll be arguing for it, but national defense issues usually win out, if only sometimes by a narrow margin.
We now have a window of opportunity slightly open to jump this effort right on through ... IF ... we don't get the liberals in DC this time around.
Regardless, saying one is not as important or as easy to pass as the other AND this is why one will not be supported over the other is likely to cause both to fail.
The_War_Wagon
09-13-16, 06:06
That is how I see it. If we go for FA and lose, I think it'll lose suppressors too what we would have is a new ruling against us and our future endeavors, but if we get suppressors then SBRs, and the sporting clause then what arguments would be left against full autos?
I'm not trying to be negative against it I'm trying to prevent losing the possibility of gaining more.
Why not go for EVERYTHING, ALL the time!?
The hoplophobes do.
I think fighting to legalize FA would definitely fracture our community. Nobody who presently legally owns transferable FA weapons can realistically afford to have their collections devalued, which is a possibility. Look at scale: whether you're Reed Knight, or Joe Blow with one rifle, you have a chunk wrapped up in your baby. Those same people also support gun owners rights from yearly memberships to large donations. What you propose puts those guys in a tough position and I doubt they'd be as supportive.
I'll start to think this MIGHT be possible the minute suppressors are removed from the purview of the NFA
cross your fingers:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3799/cosponsors
I think fighting to legalize FA would definitely fracture our community. Nobody who presently legally owns transferable FA weapons can realistically afford to have their collections devalued, which is a possibility. Look at scale: whether you're Reed Knight, or Joe Blow with one rifle, you have a chunk wrapped up in your baby. Those same people also support gun owners rights from yearly memberships to large donations. What you propose puts those guys in a tough position and I doubt they'd be as supportive.
I own many transferable MGs and would gladly see them devalued with repeal of 922(o).
Microadventure
09-13-16, 08:12
Molon Labe means "come and take them"
what is usually overlooked is: they did.
Greeks VS Persians, Battle of Thermopylae. Persians 1, Greeks 0
I'll trade all the FA in the world for unrestricted SBRs and suppressors. Or better yet, a guarantee of no-one screwing with my "inalienable" rights ever again.
Give me something actually useful, not just a feel-good win!
If it was repealed I would be ECSTATIC, even though it meant I had to sell off all of my neutered ARs to replace with the real deal. I can't imagine spending $200 bucks to get the real thing......I haven't even looked at what a registered receiver is these days. I know 8 years ago they were 12k but if the 3,300 NIB MACs are gone with $5,800 used ones in their place I can only imagine.
That's good logic but you have to understand they are both really totally different arguments and equally as hard to get passed.
Again ... suppressors are currently obtainable whereas full-autos are not except with very, very few and unreasonable exceptions, however the same group of people trying to get one passed is relatively the same group trying to get the other passed; gun owners and 2nd. Amendment supporters.
Both arguments will have to be submitted to the same negative adversaries by the same proponents.
The suppressor argument is going to be difficult as you have 2 main arguments; your hearing and hunting conditions. Liberals can care less about your hearing; they will simply tell you to stop shooting and are stupid enough to think this is a sufficient response. As for hunting purposes, you're going to have the liberals AND the animal lovers against you and some of the animal lovers/sympathizers are also gun owners (not all gun owners are hunters).
The full-auto argument is different but just as crazy to liberals. They are going to say the proponents are simply nuts and don't even need to have the guns they have anyway. They will argue these are too dangerous and nobody really needs these other than the military.
The answer; find a national defense issue that will fit both and they will have as hard a time arguing against it as we'll be arguing for it, but national defense issues usually win out, if only sometimes by a narrow margin.
We now have a window of opportunity slightly open to jump this effort right on through ... IF ... we don't get the liberals in DC this time around.
Regardless, saying one is not as important or as easy to pass as the other AND this is why one will not be supported over the other is likely to cause both to fail.
We're talking about the same idiots that listed the ability to "fire from the hip" as a desirable feature on a weapon (too much Commando and First Blood Part 2 apparently) so they will argue nonsensical shit no matter what, I say who cares?
The argument to make is that MGs are legal now......are they being used in crimes? Flip it on them and make it a classwarfare deal---FOPA '86 turned MGs into a rich man's game and us poor plebs need our chance to get in.
I think fighting to legalize FA would definitely fracture our community. Nobody who presently legally owns transferable FA weapons can realistically afford to have their collections devalued, which is a possibility. Look at scale: whether you're Reed Knight, or Joe Blow with one rifle, you have a chunk wrapped up in your baby. Those same people also support gun owners rights from yearly memberships to large donations. What you propose puts those guys in a tough position and I doubt they'd be as supportive.
100% agree!
I know Jellybean already said he would not care, but how many guys would be okay with their $30,000 M16s all of a sudden being $800?
brickboy240
09-13-16, 09:59
Wait....are some of the same people that poo pooed the Hillary body double issue really serious about thinking they can legalize full auto firearms?
I think we have found the true lunacy around here. LOL
With this administration, you are lucky to keep the SEMI autos you currently have. Legalized full auto.....LOL....sure.
I've read through this thread and agree the baby step approach is the way to go, legalizing suppressors, sbr's I think is quite possible. I'm not so sure the public could ever be sold on easily available full-auto. The first time a stolen legal full auto rifle gets used in Chiraq, for example, in a drive by that kills half a dozen innocents, the libs will go ballistic, and the diatribe will be non- stop... Myself, I'd be happy with over the counter suppressors, and sbr's and for the time being, leave the full atuo laws alone, until such a time when repeal looks possible. In the mean time, I'd also go along with open registration of full auto weapons. By doing that, the untold thousands of machine guns brought back from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, could be registered, and legally sold. That in itself could help the guys who brought these back, and would like to sell them, but can't. One step at a time, this is how the libs do it and it works, It's time we adopted their tactics..
100% agree!
I know Jellybean already said he would not care, but how many guys would be okay with their $30,000 M16s all of a sudden being $800?
Anyone who buys a machine gun in today's political environment as a investment that is expected to retain value or be safe from regulation that would lead to illegal ownership is a moron, or just tells their wife this to rationalize the absurd money they spend on "toys".
I for one would love to own belt fed machine guns as they serve a very practical purpose. I also know that most guys that own transferable machine guns are just as passionate about gun rights as us and would be thrilled to see the 86 ban pass away.
As far as the auto v can debate, I see it as two separate arguments. I own one suppressor and one registered SBR and to me personally I think being proactive from as many angles as possible is the best legal strategy. People have already alluded to the dubious circumstances that the 86 bill was passed, also Miller v USC is just laughable and sets the precedent that weapons common in military use are protected under the 2nd amendment for use towards common defense, that means suppressors, SBR's and machine guns.
I think people should stop thinking about which legal course of action best suites their personal interests and what best suites everyone. And for any repeal at all to happen there needs to be certain conditions in place. First, proper circuit court who supports 2nd amendment, second, Supreme Court that also supports the second amendment (because the Supreme Court is not a trials court but a court of appeals and any issue that involves gun ownership will most likely be brought here)and lastly a president/attorney general that supports the 2nd amendment, so let me know when that happens.
What really needs to happen is a case where a individual of ousts ding moral character is prosecuted under the NFA act as is able to successfully appeal it all the way the the Supreme Court.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Outlander Systems
09-13-16, 10:21
The Hearing Protection Act is an area we CAN win.
We need to fight tooth-and-nail for that.
There's no reason I shouldn't be able to get a NICS check, and walk the **** out with a can. Absolutely ****ing retarded. I have permanent tinnitus. **** the over-regulation of EVERYTHING.
What if the value of new Machine Guns costed more than current used transferable ones?
I think people should stop thinking about which legal course of action best suites their personal interests and what best suites everyone.
I'm sorry, I thought finding a legal course of action to justify legalizing suppressor and SBR would benefit more people than just me.
