PDA

View Full Version : NFA possession anywhere in the US


HotRails
02-01-2009, 9:50 PM
Does anyone think that someday the '86 ban could be lifted and the registery for NFA weapons reopened for new post 86 civilian registries? Maybe state laws in CA wont allow it, but perhaps in the free states.

SwissFluCase
02-01-2009, 9:54 PM
I believe the 9th circuit court partially lifted the 1986 ban, but we don't get any benefit from this. That ban seems to be on very shaky legal ground from what I have read. I'm sure it can be challenged, but I don't remember anybody doing so.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

HotRails
02-01-2009, 10:01 PM
I believe the 9th circuit court partially lifted the 1986 ban, but we don't get any benefit from this. That ban seems to be on very shaky legal ground from what I have read. I'm sure it can be challenged, but I don't remember anybody doing so.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I have also heard that the NRA supported it, and Ronald Reagan Signed it. Is this true?

CCWFacts
02-01-2009, 10:14 PM
I have also heard that the NRA supported it, and Ronald Reagan Signed it. Is this true?

Yes and yes. I guess the NRA thought that it would be thrown out of court in 6 months. I personally think that what we gained with the FOPA was minor, and we would have gotten it anyway, and what we lost was major (a whole class of guns, countless gun owners facing serious felonies for having a wrong part in a gun). I think it was a big mistake.

It has been subject to numerous challenges, almost none successful. Most recently the 8th circuit upheld a conviction under 922(o) (the MG ban) (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/08/072514P.pdf), arguing that Heller didn't apply. That case is asking for cert, and I don't sense a lot of optimism about it.

If you want to change this, don't neglect your jury duty, and do teach non-shooters how to shoot.

Jpach
02-01-2009, 10:18 PM
Wow wtf how are machine guns not protected by the 2A?

CCWFacts
02-01-2009, 10:40 PM
Wow wtf how are machine guns not protected by the 2A?

Accordingly, under Heller, Fincherís possession of the guns is not protected by the Second Amendment. Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use. Furthermore, Fincher has not directly attacked the federal registration requirements on firearms, and we doubt that any such attack would succeed in light of Heller. Accordingly, because Fincherís possession of guns is not protected by the Second Amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing him from arguing otherwise to the jury.

He's asking for the Supreme Court to review this. My guess is they will probably not review it, or if they do, they will uphold the conviction. I don't like that, I think it's wrong, but I think it's reality.

CHS
02-01-2009, 10:52 PM
Funny thing is, the original '34 NFA was enacted as a TAX act because at the time it was believed that machineguns were in fact protected under the 2A. The thinking at the time was that they weren't banning these guns, they were just adding an extra tax to them and anyone who wanted to pay the tax could still get the guns.

hoffmang
02-01-2009, 10:54 PM
1. NRA did not at all support the ban on new manufacture. It was a last minute tack on to a bill that was otherwise NRA supported.

2. Potentially we can end the new manufacture restriction but that is not and can not be a near term goal. We need to secure most everything else first.

-Gene

SwissFluCase
02-01-2009, 10:57 PM
1. NRA did not at all support the ban on new manufacture. It was a last minute tack on to a bill that was otherwise NRA supported.

2. Potentially we can end the new manufacture restriction but that is not and can not be a near term goal. We need to secure most everything else first.

-Gene

A pistol in your holster is worth two machine guns in your safe. ;)

Regards,


SwissFluCase

CCWFacts
02-01-2009, 10:59 PM
1. NRA did not at all support the ban on new manufacture. It was a last minute tack on to a bill that was otherwise NRA supported.

I agree, that's the right way to say it. The NRA supported the bill. The Hughes Amendment was a last-second thing at midnight or whatever. The NRA didn't support the Hughes Amend. of course.

2. Potentially we can end the new manufacture restriction but that is not and can not be a near term goal. We need to secure most everything else first.

Yes.

yellowfin
02-01-2009, 11:15 PM
Funny thing is, the original '34 NFA was enacted as a TAX act because at the time it was believed that machineguns were in fact protected under the 2A. The thinking at the time was that they weren't banning these guns, they were just adding an extra tax to them and anyone who wanted to pay the tax could still get the guns. The tax, $200, was at the time impossible for the vast majority of people to pay. A rifle at the time cost $15. It was not a tax that was at all intended to be collected, but to destroy the market and exclude almost everyone from buying the items listed. It was as intended at the time blatant oppression, going unchallenged only due to King FDR's (to believe he was otherwise is foolish at best) virtually unquestioned lock on power followed by continued Donkey party control on Congress for the continuum of the Depression to WWII through the Cold War, 3 events creating conditions which made the citizenry almost completely unwilling to question central government power. (Except in the mid to late 60's to push it to the left even further, and we all know what that did for 2A rights. It both baffles and sickens me that in all the "fight the power" and "question authority" nobody seemed to bother questioning the NFA and GCA when they darn well should have.)

