View Full Version : Video surfaces with Hughes/86 ban procedure in committee
Link to the youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
Video shows that Roberts Rules were violated without consent and the Hughes Amendment was illegally adopted.
Congress at work I guess.
Until now this record (heavily edited )has been the only reference to that controversial meeting.
http://www.iwilldefendtheconstitution.com/Congressional_Transcript.pdf
It's amazing...25 years later and all the same faces and still nothing getting done. I hope for the sake of this country that we all wake up and get things moving in the right direction before it's too late. :eek:
Belmont31R
01-25-11, 11:34
Yeah that amendment was not passed out of committee but Rangel had the clerk add it as being passed by a voice vote ignoring the calls for a recorded vote.
Unfortunately the house passed it in the final voting of the bill even though it was illegally added to that final bill.
Amazing but not surprising.....:rolleyes:
I'm always amazed how the rules only apply to us, no wonder they think we're morons we keep voting them in office.
chris
HermanSnerd
01-25-11, 12:58
There are several gun boards buzzing about this right now.
We all need to spread the word about this travesty on all of the
internet forums and blogs we visit, and write our congressmen.
Yeah, I think this guy on Uzi Forums is the one who took the trouble to obtain and upload the video.
http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57177&page=2
outrider627
01-25-11, 13:28
Yeah that amendment was not passed out of committee but Rangel had the clerk add it as being passed by a voice vote ignoring the calls for a recorded vote.
Unfortunately the house passed it in the final voting of the bill even though it was illegally added to that final bill.
Amazing but not surprising.....:rolleyes:
I'm no expert on how Congress does things, but voice votes are the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever heard of. Does every member of Congress have super-hearing powers where they can count how many voices are speaking at once? This video pisses me off. :mad:
Belmont31R
01-25-11, 13:36
I'm no expert on how Congress does things, but voice votes are the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever heard of. Does every member of Congress have super-hearing powers where they can count how many voices are speaking at once? This video pisses me off. :mad:
Yeah they are scumbags....here is a good of Jack Murtha doing it too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywgUCdefSW8
So assuming that this is legit what exactly can be done? Can the Machine Gun ban be found unconstitutional? Does anyone think that there are enough politicians with a spine who will do the right thing?
Belmont31R
01-25-11, 14:48
So assuming that this is legit what exactly can be done? Can the Machine Gun ban be found unconstitutional? Does anyone think that there are enough politicians with a spine who will do the right thing?
The Courts will not take on a case dealing with internal Congressional matters like this, and since the final bill was voted on, passed by both houses, and signed by Reagan its a valid law.
The courts could rule machine guns as being 2A protected but using this video/incident in court won't do squat.
Right now there is no way a repeal would make it through Congress, and given the mood right now it would be even dumber to try anything except in the courts.
Thanks. I agree with the current climate and shootings lately (Tucson, Walmart in Washington State and the Detroit PD) there is not way in hell.
I assume that the SCOTUS wouldn't get involved due to separation of powers? One would think that there is still some way to redress this.
The Courts will not take on a case dealing with internal Congressional matters like this, and since the final bill was voted on, passed by both houses, and signed by Reagan its a valid law.
The courts could rule machine guns as being 2A protected but using this video/incident in court won't do squat.
Right now there is no way a repeal would make it through Congress, and given the mood right now it would be even dumber to try anything except in the courts.
To further explain what is happening in this clip.
In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. After a voice vote, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "[Hughes] amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." Despite the controversial voice vote, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote, and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment was passed.
Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
It's important to note that Rangel has been censured by the House ethics committee on unrelated ethics violations.
I had seen that years ago. We knew it was a goat **** back then, and nothing has changed to this day. At least a few guys stood up like McCollum from Florida. Hughes was/is a ****ing ass bandit. Rangle, really? Why is that crooked bastard still there 25 years later?
Some of the 'big' NFA dealers and manufacturers had always maintained it was unconstitutional and made minor inroads to addressing it through the courts. A couple of things came into play and you have to account for the state of mind back then. Irrespective of how bad it sucked, there was at that time plenty of transferable NFA items available, and many, many, thousands of items registered prior to the ban taking effect. I don't think too many had the foresight at the time to believe M16's that could be purchased for $400 would be 14k.
Then the costs to battle something like this. Believe it or not, it is often very difficult to get firearms owners on the same page. Imagine that huh? That is a problem endemic to this 'hobby'.
Compound all that with the general attitude about firearms by a good percentage of the American population due in part as we all know by lying media pundits and lying and corrupt politicians, it was an uphill battle. Trying to convince people that mg's are something that you need (don't jump on me, playing devils advocate here) is a tall order. I know it isn't a matter of need but rights, still a tough and EXPENSIVE road to hoe. If you could get $1 for every firearm in the US, you would have enough money to fight the thing. How many of the internet commandos, gun show commandos, and gun owners that agree you don't need 'those types of weapons' are gonna contribute? Probably substanitally less that the number of NRA members that carry the weight of the dead beat gun owner that sits in a dark room saying "I got mine".
As Iraqgunz stated, the climate to include recent shootings, not to mention the every 5-10 years some jerk-off goes ands shoots up an office, school, or something and the anti-gun sentiment is renewed with great fervor. Don't think this think in Tucson is gonna go away quietly. Nothing may come of it, but you gotta be on your toes and support pro 2nd Amendment origanizations and elected officials.
To answer the question whether the ban woud ever be repealed, highly unlikely. The only glimmer of hope on the horizon is another amnesty for weapons made in the US or brought back prior to GCA 1968.
I wrote this in another thread the other day:
There has been an active effort (although somewhat neutered) for years to get the '86 ban repealed, with the effort in the recent past focusing on legitimate bring backs predating the GCA of 1968 . It has been introduced a couple of time in Congress but hasn't gotten enough traction. Imagine that. This is one link that describes the bill:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=198
The issue is the legality of 'war trophy's' at the time they were brought back that missed the 1968 amnesty, which was a joke. In the days prior to the communication avenues we now have, about the only way you would have known about the amnesty was if you went in a post office and happened to be looking at the wanted posters on the wall or read the military 'newspaper' for the base you were stationed at. Even then, many guys didn't 'register' stuff because they knew their 'war trophy' was already legal. Their CO signed off on the doc's.
The thought is that the weapons that were brought back were legal when they returned CONUS. The amnesty made them illegal. It was a goat **** for sure. The value of these weapons to the families of the deceased, particularly from the WWII and Korea eras, can be huge. There is no reason that a family should not realize the 'inheritance' value of say an MG42 legally brought back during/after the war.
I have had discussions with field agents that have told me the the plethora of weapons they get calls on from widows/families of WWII vets is astounding. ATF collects the items and destroys them unless there is some need for an example in their reference collection or some supervisor decides they want to go play with it for awhile. Sad.
Well it looks like one arfcom member actually took the video to his local Congressman and it is being "looked into."
Might be a terribly optimistic exercise, but wouldn't it be nice to be wrong.
Look at this comment one user posted on the video...
I work for autoweapons, good luck going anywhere with this and ruining things for everyone. Yeah, let's have some poor crybabies who can't afford pre-86 MGs destroy the investments and livelyhoods of other Americans. Wonderful. This will more likely result in a full ban instead of opening the registry. Do you really want thugs to be able to afford a m16?
:angry:
What retard would legally register a NFA item and then use it in a crime.
:haha:
Wow...
Belmont31R
01-25-11, 17:52
Hughes Amendment:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to--
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection [Page 670] takes effect.
Now isn't applying for a tax stamp and getting said stamp approved mean you lawfully possess said machine gun under the authority of a department of the United States?
The Hughes amendment didn't say anything about only law enforcement or SOT's being able to own them. How did the wording of the amendment be interpreted to mean only individuals not possessing a license or leo be barred from being able to register them?
NRA-ILA says:
BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.
So the Hughes amendment says its illegal to own a machine gun made after that date unless under the authority of the US yet ATF gets only regular people cannot own them?
This whole thing is so screwy...the vote, the interpretation, they have a tax but refuse to accept tax payments, ect...
I am not terribly surprised by this. I read elsewhere that there was alot of opposition to any repeal by those who currently have said NFA items.
They are putting the value of their particular weapons over the furtherment of the the cause.
Look at this comment one user posted on the video...
I work for autoweapons, good luck going anywhere with this and ruining things for everyone. Yeah, let's have some poor crybabies who can't afford pre-86 MGs destroy the investments and livelyhoods of other Americans. Wonderful. This will more likely result in a full ban instead of opening the registry. Do you really want thugs to be able to afford a m16?
:angry:
Sure it can happen. Just like those who purchase non-NFA weapon have used them to commit crimes. But, you punish the person not society as a whole.
What retard would legally register a NFA item and then use it in a crime.
:haha:
Wow...
Belmont31R
01-25-11, 19:03
Here is a case I was able to dig up:
Farmer vs. Higgins (11th Circuit)
Guy tried to sue the ATF using the logic I used above that owning a machine gun made after May 86 was still under the authority of a department of the US. District court sided in Farmer's favor and gave the ATF 30 days to approve his permit.
Circuit court reversed their decision based on the grounds that banning private ownership of machine guns made after May 86 was Congress' intent, and cited numerous statements made by representatives and senators.
NRA appealed circuit court decision to SCOTUS but they declined to hear the case. I wonder how that denial would play out in the future if 922O was challenged again considering there is already one appeal that was denied.
These statements are irreconcilable with Farmer's reading
of section 922(o) because they reveal clearly (1) that
Congress intended to change the law to prospectively preclude
the private possession of machine guns, and (2) that Congress
intended to limit lawful transfer and possession of machine
guns to instances authorized by the government for the benefit
of federal, state, or local governmental entities.
Consequently, in light of the plain language of section
922(o), as well as its legislative history, we hold that
section 922(o) prohibits the private possession of machine
guns not lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986.