Can anybody give a reason why they should remain illegal from a technical standpoint? Because I don't see one. That why I think that's the easy victory to be had, and the one we should follow. Then take the momentum from that victory to the sporting clause. Then MG.
brickboy240
09-13-16, 10:44
With AR and AK pistol and those pistols with that silly SIG brace...why DO we still have the SBR law?
Seems silly but I don't look for this bunch to make owning ANY gun related items easier...only harder.
I'm sorry, I thought finding a legal course of action to justify legalizing suppressor and SBR would benefit more people than just me.
Can anybody give a reason why they should remain illegal from a technical standpoint? Because I don't see one. That why I think that's the easy victory to be had, and the one we should follow. Then take the momentum from that victory to the sporting clause. Then MG.
I agree with you completely about SBR's and suppressors but I don't see the logic that if we loose the battle against the 86 ban that this magically means we have lost trying to get SBR's and suppressors off the NFA. Even if GOA looses this law suit it means nothing (positive or negative) for any effort in trying to remove suppressors and SBR's off the NFA, we are talking about two different pieces of regulation/legislation. GOA is just wants things to go back to the way they were prior to 86, meaning that auto weapons would still be NFA but that new transfer of newly manufactured machine guns would be allowed
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I agree with you completely about SBR's and suppressors but I don't see the logic that if we loose the battle against the 86 ban that this magically means we have lost trying to get SBR's and suppressors off the NFA. Even if GOA looses this law suit it means nothing (positive or negative) for any effort in trying to remove suppressors and SBR's off the NFA, we are talking about two different pieces of regulation/legislation. GOA is just wants things to go back to the way they were prior to 86, meaning that auto weapons would still be NFA but that new transfer of newly manufactured machine guns would be allowed
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What I'm talking about is getting a new broad ruling that could be use against us later, the same way the gun community uses Heller to back anything that is against our beliefs.
I don't want a over encompassing ruling that can be used against us for everything. Machine guns are such a diverse topic that a ruling against us is almost a guarantee unless we play it smart.
Does it really matter though? The GOP made such fools of themselves during this election, that was a guaranteed win if they just put a normal candidate up, instead shot themselves in the foot. Now it seems we are about to have a Clinton as president again, and are probably going to lose a lot of votes in congress, that anything we do is going to be stone walked once Clinton puts her pick up for SCOTUS.
I'll trade all the FA in the world for unrestricted SBRs and suppressors. Or better yet, a guarantee of no-one screwing with my "inalienable" rights ever again.
Give me something actually useful, not just a feel-good win!
You contradict yourself. You want a guarantee that your 2A right will not be restricted and are willing to trade restriction of MGs to get it?
If it was repealed I would be ECSTATIC, even though it meant I had to sell off all of my neutered ARs to replace with the real deal. I can't imagine spending $200 bucks to get the real thing......I haven't even looked at what a registered receiver is these days. I know 8 years ago they were 12k but if the 3,300 NIB MACs are gone with $5,800 used ones in their place I can only imagine.
Form-1, mill, drill, add FA FCG parts. If 922(o) went away, just about EVERY firearm in my collection would be converted to select-fire within the first 1-2 months of repeal. Well, the form-1s would be submitted at least.
Non-Colt RRs are $18-20k, Colt AR15 model 614 $22-24k, Colt M16A1 rifle $24-26k, Colt M16A1 carbine $26-28k, Colt M16A2 rifle $28-30k, Colt M16A2 carbine $30-33k, Colt M16A2 command $35k+. This does not include rarer Colts like 639 and 640 Commandos, property marked guns, rare variants, etc.
Oh and MACs are $6500 - $9k, depending on the model and who is selling.
I support any effort to repeal the FA ban. I support any effort to make SBRs, SBSGs, and suppressors legal. I support any effort to get national reciprocity passed. I support any effort from any faction of "our side" to get something done to stop the legislative madness that has been infringing upon our 2A rights for decades.