CHS
02-01-2009, 11:22 PM
The tax, $200, was at the time impossible for the vast majority of people to pay. A rifle at the time cost $15. It was not a tax that was at all intended to be collected, but to destroy the market and exclude almost everyone from buying the items listed.

I know all this.

However, it was still designed as a way to get around the outright banning of the guns in question, showing that at the time the politicians believed that the 2A meant something.

Even if the NFA doesn't go away, the Hughes ammendment and the tax both need to.

It also begs the question: If the NFA was designed as a tax act, why are people punished with years in prison for posession of an unregistered machinegun, rather than just be ordered to pay the tax?

Also, why is the ATF a law enforcement agency now, rather than a TAX collection agency?

yellowfin
02-01-2009, 11:31 PM
Also, why is the ATF a law enforcement agency now, rather than a TAX collection agency?

A curious dichotomy indeed. It does act as a tax collections agency and only as that for alcohol and tobacco. It's only in the firearms capacity it decided to dress up and play Rambo in modern times. They went into yeehaw mode during Prohibition and set their own boundaries almost as anything goes; I guess it was Clinton who nudged them to take up that role again.

Max-the-Silent
02-02-2009, 5:17 AM
I believe the 9th circuit court partially lifted the 1986 ban, but we don't get any benefit from this. That ban seems to be on very shaky legal ground from what I have read. I'm sure it can be challenged, but I don't remember anybody doing so.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

That was in the Stewart case, and it's been overturned iirc.

As bad a law as it is, I believe that the NFA is here to stay. There may well be another Amnesty in the future, but that's about the best we're going to get.

freakshow10mm
02-02-2009, 6:20 AM
Currently, under the restructuring of the ATF under the Bush administration, the ATF is now part of the DOJ. The TTB, Tax and Trade Bureau, is now the tax collection arm of the ATF under the Treasury Dept. ATF is LE and TTB is tax collection.

If we get a president Palin and fillibuster proof conservative congress, I will have no doubt that the Hughes amendment will go away. Palin is very pro NFA.

DDT
02-02-2009, 6:54 AM
Palin is very pro NFA.

huh?

freakshow10mm
02-02-2009, 7:12 AM
Sarah Palin, the MILF that was McCain's VP nominee through out the elections? She is pro NFA meaning in favor and supportive of NFA weapons for civilian ownership like machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors, etc. All those guns are NFA weapons named after the National Firearms Act of 1934.

HotRails
02-02-2009, 11:00 AM
That was in the Stewart case, and it's been overturned iirc.

As bad a law as it is, I believe that the NFA is here to stay. There may well be another Amnesty in the future, but that's about the best we're going to get.


Could you elaborate on the Stewart case a little? It seems like right now we are so busy fighting for some of our most basic rights that opening the registry may be unreachable.

hoffmang
02-02-2009, 11:11 AM
More on Stewart (http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1070641373.49/dec5guns.html) here.

The decision basically said that home manufacture of a machine gun was likely legal due to the scope of the commerce clause. It was later overturned.

-Gene

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 11:13 AM
The Stewart case was about Bob Stewart, of Maadi-Griffin .50BMG 80% rifle fame. BATF raided him in order to shut down the 80% sales. In the process of the raid, they found home-made Sten MGs. Stewart, who was a convicted felon, argued that they were built completely instate with no interstate commerce, so the NFA did not apply. The 9th circuit of appeals correctly agreed. It was appealed to the Supreme Court, and after the Raich marijuana case was ruled that home grown marijuana (for personal use and not for sale) does affect the interstate market for marijuana, was remanded back to the 9th, who then ruled against Stewart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

Cypren
02-02-2009, 11:38 AM
Stewart was remanded on appeal with instructions to the 9th Circuit to reconsider in light of Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case in which the Court held that federal prohibition of possession of homegrown marijuana was lawful under Commerce Clause authority because of the "likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market."

This effectively amounts to a blank check to Congress -- they can ban, tax and regulate anything now by simply claiming that by banning interstate sales of said item, its manufacture or possession creates a "likelihood of high demand in the interstate market." Many prominent libertarians warned at the time that the effects of this case would be far-reaching and dire, but it was widely cheered by conservatives.

NFA weapons are just one cost.