Further, we defer to the Bureau's interpretation of
section 922(o), embodied in its implementing regulations at 27
C.F.R. sec. 179.105 (1989), because it is consistent with the
statutory language and Congressional intent. See Gun South,
Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 864 (11th Cir.1989) ("[w]e must
defer to the Bureau's interpretation of the Gun Control Act
and its regulations absent plain error in the Bureau's
interpretation"); Veterans Administration Medical Center v.
Federal Labor Relations Authority, 675 F.2d 260, 262 (11th
Cir.1982) (agency interpretation should be followed absent
compelling indications that it is wrong).
We have considered Farmer's remaining arguments and find
them to be without merit.
CONCLUSION
In sum, we hold that section 922(o) prohibits the private
possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed before May
19, 1996. Accordingly, the district court's order is
reversed.
REVERSED.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/farmer_v_higgins.txt
This court did find the wording the Hughes amendment to be ambiguous but just went to Hughes own statements. So I guess it doesn't matter how poorly worded a law is or how vague.
Either way a lot of Republicans did vote for the FOPA even knowing the ban was in there. I don't think they are our friends regarding guns and never have been. People that voted for FOPA knowing the ban was in there still get A+ ratings from the NRA.
I am not terribly surprised by this. I read elsewhere that there was alot of opposition to any repeal by those who currently have said NFA items.
They are putting the value of their particular weapons over the furtherment of the the cause.
Whoooa, I don't believe that is true. I don't doubt there may be a few newer douschebags that had some money and got into it because of the 'cool' factor but primarily to make money. Only to make money like some manipulate and/or speculate oil, stocks, real estate, or whatever. I know a few and some of you guys may have seen their websites.
The true NFA guys, the collectors, dealers, and manufacturers I have known for decades would fully and absolutely support a repeal. That is a false assumption that collections would be deminshed because all the cool old stuff would remain cool and old. It won't be made again.
Guys spread poison like that I think primarily out of envy because they don't have the stuff they would like to have. So if they don't have it, screw the guy that does. Kinda like class warfare/envy the Democrats perpetuate. The haves versus the have nots.
Newer stuff, who cares, because it will be available w/o an LE demo letter, so no deminshment in value!! If you are currently making it, then outstanding, more to go around. Everybody can get one.
I don't know how true it is, but I recall reading it somewhere. Honestly I can believe it to a point. Imagine if you had a large collection and suddenly overnight the value dropped.
Human nature says that people want to protect their investments.
Whoooa, I don't believe that is true. I don't doubt there may be a few newer douschebags that had some money and got into it because of the 'cool' factor but primarily to make money. Only to make money like some manipulate and/or speculate oil, stocks, real estate, or whatever. I know a few and some of you guys may have seen their websites.
The true NFA guys, the collectors, dealers, and manufacturers I have known for decades would fully and absolutely support a repeal. That is a false assumption that collections would be deminshed because all the cool old stuff would remain cool and old. It won't be made again.
Guys spread poison like that I think primarily out of envy because they don't have the stuff they would like to have. So if they don't have it, screw the guy that does. Kinda like class warfare/envy the Democrats perpetuate. The haves versus the have nots.
Newer stuff, who cares, because it will be available w/o an LE demo letter, so no deminshment in value!! If you are currently making it, then outstanding, more to go around. Everybody can get one.
I don't know how true it is, but I recall reading it somewhere. Honestly I can believe it to a point. Imagine if you had a large collection and suddenly overnight the value dropped.
Human nature says that people want to protect their investments.
I know I would not be the only one after building a MP44 or and older belt fed(MG42/RPD), and the like :)
I don't know how true it is, but I recall reading it somewhere. Honestly I can believe it to a point. Imagine if you had a large collection and suddenly overnight the value dropped.
Human nature says that people want to protect their investments.
There may be some element of that for sure, those are guys I don't and won't hang around. I don't like shelfish pompous needledicks. I think it is very minor group though compared to the enthusiasts that could and would purchase things that they normally could not because of costs. Iwish guys on this board didn't have to SBR and AR15 and could buy M16's for $1200 or whatever posties go for now.
When I alluded to the fact the mindset was different in the 1980's when the bill first passed, mg ownership wasn't that big of a deal. I mean, stuff was cheap relative to what you pay now. See if you can dig up some old Shotgun News or Gun List adds, you will shit.
It wasn't until quite a bit later that prices started to climb. Like everything else, during the good times as the economy rocked, you had more and more people with money that had allot of cash laying around and looking to spend it. I saw more guys that never owned a firearm putting tens of thousands of dollars and more into NFA stuff. Many of these guys never had a callus on their hand, never did a days work, stockbrokers, lawyers, corporate mangagers. There were corporations starting up everywhere for the sole purpose of purchasing NFA. Kinda sucked in some respects, the yuppie assholes getting into it. Look at what happend with Harley Davidson. Same thing.
Some guys would lose a few bucks, but the upside would be they could make it up with new stuff. The old stuff though, the C&R stuff, nothing can touch it. They don't make 1967 tri-power Vettes, ZL1 Camaros, Shelby Cobras, Lugers, Thompsons, Singer and USS 1911's etc, etc, etc. any longer. You see where I am going.