They attack us at every turn and on every front possible. We should be doing the same thing. The more things like this we throw at them, the more they will have to spend time, effort and resources to stop it. Just like us, they can't stop everything. We can also use something like this as a bargaining chip for small victories elsewhere. "You libs don't want FA guns on the streets, then give us suppressors…" "We'll drop the new mfg. of FA guns, if you give us SBRs and Constitutional Carry in all US states and territories." Come at them with everything and settle for the things that we really want. Make them think they won, while we snatch up one little victory at a time.
If we don't try, we can't win anything. I've been advocating going on the offensive since Billy boys first term. Stop sitting back and defending against every stupid piece of legislation these progressives throw at us. ATTACK!!! ATTACK!!! ATACK!!! In a legislative sense, I mean… There is no reason we have to choose between going after the FA bans, or SBRs and cans. Why can't we do both, and many more, all at the same time. Bombard those A-holes! Hit them with everything all at the same time. Don't shout down our allies because you think your cause is some how superior, or more winnable. Support your allies in whatever fight they choose to devote their time and effort to, and hope they will support your cause when the time comes. "They" have been dividing and conquering us for decades. Lets not help them divide and conquer us anymore.
I actually suggested this on the comments section of the Make America Great Again
solicitation letter with my $25.00 political donation check.
They cashed the check.
No comment on the 1986 FA repeal.
Duh !
Form-1, mill, drill, add FA FCG parts. If 922(o) went away, just about EVERY firearm in my collection would be converted to select-fire within the first 1-2 months of repeal. Well, the form-1s would be submitted at least.
Non-Colt RRs are $18-20k, Colt AR15 model 614 $22-24k, Colt M16A1 rifle $24-26k, Colt M16A1 carbine $26-28k, Colt M16A2 rifle $28-30k, Colt M16A2 carbine $30-33k, Colt M16A2 command $35k+. This does not include rarer Colts like 639 and 640 Commandos, property marked guns, rare variants, etc.
Oh and MACs are $6500 - $9k, depending on the model and who is selling.
Wow. As late as '09 (last time I looked) there were still NIB MACs available for under 4k. I think a Colt RR was 12-15k back then as well.
Another doubling of prices in a short period of time.
I know Form 1 would be a possibility if it went away but milling, drilling, engraving and re-anodizing are outside of my skillset and equipment capabilities.
That little nagging feeling at the back of my head that my weapons aren't quite right going away would be worth every penny.
I have yet to hear a winning argument that would get suppressors off of the NFA. They are an accessory and having to pay a $200 tax on top of the cost is not an infringement on the free exercise of a persons 2A rights. Don't take this to mean that I am against efforts to have them removed from the NFA. I am in favor of doing away with that unjust infringement entirely. I have just never heard an argument that I think would convince 5/9ths of SCOTUS to do it. I think the Sporter Clause and national CCW reciprocity should be our main focus, then start removing the NFA.
Wow. As late as '09 (last time I looked) there were still NIB MACs available for under 4k. I think a Colt RR was 12-15k back then as well.
Another doubling of prices in a short period of time.
I know Form 1 would be a possibility if it went away but milling, drilling, engraving and re-anodizing are outside of my skillset and equipment capabilities.
That little nagging feeling at the back of my head that my weapons aren't quite right going away would be worth every penny.
Yep. And HK sears are going for $30-32k, with complete sear gun MP5s going for $36-39k. Registered frames that use all factory full auto FCG parts (i.e. DLO, Neal Smith, etc) are going for $35-37k, with complete MP5s going for $40+.
There is an old adage in the transferable MG collector world - "you never pay too much, you only potentially pay a high price too early". I paid $12,500 for my DLO frame in '06 and $21.5k for my fleming sear installed in a SEF frame with dyer retimed hammer in May 2015. In both cases I felt nauseated when writing the checks. Now, there is no nausea. It has been replaced by joy in buying before the really stupid prices came to be.
Yep. And HK sears are going for $30-32k, with complete sear gun MP5s going for $36-39k. Registered frames that use all factory full auto FCG parts (i.e. DLO, Neal Smith, etc) are going for $35-37k, with complete MP5s going for $40+.
