View Full Version : how many supporters?
lets say that in the near future someone proposed that the machine gun ban be overturned and civilains could once again make their own/buy new machine guns while sitll paying the tax's and doing the same paper work. How many people would support it? How many current nfa machine gun owners would support it, because for the most part their investments will drop drastically.
telecustom
11-03-09, 09:46
I think if we still did the same NFA paperwork, there is no reason not to allow new Full Autos on the market. It is about responsibility. Some people have it and some don't. By allowing new production F/As on the market it would greatly decrease the price that we all have to pay. The there is still a ammo issue, but I'm not going to get into that here.
lets say that in the near future someone proposed that the machine gun ban be overturned and civilains could once again make their own/buy new machine guns while sitll paying the tax's and doing the same paper work. How many people would support it? How many current nfa machine gun owners would support it, because for the most part their investments will drop drastically.
Analogous to the end of the AWB, in which some deeply invested and heavily stockpiled were about to see the bottom of their collection drop out.
There were those cheering the end of bad legislation and accepting the loss. There were those, less vocally, bemoaning the sunset.
Every NFA owner (MG) I know would love to see the end of the ban even if their "investment" would lose most of its value. Most of them are in it for the MGs, not the investment.
thopkins22
11-03-09, 11:43
If a MG owner doesn't support it, then they better turn in their NRA card too. Not too cool to pull the ladder up after yourself.
Besides, isn't illegal for a non FFL to purchase a firearm with the intention of turning a profit? Probably impossible to prove, and a stupid law but....
Besides, isn't illegal for a non FFL to purchase a firearm with the intention of turning a profit? Probably impossible to prove, and a stupid law but....
No, it is not illegal for a non-FFL to sell a firearm for a profit -- even to purchase a firearm with intent to sell it at a profit. What is illegal, AFAIK, is for a non FFL to operate in the business of selling firearms without a license. If you are constantly buying and selling then you may run afoul of this. If you buy once in a while, even with intent to resell someday when the market is up, you are fine.
That is how I understand it.
I agree with your other points.
If they overturned the Act of 1986, I would be ecstatic. Although, the big collectors of Machine guns wouldn't be so happy as the money they put into their investment would be flushed down the drain.
You might get support from a few thousand voters out of a country of over 300 million.
Seriously, the NFA is such a tiny community that it is politically insignificant. Sad but true.
The NRA will NOT support NFA repeal or reduction. It would cost them too much, politically, because the anti-gun forces would use it to paint the NRA as "extremists" and frighten people into supporting anti-gun groups (look what they tried to do to Alito's nomination over a simple application of law to facts).
Further, Heller has blessed the NFA as acceptable reasonable restriction on ownership.
The NFA is here to stay. The ONLY hope to harbor is for CATO to take up yet another challenge to (i believe) section 922(o).
The NRA will NOT support NFA repeal or reduction.
I don't think you are right but we are not talking about getting rid of the NFA. The discussion is overturning the 86 ban on new machine guns for civilian ownership. Overturn that and all new MG are still subject to the NFA.
While I'd be sad about how much money I paid for mine, I'd be very happy to see it go.
What I'd be happier to see is the repeal of insane ammo prices. At the current rate, there would be little use in investing more money on FA firearms. There's no way I could afford to feed more of them. :(
As somebody who has a shitload of money in NFA items, I'd completely support it.
Certain firearms would still retain a great deal of value just as original Green Label Colts are still collectible despite the fact that you can get brand new LE model Colts for a lot less.
It would be worth it to me to get all the guns you couldn't get due to the 68 GCA. I'd rather have all factory HK guns than sear or receiver conversions anway. And AKs, we'd finally be able to get some on the registry and that would be worth it to me.
My guns are more for shooting and not really an investment in any case.
No, it is not illegal for a non-FFL to sell a firearm for a profit -- even to purchase a firearm with intent to sell it at a profit. What is illegal, AFAIK, is for a non FFL to operate in the business of selling firearms without a license. If you are constantly buying and selling then you may run afoul of this. If you buy once in a while, even with intent to resell someday when the market is up, you are fine.
That is how I understand it.
I agree with your other points.
There is an awful lot of gray area, but I would disagree:
(22) The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.
Buying and selling with the intent to profit seems pretty clearly to me to be an activity that requires a license. It would be hard to prove for a single sale, absent any kind of evidence, such as internet postings saying one is planning on selling for profit.
Obviously, it is not unlawful to profit from the sale of one's gun collection. However, these profits are capital gains and would be taxed at the collectibles rate of 28%.
be careful out there, folks.