Here is a case I was able to dig up:
Farmer vs. Higgins (11th Circuit)
Guy tried to sue the ATF using the logic I used above that owning a machine gun made after May 86 was still under the authority of a department of the US. District court sided in Farmer's favor and gave the ATF 30 days to approve his permit.
Circuit court reversed their decision based on the grounds that banning private ownership of machine guns made after May 86 was Congress' intent, and cited numerous statements made by representatives and senators.
NRA appealed circuit court decision to SCOTUS but they declined to hear the case. I wonder how that denial would play out in the future if 922O was challenged again considering there is already one appeal that was denied.
That precedent only exists in the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Georgia, and Florida).
What can we do, who can we contact?
ETA: Who do I write a check to? If they got the balls to go for it, I'll give them atleast the same $35 I gave the NRA for an annual membership. AT LEAST.
Look at this comment one user posted on the video...
I work for autoweapons, good luck going anywhere with this and ruining things for everyone. Yeah, let's have some poor crybabies who can't afford pre-86 MGs destroy the investments and livelyhoods of other Americans. Wonderful. This will more likely result in a full ban instead of opening the registry. Do you really want thugs to be able to afford a m16?
:angry:
What a ****head.
My investment is more important than your freedoms is exactly the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess. The fact that he said it on arfcom is pretty much a guarantee that nobody will buy from him ever, thus negating many of his investments.
And I'd gladly take the financial hit to be able to buy new MGs.
Belmont31R
01-25-11, 23:06
That precedent only exists in the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Georgia, and Florida).
Yes but an appeal of that decision was denied to even be heard from SCOTUS.
Another may angle may work as they chose not to hear the case based on the arguments that were made in the 2 lower courts.
There may be some element of that for sure, those are guys I don't and won't hang around. I don't like shelfish pompous needledicks. I think it is very minor group though compared to the enthusiasts that could and would purchase things that they normally could not because of costs. Iwish guys on this board didn't have to SBR and AR15 and could buy M16's for $1200 or whatever posties go for now.
Unfortunately it's way more common than we'd like to think. I can't count the number of times I've heard similar sentiments from long time, "respected" NFA collectors. It is truly disappointing. I can live with the fact that some of the "big boys" would hate to take a hit, I can understand that. But for any "gun guy" to actively oppose the repeal and stand with "the other side", that I can't understand...or condone.
I've never bought a firearm as an "investment." No part of my personal collection has ever been about making money. In fact the worst thing that can happen is one of my firearms triples in value, cause then I might be inclined to sell it. And that isn't why I bought it.
I am actually old enough to remember the pre-86 prices.
There may be some element of that for sure, those are guys I don't and won't hang around. I don't like shelfish pompous needledicks. I think it is very minor group though compared to the enthusiasts that could and would purchase things that they normally could not because of costs. Iwish guys on this board didn't have to SBR and AR15 and could buy M16's for $1200 or whatever posties go for now.
When I alluded to the fact the mindset was different in the 1980's when the bill first passed, mg ownership wasn't that big of a deal. I mean, stuff was cheap relative to what you pay now. See if you can dig up some old Shotgun News or Gun List adds, you will shit.
It wasn't until quite a bit later that prices started to climb. Like everything else, during the good times as the economy rocked, you had more and more people with money that had allot of cash laying around and looking to spend it. I saw more guys that never owned a firearm putting tens of thousands of dollars and more into NFA stuff. Many of these guys never had a callus on their hand, never did a days work, stockbrokers, lawyers, corporate mangagers. There were corporations starting up everywhere for the sole purpose of purchasing NFA. Kinda sucked in some respects, the yuppie assholes getting into it. Look at what happend with Harley Davidson. Same thing.
Some guys would lose a few bucks, but the upside would be they could make it up with new stuff. The old stuff though, the C&R stuff, nothing can touch it. They don't make 1967 tri-power Vettes, ZL1 Camaros, Shelby Cobras, Lugers, Thompsons, Singer and USS 1911's etc, etc, etc. any longer. You see where I am going.
Unfortunately it's way more common than we'd like to think. I can't count the number of times I've heard similar sentiments from long time, "respected" NFA collectors. It is truly disappointing. I can live with the fact that some of the "big boys" would hate to take a hit, I can understand that. But for any "gun guy" to actively oppose the repeal and stand with "the other side", that I can't understand...or condone.
I've never bought a firearm as an "investment." No part of my personal collection has ever been about making money. In fact the worst thing that can happen is one of my firearms triples in value, cause then I might be inclined to sell it. And that isn't why I bought it.
Roger that. That is the difference I described in my posts. The true 'gun guys' versus the 'investment' guys. The speculators. Plus, throw in the "I got mine" crowd, the guys you describe, pisses me off. Those assholes don't deserve to have NFA.
That is probably the reason I never really made any money off this stuff, I liked it too much. As the old saying goes, don't get high on your own supply! :D
What can we do, who can we contact?
ETA: Who do I write a check to? If they got the balls to go for it, I'll give them atleast the same $35 I gave the NRA for an annual membership. AT LEAST.