There is an old adage in the transferable MG collector world - "you never pay too much, you only potentially pay a high price too early". I paid $12,500 for my DLO frame in '06 and $21.5k for my fleming sear installed in a SEF frame with dyer retimed hammer in May 2015. In both cases I felt nauseated when writing the checks. Now, there is no nausea. It has been replaced by joy in buying before the really stupid prices came to be.
Lately I've been kicking around the idea of becoming an FFL/SOT holder. I work a lot of hours but my wife is homemaker that minored in accounting in college and could handle the paperwork for me and while the extra income wouldn't be anything great (don't plan on stocking a huge inventory/investing a lot in at first) the perks of getting things at dealer cost and possibility of post-samples (though you still need help to get these and with my lack of people skills could be a problem) would be great.
Without first removing the "sporter clause" this is a very precarious approach. You could very easily remove 922o and see it replaced with what they originally wanted.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?138963-H-R-3155-Racketeer-Weapons-and-Violent-Crime-Control-Act
People only understand they want new machine guns, so they find the law that prevents it. Where they fail is finding the law that permits the restriction in the first place.
People also talk about getting rid of the NFA without understanding that if they got their wish it may not turn out like they imagined.
See....that's the problem. No gun liberty without some cruel Twilight Zone twist.
See....that's the problem. No gun liberty without some cruel Twilight Zone twist.
The "sporter clause" within the 1968 Gun Control Act is what needs to go. That is the tool ATF uses to legislate by decree and determine what guns may or may not be imported or otherwise regulated. If we were able to successfully strike the "sporter clause" (and we made several changed to the 68 GCA with FOPA 86) we'd eliminate:
The 1968 ban on private transfers of foreign machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, etc.
The 1986 ban on private transfers of domestic machine guns produced after May 1986.
The 1989 ban on imports of most military style semi auto rifles.
The 922r requirement to build parts kits into firearms with enough US made parts.
The barrel import ban.
The ban on rifle ammunition that may be fired in a handgun configuration.
Without the sporter clause ATF would have to go back to cashing checks, processing forms and things like that.
"Sporter clause".
How did it ever get into people's heads that weapons in general have frak-all to do with sports.
That's like putting a "Journalism" or "Edification" clause in the 1st Amendment.
Seriously....I'm tired of legislation that fcks with you for like no reason.
"Sporter clause".
How did it ever get into people's heads that weapons in general have frak-all to do with sports.
That's like putting a "Journalism" or "Edification" clause in the 1st Amendment.
Seriously....I'm tired of legislation that fcks with you for like no reason.
That is what Johnson signed into law back in 1968. The purpose was to prevent the importation of "military firearms" like what Oswald used to shoot Kennedy. That is why there was no such thing as a SKS in any US firearm collection unless it was a Vietnam war trophy.
All Mausers were pre 68 imports and very expensive. Moisin Nagants were virtually unheard of. That is one of the things FOPA changed in 1986 but they simply made "add ons" rather than get rid of the root of the problem, which was the sporter clause.
And as we have seen, "add ons" can be taken away with item specific import bans. This is why you can no longer import a Russian SKS today.
But the thing is, back in 1968 it sounded "reasonable" to the majority of hunters in the NRA. After all they had no need for things like SKS rifles.
That attitude has set us back plenty.
"Why do you need that?"
I wish those people were forced to drive pintos and marry opinionated fat girls because "it's all you need."
If I were alive in the 60s, I probably wouldn't care about Communist made guns. I would be toting a nickeled Hi Power, buying up AR10s, and making time with snarky beatnik girls. But...they put that provision in there to protect the "elites".
Would it have made anyone feel better if Kennedy was shot with a Remington in 6MM?
All laws should be opposed that are steeped in emotion and that only benefits government. There will come a day when some young man will look up on the (censored) internet and see some far out guns and be like "Man, people had it made."
I unironically say, think of the children. They deserve goid stuff once they grow up.
Also, why Texas even claims LBJ is a mystery to me.
