Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: White House SBR petition

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    219
    Feedback Score
    39 (100%)
    NFA is one of those things best left in the shadows when it comes to dealing with the GOV. Why draw attention to something? a $200 tax isn't really a barrier to entry when it comes to dealing with most quality suppressors or factory SBR's, but the minute John Q. Public finds out we're trying to make suppressors or short barrel rifles "Free" all hell will break loose.

    I know guys that have been shooting twice as long as I've been alive, and some of them don't even know that suppressors or short barrel rifles are legal. Let us assume that's the case with the majority of the general public.

    -Let's not try to educate this administration, as that is a lost cause.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    327
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Best case nothing changes. Worst case they get rid of the whole system. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by mo1826 View Post
    I'm fairly new to the support of gun rights so if my thoughts on this are silly, I apologize in advance. However, in my opinion they would not jump from $200 to $4k in one year.

    I know we all think that these people are idiots but don't underestimate how smart they actually are when it comes to taking our rights and having you feeling thankful for what they've left you.

    They would increase it incrementally over a period of time that's just small enough to make all of us, myself included, say, "We shouldn't have drawn any attention to it, just ignore it and appreciate that they're still allowing this for a tax of only $400, $900, etc." And the stories you tell your grandkids about your gun days will sound like the stories we all hear about people buying thompsons from the sears catalog.

    I disagree with your incrementalism scenario. I think if the NFA ever got opened up to any kind of modification there would be a move to eliminate it completely and since the NFA community isn't very strong it would probably happen.

    With the 1934 NFA completely removed, which a bunch of idiots on the internet actually think would be a good thing, all of these weapons would now be subject to the sporter clause found within the 1968 Gun Control Act and each of them would fail completely. And that would be the end of ALL machine guns, suppressors, silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns and AOWs in a single move.

    Please don't kid yourself and believe it couldn't happen if we put the 1934 NFA on the table for "discussion."

    If people learn nothing else about modifying existing gun laws, please let them learn "sporter clause FIRST."
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2
    Feedback Score
    0
    That makes sense. I may have a warped perception of this topic because of where I live.

    And I certainly realize how silly it is to go about any of this with a wh petition.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    3,037
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    I disagree with your incrementalism scenario. I think if the NFA ever got opened up to any kind of modification there would be a move to eliminate it completely and since the NFA community isn't very strong it would probably happen.

    With the 1934 NFA completely removed, which a bunch of idiots on the internet actually think would be a good thing, all of these weapons would now be subject to the sporter clause found within the 1968 Gun Control Act and each of them would fail completely. And that would be the end of ALL machine guns, suppressors, silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns and AOWs in a single move.

    Please don't kid yourself and believe it couldn't happen if we put the 1934 NFA on the table for "discussion."

    If people learn nothing else about modifying existing gun laws, please let them learn "sporter clause FIRST."
    Now if only we could eliminate NFA, Sporter clause and Hughes amendment in one swipe of a pen...

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrioticDisorder View Post
    Now if only we could eliminate NFA, Sporter clause and Hughes amendment in one swipe of a pen...
    If you eliminate the sporter clause, it actually undermines the Hughes Amendment, the 89 Import Ban and the foreign machine gun ban within the 1968 GCA because firearms no longer would be required to be "particularly suitable for sporting applications."

    So if we did the "Sporter Clause" as a step ONE, then you would have the basis to challenge the two machine gun bans and the import ban. With those challenged and removed, THEN you can go after the NFA itself.

    But keep in mind if you open it for discussion, it's not based upon something like a "sporter clause" so it has it's own legs to stand on. Anything can happen from having the tax adjusted for inflation, to removing suppressors from the classification to having suppressors, SBRs and SBSs become a "closed registry" just like machine guns (which is what was attempted in 1986).

    Personally I'd like to see something similar to the C&R regarding NFA weapons where individuals pull and maintain a "non business" NFA license and the registry is completely opened to new domestic and imported weapons. This way we are still doing a "due diligence" background check, the government keeps some form a tax revenue flowing into their coffers and NFA weapons become much more available to law abiding citizens.

    And while some argue it's a form of "infringement" we should bear in mind that "tax revenue" is the only thing that motivates the government to keep certain things as they are. The percentage of the population that owns SBRs or suppressors has exploded in the last 20 years.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Yes, $200 is a barrier. It isn't nearly the barrier it was in 1934 of course, but it is, nonetheless. So are all of the restrictions regarding inter-state travel with an NFA firearm. And the wait times. Take a regular old rifle, drop 1.5" from the barrel, and now you have to spend another $200, wait 8+ months after payment to take possession of it, and be unable to simply put it in your car and drive across a state line when you feel like it. Also be unable to transfer it to somebody else without them paying $200 and waiting 8+ months.

    Yeah, that's a barrier.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    4,193
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    If you eliminate the sporter clause, it actually undermines the Hughes Amendment, the 89 Import Ban and the foreign machine gun ban within the 1968 GCA because firearms no longer would be required to be "particularly suitable for sporting applications."

    So if we did the "Sporter Clause" as a step ONE, then you would have the basis to challenge the two machine gun bans and the import ban. With those challenged and removed, THEN you can go after the NFA itself.

    But keep in mind if you open it for discussion, it's not based upon something like a "sporter clause" so it has it's own legs to stand on. Anything can happen from having the tax adjusted for inflation, to removing suppressors from the classification to having suppressors, SBRs and SBSs become a "closed registry" just like machine guns (which is what was attempted in 1986).

    Personally I'd like to see something similar to the C&R regarding NFA weapons where individuals pull and maintain a "non business" NFA license and the registry is completely opened to new domestic and imported weapons. This way we are still doing a "due diligence" background check, the government keeps some form a tax revenue flowing into their coffers and NFA weapons become much more available to law abiding citizens.

    And while some argue it's a form of "infringement" we should bear in mind that "tax revenue" is the only thing that motivates the government to keep certain things as they are. The percentage of the population that owns SBRs or suppressors has exploded in the last 20 years.
    Absolutely spot on.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    Yes, $200 is a barrier. It isn't nearly the barrier it was in 1934 of course, but it is, nonetheless. So are all of the restrictions regarding inter-state travel with an NFA firearm. And the wait times. Take a regular old rifle, drop 1.5" from the barrel, and now you have to spend another $200, wait 8+ months after payment to take possession of it, and be unable to simply put it in your car and drive across a state line when you feel like it. Also be unable to transfer it to somebody else without them paying $200 and waiting 8+ months.

    Yeah, that's a barrier.
    I don't disagree with any of that. I personally believe we should be able to take our LEGALLY registered weapons to CA, NY or any other place in the United States. But that just isn't the way thing are. And if we want to get to where we'd like to be, there is a intelligent way to try and get there and there are stupid petitions that are potentially counter productive.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    I don't disagree with any of that. I personally believe we should be able to take our LEGALLY registered weapons to CA, NY or any other place in the United States. But that just isn't the way thing are. And if we want to get to where we'd like to be, there is a intelligent way to try and get there and there are stupid petitions that are potentially counter productive.
    I think that pursuing a revocation of the sporter clause is something that the community needs to unite behind.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •