PDA

View Full Version : Reopening the NFA registry


Chatterbox
10-26-2010, 8:48 PM
I think it's true, it'll take a quite a few years for the courts to become comfortable enough with FA weapons to fairly consider the challenge the 1968 law that closed the registry. But what if we, gunowners of America, pitch towards a legislative solution which takes advantage of current concern with fiscal situation? Let us say that out of 80,000,000 gun owners only 1% would want to purchase a fully automatic weapon - a fairly conservative assumption, I'd say. And let us further say that the tax stamp for the FA weapons was set at something like $3000 - a rough equivalent of what $200 stamp was in the 1930s. That is $2.5B - a hefty chunk of change towards paying off the debt. Not to mention the stimulus to the economy of producing 800,000 guns. I think it could work. What do you think?

dantodd
10-26-2010, 8:50 PM
I would agree that there is much greater chance of getting the registry re-opened legislatively than judicially for a few decades. FYI- the registry was closed in 1986 not 1968.

RobG
10-26-2010, 8:54 PM
I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.

Chatterbox
10-26-2010, 9:04 PM
I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.

I don't think so. The entire aftermarket industry which provides better stocks, mags, optics, slings, compensators and cup holders shows that there are quite a few gun owners willing to shell out the money to "pimp out" their toys.

El Gato
10-26-2010, 9:04 PM
ummmm.....well.... I do have three children... I could like sell the oldest for medical experiments... he's at UC Santa Cruz anyway and any school what has a slug for a school mascot is going to turn his head to mush anyway..... he should be good for a couple of tax stamps and a M16 right?:D

wildhawker
10-26-2010, 9:07 PM
Excuse me, miss, but would you mind grabbing your ankles?

Chatterbox
10-26-2010, 9:11 PM
Excuse me, miss, but would you mind grabbing your ankles?

I guess I think Congress has looser morals then the Supreme Court. ;)

Dead*Reckoned
10-26-2010, 9:16 PM
They would have many, many more people if the stamp was in the 500-1000 range. Also 2 billion is really nothing on the 10's of trillions of dollars we are talking

hoffmang
10-26-2010, 9:41 PM
Excuse me, miss, but would you mind grabbing your ankles?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xhM8Vs2ibuQ/SLWMDyV8FgI/AAAAAAAABMU/6CPHioEmUoc/s400/HelloNurse.jpg

-Gene

bwiese
10-26-2010, 9:42 PM
I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.

Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

oni.dori
10-26-2010, 9:50 PM
Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

I would agree with you on that (although, I wouldn't personally want it to be ANYWHERE near the $3k range); also, I would use the term "assault weapon" loosely.

Bhobbs
10-26-2010, 9:51 PM
I don't know. With the annual deduction I would take out for them infringing on our rights I think they should pay for our stamp for us.

CCWFacts
10-26-2010, 9:52 PM
I actually think it will happen, legislatively, and maybe sooner than people realize.

Right now, there's a bill called the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=198&issue=023) which will add more guns to the registry for the first time since 1986. Doing so breaks down a psychological barrier. The 1986 cutoff is not some holy event, and the world doesn't end if more firearms are added. I also wonder if it might open more legal challenges, and also make some enforcement more difficult.

I'm also hopefully that, someday, there will be legal challenges.

dantodd
10-26-2010, 9:53 PM
Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

Sadly there are more than a few who have paid more than that because they DID have an AW in CA.

Mstrty
10-26-2010, 10:04 PM
If pay 3k for a FA tax stamp ALL DAY LONG. Where do I sign?

dantodd
10-26-2010, 10:06 PM
If pay 3k for a FA tax stamp ALL DAY LONG. Where do I sign?

But if they were still $200 and the registry were reopened you could buy 3 for the price of one.

The only real problem with this is that unless and until FA is considered protected by the Second Amendment California will never let them in. If/when they are protected by the second amendment we won't need a tax stamp and the registry can't be closed.

GrayWolf09
10-26-2010, 10:19 PM
Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

Getting rid of all the stupid California regulations would be my top priority.