The "sporter clause" within the 1968 Gun Control Act is what needs to go. That is the tool ATF uses to legislate by decree and determine what guns may or may not be imported or otherwise regulated. If we were able to successfully strike the "sporter clause" (and we made several changed to the 68 GCA with FOPA 86) we'd eliminate:
The 1968 ban on private transfers of foreign machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, etc.
The 1986 ban on private transfers of domestic machine guns produced after May 1986.
The 1989 ban on imports of most military style semi auto rifles.
The 922r requirement to build parts kits into firearms with enough US made parts.
The barrel import ban.
The ban on rifle ammunition that may be fired in a handgun configuration.
Without the sporter clause ATF would have to go back to cashing checks, processing forms and things like that.
Amen. My sentiments exactly.
I have yet to hear a winning argument that would get suppressors off of the NFA. They are an accessory and having to pay a $200 tax on top of the cost is not an infringement on the free exercise of a persons 2A rights. Don't take this to mean that I am against efforts to have them removed from the NFA. I am in favor of doing away with that unjust infringement entirely. I have just never heard an argument that I think would convince 5/9ths of SCOTUS to do it. I think the Sporter Clause and national CCW reciprocity should be our main focus, then start removing the NFA.
What about unfair taxation? The number 200 was an arbitrary number plucked from thin air to keep NFA items out of the reach of the average Joe public.
What about unfair taxation? The number 200 was an arbitrary number plucked from thin air to keep NFA items out of the reach of the average Joe public.
A firearm will function without a suppressor. Having to pay a tax on an accessory that the firearm doesn't require to function is not a infringement on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Having to ask permission and pay a tax to exercise fundamental right over an arbitrary barrel length and overall length is an infringement though.
Don't get me wrong, the whole NFA nonsense is a complete infringement on every American's 2A rights and should be done away with. But I have never heard a legitimate argument that I think would convince judges, specifically 5/9ths of SCOTUS, that paying a tax and asking permission to own what amounts to a firearm accessory is an infringement on American's 2A rights.
The Sporter Clause is really where we need to focus our efforts.
You contradict yourself. You want a guarantee that your 2A right will not be restricted and are willing to trade restriction of MGs to get it?
My point was;
I support any effort to repeal the FA ban. I support any effort to make SBRs, SBSGs, and suppressors legal. I support any effort to get national reciprocity passed. I support any effort from any faction of "our side" to get something done to stop the legislative madness that has been infringing upon our 2A rights for decades.
They attack us at every turn and on every front possible. We should be doing the same thing. The more things like this we throw at them, the more they will have to spend time, effort and resources to stop it. Just like us, they can't stop everything. We can also use something like this as a bargaining chip for small victories elsewhere. "You libs don't want FA guns on the streets, then give us suppressors…" "We'll drop the new mfg. of FA guns, if you give us SBRs and Constitutional Carry in all US states and territories." Come at them with everything and settle for the things that we really want. Make them think they won, while we snatch up one little victory at a time.
......
And if we magically had an actual unrestricted 2A in this country tomorrow, I'd be be out in the streets celebrating by carting home crates of SAWs and freshly imported MG3s with the rest of you. :laugh:
However, being the boringly realistic SOB that I am, I know none of that is likely to happen. SO...given the current status quo of restricted legalities for a fee, or the possibility some have theorized of fracturing the [already somewhat fractured] gun community by the possibility of investment guns becoming regular Joe guns, my point was simple. Go for the low hanging fruit.
In today's climate of dumb, you may as well ask for legal RPGs along with FA.
Whereas non-gun folk can be made to understand (maybe) SBRs and supressors, which means the likelihood of getting pro legislation passed there is much higher than legalizing FA.
I'm all for making them play defense for a change, but at the same time, it's also about picking the right hill to die on.
That attitude has set us back plenty.
"Why do you need that?"
I wish those people were forced to drive pintos and marry opinionated fat girls because "it's all you need."
If I were alive in the 60s, I probably wouldn't care about Communist made guns. I would be toting a nickeled Hi Power, buying up AR10s, and making time with snarky beatnik girls. But...they put that provision in there to protect the "elites".
Would it have made anyone feel better if Kennedy was shot with a Remington in 6MM?
All laws should be opposed that are steeped in emotion and that only benefits government. There will come a day when some young man will look up on the (censored) internet and see some far out guns and be like "Man, people had it made."
I unironically say, think of the children. They deserve goid stuff once they grow up.
Also, why Texas even claims LBJ is a mystery to me.
My point in mentioning the SKS is simply that thanks to FOPA 86 it is a very common and pedestrian firearm but was once rarer than a Swiss made SIG rifle.
But that is how the NRA was defending guns in the 60s, by promoting gun owners as responsible "sportsmen" and they played right into the enemies hands.
People can say what they wish about Kennedy, but at least he understood the purpose of the second amendment.
http://i57.tinypic.com/2aagg3q.jpg
It's a shame he isn't still alive to give some lessons to some of today's Republicans.
What about unfair taxation? The number 200 was an arbitrary number plucked from thin air to keep NFA items out of the reach of the average Joe public.
And if this isnt handled properly we may just end up with and even more unfair taxation with another arbitrary number, probably with another decimal place added.
Target the sporter clause its the opposable thumb of antigun legislation
Eurodriver
09-18-16, 06:30
Molon Labe means "come and take them"
what is usually overlooked is: they did.
Greeks VS Persians, Battle of Thermopylae. Persians 1, Greeks 0
School yard bullies are tough until they get punched in the face, unfortunately we're the bully who gets punched in the face. Molon Labe means "Yes Sir, Mr. ATF sir" DTOM and the Gadsden flag, means "I talk loud but I don't want to go to jail, but my pickup needed a sticker for the back window."
A lot of people in the gun community are the guys out on a Saturday night and start talking and screaming loud in the parking lot pretending that they want to get in a fight so that somebody will call the cops, if they really meant it they would be the quiet ones who take you in the dark ally to kick the shit out of you when no one's looking and they're not doing it for the glory, they're doing for the cause.
At least that's my impression.
Damn. Two sig worthy posts in one thread.
Preach.
I know of a guy who drives around with his car full of that oorah gun stuff like all the 3% BS. He listens to Nickelback.
NICKELBACK. I mean it's okay to secretly like one song or be wasted and sorta enjoy it for like no reason.
But I just don't trust people who actively listen to Nickelback straight, sober, and unironically
Damn. Two sig worthy posts in one thread.
Preach.
Yes, technically the Persians won at Thermopylae, but then lost at Salamis.
The important thing is the Greeks said "F U" despite the fact that they were facing overwhelming numbers and were willing to fight to the death rather than accept slavery. The reason why there is Western culture is because it did not end that year with a Persian victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis#Aftermath
Moose-Knuckle
09-19-16, 04:23
Molon Labe means "come and take them"
what is usually overlooked is: they did.
Greeks VS Persians, Battle of Thermopylae. Persians 1, Greeks 0
That was the whole point, the 300 knew they would die they were making a stand.
After DAYS of slaughtering an enemy with superior numbers their act of defiance bolstered the city states in Greece to unify and repel the savage hoard.
Yes, technically the Persians won at Thermopylae, but then lost at Salamis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Salamis#Aftermath
And then, about 150 years later, Alexander annexed the Persian Empire.
The important thing is the Greeks said "F U" despite the fact that they were facing overwhelming numbers and were willing to fight to the death rather than accept slavery. The reason why there is Western culture is because it did not end that year with a Persian victory.
Which is ironic considering that Sparta's existence heavily relied on slaves. The whole reason that most Spartans were warriors was to maintain order (ie the institution of slavery) in a society in which slaves outnumbered free people.
That was the whole point, the 300 knew they would die they were making a stand.
After DAYS of slaughtering an enemy with superior numbers their act of defiance bolstered the city states in Greece to unify and repel the savage hoard.