This has been visited many times, and I think as I said, the only thing you may see is the Veteran's Heritage Act passing. Of course with things like Tucson, it makes it so difficult to convince lawmakers to 'relax' firearms regulations.
I suggest if you are interested in the legalities and challenging the regs, Dan Shea is one of if not the foremost authority on what is going on. Subscribe to his magazine, Small Arms Review for up to date articles about NFA as well as good articles about antique and new weaponry. Join NFATCA at www.nfatca.org
two round burst on this post
Like was said, many people are greedy, selfish and shortsighted about their NFA items.
I would gladly take a loss on my NFA stuff in order to get the 2A heading back in the right direction, and to have a situation where NFA items were more easily obtainable.
Everyone should see this video. Copy and paste this video everywhere you can!
I am not terribly surprised by this. I read elsewhere that there was alot of opposition to any repeal by those who currently have said NFA items.
They are putting the value of their particular weapons over the furtherment of the the cause.
Exactly.
I tried to say this on another forum and got a bunch of NFA owners riled up who said it wasn't true. They want people to believe that NFA industry people then and now support getting rid of the ban. I call BS. A lot of people made a ton of money on banned items, just like a lot of dealers made a ton of money on the magazine ban in 94. Talk about removing that revenue stream and equity in MG's and you're going to get some strong reactions from those with money invested in them.
I have a RR M16 and I would loose about 11K in equity overnight if it was repealed. I'd still rather see it repealed, then I'd go out and buy a few more. But take someone who has 50K, or 150K or 1.5 mil invested in pre-86 MG's, well they're not going to want that ban repealed at all. Those people were rolling the dice and banking on it not getting repealed. They bet against our 2A rights. I'd have no sympathy for them if they lost that bet.
Exactly.
I tried to say this on another forum and got a bunch of NFA owners riled up who said it wasn't true. They want people to believe that NFA industry people then and now support getting rid of the ban. I call BS. A lot of people made a ton of money on banned items, just like a lot of dealers made a ton of money on the magazine ban in 94. Talk about removing that revenue stream and equity in MG's and you're going to get some strong reactions from those with money invested in them.
I have a RR M16 and I would loose about 11K in equity overnight if it was repealed. I'd still rather see it repealed, then I'd go out and buy
a few more. But take someone who has 50K, or 150K or 1.5 mil invested in pre-86 MG's, well they're not going to want that ban repealed at all. Those people were rolling the dice and banking on it
not getting repealed. They bet against our 2A rights. I'd have no sympathy for them if they lost that bet.
The number people with NFA investments pale in comparison to the number of us that would like to see the ban removed. The problem is the politicians. They will NEVER vote to repeal the ban period. We are way out numbered in this country by people that think it unreasonable to own a MG so forget that route. The only way is the courts.
Anyway, great thread guys.
Exactly.
I tried to say this on another forum and got a bunch of NFA owners riled up who said it wasn't true. They want people to believe that NFA industry people then and now support getting rid of the ban. I call BS. A lot of people made a ton of money on banned items, just like a lot of dealers made a ton of money on the magazine ban in 94. Talk about removing that revenue stream and equity in MG's and you're going to get some strong reactions from those with money invested in them.
I have a RR M16 and I would loose about 11K in equity overnight if it was repealed. I'd still rather see it repealed, then I'd go out and buy a few more. But take someone who has 50K, or 150K or 1.5 mil invested in pre-86 MG's, well they're not going to want that ban repealed at all. Those people were rolling the dice and banking on it not getting repealed. They bet against our 2A rights. I'd have no sympathy for them if they lost that bet.
I see it a little differently.
If you don't already own your MGs, it's hard to make money on them. There is no "dealer price." So that means you need to buy them, sit on them and wait to sell them. It is market price so when I buy an Uzi I pay the same price you guys do if you wanted to buy an Uzi. Not really a money making formula there. And in bad economies, I see a few guys selling their MGs for "what they have into it."
While an Uzi might sell for $6,000, if you paid $5,800 for it 5 years ago you aren't exactly getting rich. Sometimes "preban" semi autos are better money makers. With the ban gone, we could actually buy and sell NFA items for a profit.
Belmont31R
01-26-11, 18:58
I think the best, most realistic way of improving things, is to improve the NFA application process. The system right now is antiquated and theres no reason the process couldn't be made easier to deal with.
Im for repealing the NFA but I also don't see that happening, and Im not so sure the courts would support repealing it entirely. Instead, working with the existing laws, the ATF can issue NFA cards where you are registered within their system as an authorized NFA buyer. Let the dealers keep the stamps, and when you buy an NFA item over the counter you fill out the forms, dealer attaches stamp, keeps a copy for his records, and sends a 3rd copy to the ATF to register the item. When you get an NFA authorization card you get fingerprinted and the ATF can keep records of your purchases just like they do now adding the items to the registry. When you purchase an NFA item you get a NICS check to make sure you are still eligible.
ATF field offices can be responsible for the fingerprinting on common scanners now in use. I did this to get my CHL, and it took maybe 20 minutes at the court office/justice center in WA state, and I got the card 2 weeks later.
No waiting for NFA purchases, ect.