On a sidenote, does anyone else find it an incredible example of the circular logic used by judges to push their own policy preferences that both Heller and Fincher use, as an argument for why the NFA/Hughes Amendment are legal, the excuse that "machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?" Gee, no kidding -- something that's been oppressively taxed for 75 years and banned for 23 isn't in common use today. Who would have thought?

jumbopanda
02-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Currently, under the restructuring of the ATF under the Bush administration, the ATF is now part of the DOJ. The TTB, Tax and Trade Bureau, is now the tax collection arm of the ATF under the Treasury Dept. ATF is LE and TTB is tax collection.

If we get a president Palin and fillibuster proof conservative congress, I will have no doubt that the Hughes amendment will go away. Palin is very pro NFA.

I lol'd.

HotRails
02-02-2009, 5:35 PM
Stewart was remanded on appeal with instructions to the 9th Circuit to reconsider in light of Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case in which the Court held that federal prohibition of possession of homegrown marijuana was lawful under Commerce Clause authority because of the "likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market."

This effectively amounts to a blank check to Congress -- they can ban, tax and regulate anything now by simply claiming that by banning interstate sales of said item, its manufacture or possession creates a "likelihood of high demand in the interstate market." Many prominent libertarians warned at the time that the effects of this case would be far-reaching and dire, but it was widely cheered by conservatives.

NFA weapons are just one cost.

On a sidenote, does anyone else find it an incredible example of the circular logic used by judges to push their own policy preferences that both Heller and Fincher use, as an argument for why the NFA/Hughes Amendment are legal, the excuse that "machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?" Gee, no kidding -- something that's been oppressively taxed for 75 years and banned for 23 isn't in common use today. Who would have thought?

is this an instance of the Fed increasing their powers veiled in the social/moral issue of medicinal marijuana or were they genuinely concerned that narcotics laws would become unenforcable generally as a result of medicinal marijuana?

Can Federal expansions during conservative political climates create situations easily exploited by the left during liberal climates? (generally against gun owners' favor)

What are some of the other possible avenues that could be used to attack the NFA registry and at least reopen it?

Max-the-Silent
02-02-2009, 5:44 PM
is this an instance of the Fed increasing their powers veiled in the social/moral issue of medicinal marijuana or were they genuinely concerned that narcotics laws would become unenforcable generally as a result of medicinal marijuana?

Can Federal expansions during conservative political climates create situations easily exploited by the left during liberal climates? (generally against gun owners' favor)

What are some of the other possible avenues that could be used to attack the NFA registry and at least reopen it?

Look into Eric Larson and his investigation into the failure of the ATF to maintain the National Firearms Registry, as well as the documented cases of ATF attempting to prosecute individuals for unregistered NFA possession where the weapon in question was registered.

If you head over to

www.subguns.com

And check the legal pages, you'll find all sorts of interesting info.

SwissFluCase
02-02-2009, 8:39 PM
On a sidenote, does anyone else find it an incredible example of the circular logic used by judges to push their own policy preferences that both Heller and Fincher use, as an argument for why the NFA/Hughes Amendment are legal, the excuse that "machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?" Gee, no kidding -- something that's been oppressively taxed for 75 years and banned for 23 isn't in common use today. Who would have thought?

I seem to remember that these were part of the notes SCOTUS used, and is not part of the ruling (or so I am led to believe). Still, it doesn't seem that the NFA would go away anytime too soon, but I would like to see the '86 ban go away, as well as the silly interstate transport permission requirement. I'd also like to see the state prohibitions go away, or in the case of CA, at least a shall-issue permit process.

It seems that a court case argued properly could ease some of the restrictions. I doubt Congress will touch it; it's just too much of a big stinking turd that no one wants to deal with.

This seems like a more reasonable goal on this front than just trying to toss the NFA altogether, which would bring howls of protest. The NFA system largely works, with almost zero violent crime, so we can use it to our leverage.

ETA: Has anyone seen this?

The Hughes Amendment had an interesting side effect. If you read Chapter 18, 922 (o) it is not a ban per say but demands Government approval for the manufacture and sale of a machine gun after May 19,1986, the date of enactment. There have been rumors floating around for years that certain politicians have been registering machineguns and selling them.

Recently, evidence of this came to light when the BATFE screwed up and confiscated an MG that was listed as a transferable that had been sold to a donor of a political person who once he received the firearm, stopped donating. The gun in question wasn't even in production in the 1980's. It was first produced in the mid 1990's.

Also, if you speak to the BATFE, and ask how many transferable machine guns are on the NFRTR, they will give you a strange answer. The number was fixed in 1986, so it shouldn't be hard to say "there are X amount of transferable MG's on the registry". Instead, this is what you get, "Between 175,000 and 250,000." Or some variation of that spread.