It wasn't just 300 Greeks. There were probably around 10,000 at the battle. If you mean the last stand at the end, there were probably around 1,500 Greeks that formed the rearguard to let the rest of the force escape.
Also it's not like Thermopylae unified Greece... Greece was already unified before the battle. The loss at Thermopylae allowed Persia to take over most of Greece, including Athens.
Athens did burn but the final joke was on Persia at Plataea.
For a pretty good examination of all gun control laws since the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Pick up or order 'Unintended Consequences' by John Ross a fictional vehicle for discussion of
the gun control mentality of the Federal Government.
Averageman
09-19-16, 14:01
"Come and Take It" was also on the Texican flag at the Battle of Gonzales Texas.
You don't win them all when you fight a bully, but it worked in Texas!
Which is ironic considering that Sparta's existence heavily relied on slaves. The whole reason that most Spartans were warriors was to maintain order (ie the institution of slavery) in a society in which slaves outnumbered free people.
True but eventually the Western cultures released their slaves and came to the realization that it was a savage and barbaric practice. What became of the Persian culture is still a few years behind in this regard.
True but eventually the Western cultures released their slaves and came to the realization that it was a savage and barbaric practice. What became of the Persian culture is still a few years behind in this regard.
It only took 2300 years after Thermopylae for Western culture to release their slaves.
The Persian culture was more or less replaced with Greek culture in the territories of Persia due to Macedon first, then the Diadochi (Seleucid, Ptolemy, etc) after Alexander's death. If you're referring to culture in the modern Iran, it has almost nothing in common with the culture that fought at Thermopylae, besides the physical location of some of the people. That area of the world has been owned by a large number of Empires. It's like a rite of passage for a Western empire to own the Fertile Crescent.
It only took 2300 years after Thermopylae for Western culture to release their slaves.
The Persian culture was more or less replaced with Greek culture in the territories of Persia due to Macedon first, then the Diadochi (Seleucid, Ptolemy, etc) after Alexander's death. If you're referring to culture in the modern Iran, it has almost nothing in common with the culture that fought at Thermopylae, besides the physical location of some of the people. That area of the world has been owned by a large number of Empires. It's like a rite of passage for a Western empire to own the Fertile Crescent.
I almost posted this same thing but he did say "what became".
We believe Xerxes, Darius, etc were followers of Zoroastrianism.
It only took 2300 years after Thermopylae for Western culture to release their slaves.
And yet we still seemed to have led the rest of the world in that effort.
Also, why Texas even claims LBJ is a mystery to me.
This one doesn't. Even his freeway sucks here in Dallas.
Moose-Knuckle
09-20-16, 01:30
Which is ironic considering that Sparta's existence heavily relied on slaves. The whole reason that most Spartans were warriors was to maintain order (ie the institution of slavery) in a society in which slaves outnumbered free people.
Why is that ironic? It's the human condition to control, weld power, and dominate.
Every great civilization / super power from Sumer to the USA has had slaves.
The irony lies in the the fact that Spartans instilled combative arts at an early age to forge warriors so their society would retain it's dominance, i.e. it's survival. Where as the vast majority of Asian martial arts were developed by peasant farmers to fight and defend themselves from well armed and financed armies bent on enslaving them.
It wasn't just 300 Greeks. There were probably around 10,000 at the battle. If you mean the last stand at the end, there were probably around 1,500 Greeks that formed the rearguard to let the rest of the force escape.
The Spartan king, on the third day of the battle, rallied his small force - the survivors from the original Spartan 300, 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans - and made a rearguard stand to defend the pass to the last man in the hope of delaying the Persians progress, in order to allow the rest of the Greek force to retreat or also possibly to await relief from a larger Greek force.
http://www.ancient.eu/thermopylae/
Moose-Knuckle
09-20-16, 01:32
It only took 2300 years after Thermopylae for Western culture to release their slaves.
LOL and today in the Middle East the culture and people that have been there since pre-history STILL HAVE slavery. It's almost as if islam was custom made to fit those people groups.
"Control is always automatic".
Nevermind. Don't care enough to continue this off topic discussion.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.