I really don't see both the courts and Congress allowing unfettered sales of machine guns and other current NFA items should the NFA ever be overturned. The tax part of it may be ruled unconstitutional but I can see registration being ok to get the 5th vote of Kennedy (using current court and what they have said in McDonald & Heller).
If things improve in Congress I could see something like this being able to pass since it would keep the current standards for being able to purchase an NFA item but simply improving the process and requiring less manpower on the ATF side. There have actually been a few bills introduced dealing with the ATF. Would Obama sign it? They would probably have to throw in something about mandatory reporting of prohibited persons being added to NICS or something because right now there are lots of people who should be reported in NICS for things like mental issues but the records flow isn't that good.
I think there is also a push within the ATF to even get rid of the CLEO sign off on forms.
I think the best, most realistic way of improving things, is to improve the NFA application process. The system right now is antiquated and theres no reason the process couldn't be made easier to deal with.
Im for repealing the NFA but I also don't see that happening, and Im not so sure the courts would support repealing it entirely. Instead, working with the existing laws, the ATF can issue NFA cards where you are registered within their system as an authorized NFA buyer. Let the dealers keep the stamps, and when you buy an NFA item over the counter you fill out the forms, dealer attaches stamp, keeps a copy for his records, and sends a 3rd copy to the ATF to register the item. When you get an NFA authorization card you get fingerprinted and the ATF can keep records of your purchases just like they do now adding the items to the registry. When you purchase an NFA item you get a NICS check to make sure you are still eligible.
That's a slippery slope. While some variations of that certainly merit consideration, why not require that for all firearms? Then you get national registration very easily.
Belmont31R
01-26-11, 19:18
That's a slippery slope. While some variations of that certainly merit consideration, why not require that for all firearms? Then you get national registration very easily.
Whats stopping anyone from doing that now? Nothing...remember pistols were almost added to the NFA way back when. All it would take it a little amendment like this Hughes amendment to add semi-auto firearms..both pistols and rifles.
It took about 2 minutes to get that amendment added in FOPA. It would take about the same amount of time to get S/A's added to the NFA, too. Or close off the registry for any new NFA items.
Theres no slope when we're always minutes away from drastic firearms changes.
Exactly.
I tried to say this on another forum and got a bunch of NFA owners riled up who said it wasn't true. They want people to believe that NFA industry people then and now support getting rid of the ban. I call BS. A lot of people made a ton of money on banned items, just like a lot of dealers made a ton of money on the magazine ban in 94. Talk about removing that revenue stream and equity in MG's and you're going to get some strong reactions from those with money invested in them.
I have a RR M16 and I would loose about 11K in equity overnight if it was repealed. I'd still rather see it repealed, then I'd go out and buy a few more. But take someone who has 50K, or 150K or 1.5 mil invested in pre-86 MG's, well they're not going to want that ban repealed at all. Those people were rolling the dice and banking on it not getting repealed. They bet against our 2A rights. I'd have no sympathy for them if they lost that bet.
What you are saying is the biggest crock of shit. You are the exact guy I am talking about, but worse, because you say you ARE an NFA owner. I mean, WTF? So a guy has a bigger collection than you and he is what, a prick because of that? You are ASSuming that because a guy has some money tied up in NFA that he wouldn't want a repeal of the Hughes amendment. The amount of guys that follow that doctrine is small. You should be ashamed. Guys like you create divisiveness amongst our own. Try being happy for the guy that has some good stuff instead of beating him down. Maybe he will let you shoot some of his stuff one day, although with your attitude it is unlikely. I know I wouldn't. Petty jealousy is, well, petty.
I will add one more time, the old C&R stuff will retain it's value, repeal or not. There would be more that would come into the system, but there is enough demand for good C&R pieces that pricing wouldn't be adversely affected IMO.
Whats stopping anyone from doing that now? Nothing...remember pistols were almost added to the NFA way back when. All it would take it a little amendment like this Hughes amendment to add semi-auto firearms..both pistols and rifles.
It took about 2 minutes to get that amendment added in FOPA. It would take about the same amount of time to get S/A's added to the NFA, too. Or close off the registry for any new NFA items.
Theres no slope when we're always minutes away from drastic firearms changes.
BossHogg is absolutely dead on, it is a slippery slope. I don't want a thing changed about the process, don't want to store YOUR stamp. Don't want local ATF office responsible for anything.
Let me clue you into something, this is a tax issue, not a firearms transfer issue per se. Try and swallow that for a moment. It would take a change in the tax code. Further, no dealers want to be responsible for collecting a federal tax, and I don't think there is a provision in the tax code where individuals can collect a federal tax.
That I don't know for sure, but I don't want to collect federal taxes. I damn sure don't want an "NFA card". Next thing they will want to tatoo a number on my forearm.
You want to find out more and get involved, contact NFATCA like I said in a previous post.
I don't ever recall pistols being considered for addition to the NFA, then again, I wasn't alive in 1934, were you?
Belmont31R
01-26-11, 21:59
Tattoo's?