I personally do not understand the appeal of full auto. My Uncle Samuel gave me a full auto one time and the first couple of times you pull the trigger and send the entire magazine down range it is fun, especially when he was providing the ammo. But after a while you realize you can fire almost as fast and with much better accuracy when you go semi-auto or short bursts.:)

wildhawker
10-26-2010, 10:28 PM
You are SO DEAD. :43:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xhM8Vs2ibuQ/SLWMDyV8FgI/AAAAAAAABMU/6CPHioEmUoc/s400/HelloNurse.jpg

-Gene

rero360
10-26-2010, 10:46 PM
I personally think the $200 tax stamp is too high as it is, $3000 is absolutely highway robbery. In my mind of absolutes, there should be no taxes or fees to excercise our enumerated rights, however I understand we do not live in a perfect world and am willing to make certain concessions.

My suggestion is that we repeal the '86 act, make suppressors class 1, and reduce the stamp tax to $50, manufacturing, sales and revinue for all would sky rocket.

Me, under those circumstances, I'd purchase a MP5SD, a Thompson, a BAR, maybe one or two other full autos, and suppressors for everything I own. And I would happily pay the sales tax on all of those purchaces.

E Pluribus Unum
10-26-2010, 10:47 PM
I think it's true, it'll take a quite a few years for the courts to become comfortable enough with FA weapons to fairly consider the challenge the 1968 law that closed the registry. But what if we, gunowners of America, pitch towards a legislative solution which takes advantage of current concern with fiscal situation? Let us say that out of 80,000,000 gun owners only 1% would want to purchase a fully automatic weapon - a fairly conservative assumption, I'd say. And let us further say that the tax stamp for the FA weapons was set at something like $3000 - a rough equivalent of what $200 stamp was in the 1930s. That is $2.5B - a hefty chunk of change towards paying off the debt. Not to mention the stimulus to the economy of producing 800,000 guns. I think it could work. What do you think?

What if the government wanted to charge you $3000 for the right to state that opinion?

I say... stop trying to license a right. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly what you think it means.

formerTexan
10-27-2010, 12:06 AM
I don't know how the NFA's tax on transfers would pass ANY scrutiny. All you have to do is switch out mgs/sbr/sbs/silencers with say, e-books, where as "regular" physical books are not transferred with this tax. Why should one type of book be taxed differently than another?

The mechanism and requirements for Title II transfers is less straight forward to litigate IMHO.

CaliforniaCarry
10-27-2010, 12:06 AM
I'll take something over nothing any day. I'd gladly pay a $3k fee for a brand-new legal FA weapon.

Even with the fee increase, this would save everyone a ton of money. A used M16 right now costs ~$13k to acquire legally (on a good day) (+ a negligible $200 tax stamp, of course). If the registry were opened, even with a $3k fee we'd be able to have new M16s for $7k - $8k (fee included). After the initial supply shortage you might even be able to get one for under $5k out the door. And keep in mind, this is for full-blown M16s, we aren't even talking about inexpensive FA solutions like lightning links or DIAS.

So, to the naysayers: What's better? Used M16s that cost ~$13k each, or brand-new M16s for $8k each? New M16s at fair retail prices with no NFA tax is not a valid answer; we're staying strictly within the confines of political reality (and probably even stretching it a bit as it is).

All this to say, the fact that the registry is closed is a bigger "tax" than this hypothetical $3000 fee. Open the registry, raise the fee, and we'll have our foot in the "common use" door in no-time ;)

Kharn
10-27-2010, 1:56 AM
When you offer compromises is when you get screwed. Letting the antis know you'd be willing to pay $3k is when they raise the tax but "forget" to remove 922(o).

And no, I'm not willing to pay $3k in taxes to build a Sten from random chunks of pipe in my barn or to drill one hole in an AR. Rights should not hinge on the ability to pay a tax, especially not one that is a significant percentage of the median annual income.

Chatterbox
10-27-2010, 3:01 AM
What if the government wanted to charge you $3000 for the right to state that opinion?