If you are dumb enough to snitch yourself out then you deserve a 50% tax rate. We have talked about this before (along with the "constructive intent" crap) and unless you are brain dead or doing something illegal to begin with then it's pretty much a non-issue. I bought a Daniel Defense carbine in early 09 and sold it last month. Am I now in violation? I would think not.
There is an awful lot of gray area, but I would disagree:
Buying and selling with the intent to profit seems pretty clearly to me to be an activity that requires a license. It would be hard to prove for a single sale, absent any kind of evidence, such as internet postings saying one is planning on selling for profit.
Obviously, it is not unlawful to profit from the sale of one's gun collection. However, these profits are capital gains and would be taxed at the collectibles rate of 28%.
be careful out there, folks.
No Bananas
11-03-09, 20:21
You might get support from a few thousand voters out of a country of over 300 million.
Seriously, the NFA is such a tiny community that it is politically insignificant. Sad but true.
The NRA will NOT support NFA repeal or reduction. It would cost them too much, politically, because the anti-gun forces would use it to paint the NRA as "extremists" and frighten people into supporting anti-gun groups (look what they tried to do to Alito's nomination over a simple application of law to facts).
Further, Heller has blessed the NFA as acceptable reasonable restriction on ownership.
The NFA is here to stay. The ONLY hope to harbor is for CATO to take up yet another challenge to (i believe) section 922(o).
+1 on that. Most folks, even most firearm shooting folks, actually don't know that MGs are federally legal. Even more in the general public are not aware. It is assumed they are federally illegal. If more average Joes and Janes become aware of MG legality, I think it will have a negative impact due to ignorance. The media and anti-gun groups wouldn't be telling anyone the truth about registered guns and crime. Sadly, I believe that if there are any changes to NFA, it will be to make it more restrictive:(.
If you are dumb enough to snitch yourself out then you deserve a 50% tax rate. We have talked about this before (along with the "constructive intent" crap) and unless you are brain dead or doing something illegal to begin with then it's pretty much a non-issue. I bought a Daniel Defense carbine in early 09 and sold it last month. Am I now in violation? I would think not.
With regard to being prosecuted, of course it's pretty much a non-issue. But the law says what it says. The fact that you're not likely to get caught doesn't make what you're doing legal.
I cringe when I see people tell others on the net to put "investment" on their Forms 1 & 4 as their "reasonable necessity to possess," but what the hell, they're not likely to get caught, so ignorance is bliss I guess.
CarlosDJackal
11-03-09, 21:17
lets say that in the near future someone proposed that the machine gun ban be overturned and civilains could once again make their own/buy new machine guns while sitll paying the tax's and doing the same paper work. How many people would support it? How many current nfa machine gun owners would support it, because for the most part their investments will drop drastically.
I wouldn't care if my investment lost value because I get to buy more NFA items at affordable prices. That would be freaking awesome!! :D
If you are dumb enough to snitch yourself out then you deserve a 50% tax rate. We have talked about this before (along with the "constructive intent" crap) and unless you are brain dead or doing something illegal to begin with then it's pretty much a non-issue. I bought a Daniel Defense carbine in early 09 and sold it last month. Am I now in violation? I would think not.
Well, you are doing something illegal if you possess the parts to readily assemble a NFA item (without any legal configuration for them). We've been through that before, as you say.
You are also doing something illegal if you are engaged in the regular practice of buying and selling firearms for profit and you're not a FFL.
Whether the government is able to detect what you're doing is an entirely separate issue, but it's still illegal. If you want to live by the "it's only a crime if you get caught" mantra, then that's quite a slippery slope you're living on.
I can tell you that, at least in my area, the ATF goes to all the gun shows, and they notice who is there regularly, selling guns without a FFL. They have questioned people about it before. I would not be surprised if they watch internet classified forums as well.
The 1986 NFA is in violation of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. It also violates the fundamental human rights to self determination and self defense, it should be repealed immediately. So I think it would be great if this ever happened.
Cameron
Buying and selling with the intent to profit seems pretty clearly to me to be an activity that requires a license. It would be hard to prove for a single sale, absent any kind of evidence, such as internet postings saying one is planning on selling for profit.
Obviously, it is not unlawful to profit from the sale of one's gun collection. However, these profits are capital gains and would be taxed at the collectibles rate of 28%.
be careful out there, folks.
You forgot the word "livelihood" in the statute you quoted. I don't know what the word "livelihood" means in a legal sense but to me it implies some sort of intent to profit in an ongoing way. Occasional sales at a profit, even of items you originally bought with the hope they would appreciate in value, seems to fail the "livelihood" test
Aditionally, "Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism." This implies that proof IS required of "regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearm" when criminal or terrorism purposes are not being put forth.
Profit alone is not enough.
You forgot the word "livelihood" in the statute you quoted. I don't know what the word "livelihood" means in a legal sense but to me it implies some sort of intent to profit in an ongoing way. Occasional sales at a profit, even of items you originally bought with the hope they would appreciate in value, seems to fail the "livelihood" test
"And pecuniary gain." Remember, one of the words being defined in the paragraph I posted is "livelihood." Defining a word by itself doesn't exactly clear things up. Also, pecuniary gain doesn't even need to be the only reason for selling a gun in order to meet the criteria in that paragraph, it only needs to be a "predominant" intent.
I agree 100% that proving intent is a hard challenge, and that repeated instances would make an easier case than just one.
But I mainly disagreed with your statement:
No, it is not illegal for a non-FFL to sell a firearm for a profit -- even to purchase a firearm with intent to sell it at a profit.
"Intent" is the key here, and I see nothing in the law that says that buying/selling guns, with the intent to profit, without a license is OK, if you only do it a little bit.
Aditionally, "Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism." This implies that proof IS required of "regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearm" when criminal or terrorism purposes are not being put forth.
Profit alone is not enough.
You've misread this.
"And pecuniary gain." Remember, one of the words being defined in the paragraph I posted is "livelihood." Defining a word by itself doesn't exactly clear things up. Also, pecuniary gain doesn't even need to be the only reason for selling a gun in order to meet the criteria in that paragraph, it only needs to be a "predominant" intent.
I don't see "livelihood" defined at all. It says "AND pecuniary gain." AND usually means in addition to. Not in definition of.
I agree 100% that proving intent is a hard challenge, and that repeated instances would make an easier case than just one.
But I mainly disagreed with your statement:
"Intent" is the key here, and I see nothing in the law that says that buying/selling guns, with the intent to profit, without a license is OK, if you only do it a little bit.
You've misread this.
I did? It is pretty clear. It says that it must be for livelihood and that in the case of terrorism or criminal intent you don't need to have repeated and frequent sales, ergo, for non terrorism or criminal intent prosecution you DO have to have repeated sales -- a pattern.
Intent of profit alone is not sufficient.
You seem to be the one who has misread this.
At one point had two M16's. I would have immediately signed on to sunset the GCA and NFA acts. If I have the money for two M16's, I have the money to buy 10 more, or the jigs to do it myself if they were legal again.
geminidglocker
11-04-09, 15:59
I support machineguns for everybody, so long as they are of sound mind and spirit, pass backround check, etc;
In Switzerland, the citizens are allowed to keep there service issue rifle, even though it gets downgraded to Semi-auto, They don' t have much gun violence there from what I hear.
I don't see "livelihood" defined at all. It says "AND pecuniary gain." AND usually means in addition to. Not in definition of.
I did? It is pretty clear. It says that it must be for livelihood and that in the case of terrorism or criminal intent you don't need to have repeated and frequent sales, ergo, for non terrorism or criminal intent prosecution you DO have to have repeated sales -- a pattern.
Intent of profit alone is not sufficient.
You seem to be the one who has misread this.
I don't think so, but we'll have to agree to see things differently on this.
I think that there could be a slim ray of hope of the law being overturned, even if more of the public became aware of MG's, I mean given our country's track record on voting the past decade it still baffels me on how certain laws get passed and how certain officals become elected, so who knows something unexpected wouldn't be unusal :rolleyes:. The main proponent would be for the government to stop infringing and taking away citizen's rights, which might get more supporters than saying let private citizens make MG's again.
lets say that in the near future someone proposed that the machine gun ban be overturned and civilains could once again make their own/buy new machine guns while sitll paying the tax's and doing the same paper work. How many people would support it? How many current nfa machine gun owners would support it, because for the most part their investments will drop drastically.
I would gladly take a tremendous hit in the value of my transferable machineguns in order to legally be able to register new ones and purchase newly manufactured machineguns.
The 1986 NFA is in violation of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. It also violates the fundamental human rights to self determination and self defense, it should be repealed immediately. So I think it would be great if this ever happened.