This problem crosses party lines, and even both sides of the gun control debate. In 2005, a BATFE employee let it slip that one of the top gun control advocates currently in Congress procured a machine gun and got BATFE to register it on a form 1 as a transferable. Why? Well, the gun was obtained for about $700. This elected official sold the gun for $18,500 with much of the money going into a severely depleted campaign fund. How do we know about this? Well, this elected official sold the gun and gave a file with the gun that contained the original sale price and a copy of the original form 1 dated to August of 2004. The owner was concerned and contacted BATFE. He then faxed a copy of the documentation to the agency where the employee in question received it.

The firearm in question is a Colt M16A2 manufacturered in 1993.

This seems to be the norm, not the exception. An HK MP5 conversion sold for $650 in 1985. Today, due to the ban, that same gun commands $8500 or more. An M60 belt fed machine gun sold for $1200 or so in 1985. Today, that same gun will get $25,000. If a politician can buy an MG or acquire one for a few hundred, it's a hell of a way to fund a campaign at a 1000% profit or more per item.

In 1989, BATFE published a comment where they stated that there were 130,000 registered transferable machine guns in the NFRTR. In a recent edition of Small Arms Review, the BATFE are quoted commenting that there are over 185,000 transferable MG's in the registry. Given those numbers, it is likely that there are well over 50,000 contraband machine guns in the hands of politicians and citizens in the US many of whom have no clue that they have committed a felony.

http://www.nfaoa.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=906

Regards,

SwissFluCase

HotRails
02-02-2009, 9:07 PM
I seem to remember that these were part of the notes SCOTUS used, and is not part of the ruling (or so I am led to believe). Still, it doesn't seem that the NFA would go away anytime too soon, but I would like to see the '86 ban go away, as well as the silly interstate transport permission requirement. I'd also like to see the state prohibitions go away, or in the case of CA, at least a shall-issue permit process.

It seems that a court case argued properly could ease some of the restrictions. I doubt Congress will touch it; it's just too much of a big stinking turd that no one wants to deal with.

This seems like a more reasonable goal on this front than just trying to toss the NFA altogether, which would bring howls of protest. The NFA system largely works, with almost zero violent crime, so we can use it to our leverage.

Regards,

SwissFluCase

Lifting the 86 ban would at least ease some of the price hikes for pre-86 weapons.

inmyownsummerami
02-02-2009, 9:19 PM
Lifting the 86 ban would at least ease some of the price hikes for pre-86 weapons.

And a lot of the guys who've spent 10s of thousands of dollars per MG are going to be pretty P.O.ed when the weapons are devalued by at least 1/2.

freakshow10mm
02-02-2009, 9:21 PM
Actually, the many I've spoken with would be happy to have their collection devalued. They would much rather be able to buy a select fire weapon for say $200 over a semi auto weapon.

ke6guj
02-02-2009, 9:24 PM
And a lot of the guys who've spent 10s of thousands of dollars per MG are going to be pretty P.O.ed when the weapons are devalued by at least 1/2.
Actually, on most of the MG forums I've read, most of the guys that have large MG collections are willing to take the loss on the value of their existing MGs because they will be able to get more, and newer designs as well. No smart person relys on the value of an MG collection as an investment, since there is no way to predict how future laws may affect MGs. Who knows, they could freeze the registry tommorrow, and then what? The value of them is basically zero then.

edit: too slow:D

+1 on what freakshow said.

inmyownsummerami
02-02-2009, 9:51 PM
Actually, the many I've spoken with would be happy to have their collection devalued. They would much rather be able to buy a select fire weapon for say $200 over a semi auto weapon.

I'm sure most owners probably fell that way, but you know there would be a fair number of them that would whine about all the money they lost because of all of the FNGs

freakshow10mm
02-02-2009, 9:54 PM
It's that same generation that messed it up for the rest of us.

SwissFluCase
02-02-2009, 10:00 PM
Actually, on most of the MG forums I've read, most of the guys that have large MG collections are willing to take the loss on the value of their existing MGs because they will be able to get more, and newer designs as well. No smart person relys on the value of an MG collection as an investment, since there is no way to predict how future laws may affect MGs. Who knows, they could freeze the registry tommorrow, and then what? The value of them is basically zero then.

edit: too slow:D

+1 on what freakshow said.

I'll bet some of the choicer items, like the old Thompsons will still be worth a lot of money, along with the WWII stuff. No one is going to be $3500 for a MAC, though...

Can you say tax write off? ;)

Regards,

SwissFluCase