Im not sure why you guys think the current process offers any protection to anti-gun laws. Sure worked out for what this thread is about....and I guess waiting months for a tax stamp is better than over the counter sales...:confused:
Speaking of cards...do you guys have CHL's? Is that a slippery slope to gun registration and tattoo's?
What you are saying is the biggest crock of shit. You are the exact guy I am talking about, but worse, because you say you ARE an NFA owner. I mean, WTF? So a guy has a bigger collection than you and he is what, a prick because of that? You are ASSuming that because a guy has some money tied up in NFA that he wouldn't want a repeal of the Hughes amendment. The amount of guys that follow that doctrine is small. You should be ashamed. Guys like you create divisiveness amongst our own. Try being happy for the guy that has some good stuff instead of beating him down. Maybe he will let you shoot some of his stuff one day, although with your attitude it is unlikely. I know I wouldn't. Petty jealousy is, well, petty.
I will add one more time, the old C&R stuff will retain it's value, repeal or not. There would be more that would come into the system, but there is enough demand for good C&R pieces that pricing wouldn't be adversely affected IMO.
Well I disagree with you and think what you're peddling is the biggest crock of shit. You think every NFA owner or dealer has a heart of gold and wouldn't sell others out? Two Title II manufacturer friends of mine went to an auction for around 30 transferable HK sears. The winning bid for the first sear had the option to buy as many sears as they wanted for the same price per unit. A doctor dropped $320,000 on every one of them. They were immediately withdrawn from the market and haven't been seen since.
You think that guy is really looking forward to his $320,000 investment being turned into $1500 in equity overnight? Get real! I'd agree that your average NFA owner that has one or two transferables would prefer that it be repealed. But if you don't think that some of the large scale collectors would prefer to see their "investment" continue to appreciate, you're smokin crack!
As for the jealousy angle, you can blow that argument out your ass! I could give a shit whether someone else has none, one or a hundred. I share all my toys and it would be fair to say that as many rounds have been fired out of my RR M-16 by others as by me. Hell, I don't even make them pay for the ammo! So you're making one hell of an ASSumption about me there Mr. Pot!
As for the C&R angle, you're once again smoking crack if you think something like a transferable C&R M2 carbine would still be worth $12K after the repeal. It would drop by 50% immediately. A non C&R M2 would drop from $5200 down to $2500 immediately. A huge chunk of the market that's filled with MAC's, M-16's and converted 10/22's would loose 80% of their value overnight.
I like my fellow shooters as much as the next guy. By my own admission, a lot of us would be happy despite loosing a sizable amount of equity in our transferable NFA pieces. But you're pie in the sky dreaming if you don't believe that big money would keep more than a few collectors from welcoming a repeal. All I'm doing is being pragmatic about the situation. You're the one with a nasty attitude about it. If anyone should be ashamed, it's you for jumping down my throat for NO damned reason at all. Still think I'm full of shit? Read it here!
http://machinegunpriceguide.com/html/price_guides.html
I'm done! :nono:
Coleslaw- you need to relax. I think what he says actually makes sense. If you had 100K wrapped up in NFA items and then a repeal passed you would have to lower prices (except for historical weapons) if you were a dealer.
He is simply saying what many others believe. I am not saying that all big time NFA people feel this way, but they do exist. Neither you or I know just how many.
He is also spot on about all the dealers who jacked up prices on pre-ban weapons and magazines. Everyone did it and no one felt guilty.
What you are saying is the biggest crock of shit. You are the exact guy I am talking about, but worse, because you say you ARE an NFA owner. I mean, WTF? So a guy has a bigger collection than you and he is what, a prick because of that? You are ASSuming that because a guy has some money tied up in NFA that he wouldn't want a repeal of the Hughes amendment. The amount of guys that follow that doctrine is small. You should be ashamed. Guys like you create divisiveness amongst our own. Try being happy for the guy that has some good stuff instead of beating him down. Maybe he will let you shoot some of his stuff one day, although with your attitude it is unlikely. I know I wouldn't. Petty jealousy is, well, petty.
I will add one more time, the old C&R stuff will retain it's value, repeal or not. There would be more that would come into the system, but there is enough demand for good C&R pieces that pricing wouldn't be adversely affected IMO.
This has been an interesting thread fellas. Let's not tear into each other. That privilege is for the "so called" experts on the SBR discussions. :thank_you2:
This has been an interesting thread fellas. Let's not tear into each other. That privilege is for the "so called" experts on the SBR discussions. :thank_you2:
Agreed. I don't think a majority feel that way, but to dismiss it as a rare case would be disingenuous. Shooters from different disciplines frequently target gun owners who don't think as they do. Every NFA owner is a little higher on the evolutionary gun rights ladder than say, shotgunners? I don't even really classify the purist shotgunners as gun owners. They're more like frustrated golfers who can't swing a club correctly, so they take up shotgunning. :D
Agreed. I don't think a majority feel that way, but to dismiss it as a rare case would be disingenuous. Shooters from different disciplines frequently target gun owners who don't think as they do. Every NFA owner is a little higher on the evolutionary gun rights ladder than say, shotgunners? I don't even really classify the purist shotgunners as gun owners. They're more like frustrated golfers who can't swing a club correctly, so they take up shotgunning. :D
I'm not sure what you mean by "shotgunners" (probably because I went to public school) but I agree with the rest of what you said. F-ing gun snobs. However there are some cool and informative posters on this board.