Cameron
Just to make you aware, it is the 1934 NFA and FOPA 1986. And you most certainly do NOT want to repeal FOPA 1986 aka Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
The Dumb Gun Collector
11-05-09, 00:03
I would saw my M16 in half and throw it in a lake if it would help get the ban overturned. Like somebody here said, despite what we tell our wives, we are in it for the guns, not the investment.
Just to make you aware, it is the 1934 NFA and FOPA 1986. And you most certainly do NOT want to repeal FOPA 1986 aka Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
Correct, just the part about machine guns in the FOPA
NinjaMedic
11-05-09, 00:29
I think the only realistic way to get rid of the MG Ban is through the judicial branch not the legislative. Even then it would be unlikely. I think the best chance that we have would be for a state governor to sign a paper saying that members of the militia within that governors state should carry X rifle (say an M16A1) in the interests of ensuring the "well regulated militia" and their ability to serve as such. Then someone sues the federal government for preventing them from fulfilling their obligation to serve in the militia. That would lead to the repeal of the 86 MG ban while leaving alone the NFA and FOPA with little political impact and secure the other half of the 2nd amendment that DC vs Heller didnt have to consider.
lets say that in the near future someone proposed that the machine gun ban be overturned and civilains could once again make their own/buy new machine guns while sitll paying the tax's and doing the same paper work. How many people would support it? How many current nfa machine gun owners would support it, because for the most part their investments will drop drastically.
Brother, I'd be in all the way. It would be a dream for me, as a firearms supporter and enthusiast, to be able have just about any MG be affordable for my collection.
Even if they came in yearly limited quantities it would be better than having to pay small salaries to afford quality MGs. Would love to see the same apply for imports as well.
I would saw my M16 in half and throw it in a lake if it would help get the ban overturned. Like somebody here said, despite what we tell our wives, we are in it for the guns, not the investment.
Now that's the spirit!
The other thing to go along with it is the 89 BUSH ban... (which gave us all that 922(r) crap)
Correct, just the part about machine guns in the FOPA
Yep, and that is why we need to get rid of the "sporter clause" in the 1968 GCA. It is that and that alone which gives ATF the discretion to decide some guns are bad and some guns are good.
Without the sporter clause, all guns become simply "arms" and that is exactly how the second amendment was intended. It didn't have jack shit to do with "sporting."
Yep, and that is why we need to get rid of the "sporter clause" in the 1968 GCA. It is that and that alone which gives ATF the discretion to decide some guns are bad and some guns are good.
Without the sporter clause, all guns become simply "arms" and that is exactly how the second amendment was intended. It didn't have jack shit to do with "sporting."
Agreed 100%
Yep, and that is why we need to get rid of the "sporter clause" in the 1968 GCA. It is that and that alone which gives ATF the discretion to decide some guns are bad and some guns are good.
Without the sporter clause, all guns become simply "arms" and that is exactly how the second amendment was intended. It didn't have jack shit to do with "sporting."
Correct. AND, Heller indicates that the 2nd's intent was not to protect "sporting" purposes, but rather all traditional uses including personal protection in the home.
The danger of allowing the GCA68's "sporting clause" to go unchallenged is that it could easily be abused the way it was in 1994, to declare the USAS-12 shotgun to be a "destructive device" even though it is simply a semi-auto 12 gauge, because it was not "sporting enough" for the administration at that time (plus, they added in the NFA's limit on bore diameter over 0.50 inch).
But, back to 922(o). I still believe the only hope is to challenge 922(o) in the courts - again & again until we defeat it.
Correct. AND, Heller indicates that the 2nd's intent was not to protect "sporting" purposes, but rather all traditional uses including personal protection in the home.
The danger of allowing the GCA68's "sporting clause" to go unchallenged is that it could easily be abused the way it was in 1994, to declare the USAS-12 shotgun to be a "destructive device" even though it is simply a semi-auto 12 gauge, because it was not "sporting enough" for the administration at that time (plus, they added in the NFA's limit on bore diameter over 0.50 inch).
But, back to 922(o). I still believe the only hope is to challenge 922(o) in the courts - again & again until we defeat it.
Unfortunately, the Court in Heller all but threw machineguns and the Miller opinion under the bus:
Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.... We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns....
In other words, the Heller court engaged in rather circular reasoning in saying that NFA weapons are not commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and thus not protected ... but of course the reason, at least in part, that such weapons are less common is because of the NFA and the machinegun moratorium of 1986.
The Helleropinion was hailed as a great victory for gun rights - and in many ways it is - but it did not do us any favors on the "evil-looking" gun front.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.