I'm not sure what you mean by "shotgunners" (probably because I went to public school) but I agree with the rest of what you said. F-ing gun snobs. However there are some cool and informative posters on this board.
I'm talking about the guys with bespoke english doubles, Krieghoff's & Perrazzi's that like to rest the muzzles on their leather toe pads as they look down their noses at you with your evil black rifle. Those guys are complete tools.
I'm talking about the guys with bespoke english doubles, Krieghoff's & Perrazzi's that like to rest the muzzles on their leather toe pads as they look down their noses at you with your evil black rifle. Those guys are complete tools.
Ok thanks man.
Repealing the Hughes Amendment would do relatively nothing to the value of NFA F/A's. Lest you forget, even if we had zero bans or restrictions on firearm ownership, we still couldn't import them in that configuration.
HK sears and weapons, Sterlings, Uzis, F/A Glocks, most machine pistols, etc., all of them would still be illegal to import and therefore the market prices would largely remain unchanged.
We would be limited to what we could produce over here.
english kanigit
02-22-11, 21:07
Which is the whole point. That situation would be better compared to where we sit now. Is it completely wiping the board clean like ought to be done? No. But it is a steady, incremental change which in my book is better than no change any day of the week.
Just getting the ability to purchase domestic made MGs would be a huge victory and a stepping stone to the next goal.
Ek
I disagree as many companies have domestic production capabilites. Think about companies like H/K, FN, Colt, etc.. being able to sell their currently produced weapons on the U.S market.
Obviously older and more collectible firearms wouldn't change. Maybe even a resurge in production of the MP5?
The possibilities are potentially endless and many companies could get a boost.
Imagine getting a new PKM machine gun for 3500.00 dollars?
Repealing the Hughes Amendment would do relatively nothing to the value of NFA F/A's. Lest you forget, even if we had zero bans or restrictions on firearm ownership, we still couldn't import them in that configuration.
HK sears and weapons, Sterlings, Uzis, F/A Glocks, most machine pistols, etc., all of them would still be illegal to import and therefore the market prices would largely remain unchanged.
We would be limited to what we could produce over here.
Repealing the Hughes Amendment would do relatively nothing to the value of NFA F/A's. Lest you forget, even if we had zero bans or restrictions on firearm ownership, we still couldn't import them in that configuration.
HK sears and weapons, Sterlings, Uzis, F/A Glocks, most machine pistols, etc., all of them would still be illegal to import and therefore the market prices would largely remain unchanged.
We would be limited to what we could produce over here.
This is off the cuff thinking but I am not sure that that the import ban would apply to F/A if the hughes amendment went down but the NFA stood. After all, the AWB did not apply to MGs. MGs are their own classification and are not rifles.
Again, this is off the cuff thinking and I am not in on the ins and outs of the laws.
---
I know that I would willingly take a hit on any NFA stuff I may or may not have or used to have etc...
Dolphinvet
02-23-11, 11:02
Given the state of the economy, the current political climate, and with the recent shooting in Arizona, I'd say this situation has a snowballs chance in hell of going anywhere. I personally would love to be able to have a new MP5, Thompson, etc, but it is what it is. Those who worry about, or even think about, losing money on their collections are just selfish. I'm more concerned about a total ban being put through and having our weapons confiscated than losing money on this ban being lifted.
The 1986 ban or any other ban is not going away.
Dolphinvet
02-23-11, 13:30
The 1986 ban or any other ban is not going away.
I agree the '86 ban isn't going away, but the Clinton AWB went away, as did the ban of handguns in DC. So, we will see. I just don't want the machine guns I already have taken away by a draconian government.
I agree the '86 ban isn't going away, but the Clinton AWB went away, as did the ban of handguns in DC. So, we will see. I just don't want the machine guns I already have taken away by a draconian government.
The Clinton ban went away because it was written that way to go away in 10 years.
It was never overturned.
Very interesting video that I was unaware of until now. Does anyone know if anyone's pursuing any course of action using this such as SAF, NRA, etc? I would gladly send $$$ to help with the cause.
PatrioticDisorder
11-20-18, 07:17
Unfortunately it's way more common than we'd like to think. I can't count the number of times I've heard similar sentiments from long time, "respected" NFA collectors. It is truly disappointing. I can live with the fact that some of the "big boys" would hate to take a hit, I can understand that. But for any "gun guy" to actively oppose the repeal and stand with "the other side", that I can't understand...or condone.
I've never bought a firearm as an "investment." No part of my personal collection has ever been about making money. In fact the worst thing that can happen is one of my firearms triples in value, cause then I might be inclined to sell it. And that isn't why I bought it.
Watching that video pisses me off, Hughes amendment was clearly passed illegitimately. I have my first 2 MGs on Form 4s right now and I’m with you in that I don’t view my purchases as an “investment”, I’d gladly take the financial hit to get rid of this BS.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.