What if the government didn't just want to charge me $3000 for the right to state an opinion, but wanted to flat out prohibit me from stating it? It can certainly do it right now, if my opinion was judged to be dangerous and inflammatory enough ("Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater"). That has been accepted as a reasonable limitation on 1st Amendment speech right for the last 100 years, and I see no reason why a similar limitation on 2nd Amendment rights could not stand judicial review for another 100.

And that is why I believe a tax, which gives government reasonable incentive to grow the FA ownership, is a better means of achieving the end result.

yellowfin
10-27-2010, 5:33 AM
Messing with the stamp price is NOT something you want to do. They'll just jack it up on all 5 categories, so then you'll end up paying that same $3000 for a can that's currently $400-500 plus the stamp. NOT smart.

ptoguy2002
10-27-2010, 7:58 AM
I'm in for a couple at $3K, but it shouldn't have to come to that.
ETA: and yellow's got a point, they would probably raise it on all of them.

Wherryj
10-27-2010, 9:55 AM
Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

I paid almost that for my Kalifornicated semi-auto black rifle. I would have paid twice that amount for one that didn't require the BB/low cap mags. I think that you would be correct on that one.

Chatterbox
10-27-2010, 10:00 AM
Here we are living with it and having people suggest voluntarily jack up the $200 fee to $3000!!

Do you believe that we're more likely to see NFA registry reopened with FA fee at $200 or $3000?

RobG
10-27-2010, 10:36 AM
Um, there are tens of thousands of people that'd pay that just to have a plain AW in CA.

Pay 3 thousand dollars for the "priviledge" of taking off the bullet button? Um, no thanks. The AR platform isn't that cool.


I paid almost that for my Kalifornicated semi-auto black rifle. I would have paid twice that amount for one that didn't require the BB/low cap mags. I think that you would be correct on that one.

You'd be willing to pay nearly 6 grand to take off the BB and use norm caps in an AR15? Really?

Chatterbox
10-27-2010, 10:37 AM
It has nothing to do with $$

You are confusing the issue unless this thread is for purely entertainment purposes (in which case
your sense of humor is the same as mine;) )

The 2nd is a right!

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

The fact that 2nd Amendment states that we have certain rights does not exclude the legality of regulation of those rights. Like it or not, that has been the case pretty much for as long as USA has existed. Given that, it's very possible that the courts will conclude that regulation on possession of machine guns is entirely consistent with 2nd amendment. Which leaves us with political solutions to the problem.

gunn
10-27-2010, 10:37 AM
While I could physically afford $3K, I'm not sure that a full auto would be that high on my list of priorities. Think about feeding it. A semi auto "safe queen" is just as useful as a full auto "safe queen". $3K would buy you 10K 5.56 rounds... easy.

Of course, if you look at how many >$1500 guns you see on sale here on calguns used for "less than 200 rds down the pipe", I might be in the minority on this one.

Personally, a premium for an RAW + hicap mags would be far more palatable. I would pay a premium, but certainly NOT $3K... or probably $1K.

If I eventually considered buying a FA though, for the purposes of this thread, it'd probably be an AR15 DIAS/lower or something else readily convertable to 22LR. I wouldn't want to pay to feed anything else.

Scott Connors
10-27-2010, 10:43 AM
The 1986 ban affected newly built-in-the-USA MG. The 1968 GCA banned importation of MGs, including C&R guns. I'd like to see those imported again and made available.

Of course, this would cause prices to come down, which might not be something that a lot of people who bought them as investments want to hear.

Python2
10-27-2010, 11:05 AM
I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.

Umnnn.....for that amount I could get me an M4 or an MP5 in another country I call second home. I just have to shell out $200 every two years to renew the license;) Frankly, I am seriously tempted just for the hell of having one:D

CaliforniaCarry
10-27-2010, 11:29 AM
The 2nd is a right!

You're absolutely right, I hadn't thought of that! :rolleyes:

You're stuck in idealism. I suppose you think that it's also bad strategy for us to push for anything less than unfettered Constitutional Carry, rather than "compromising" and just going for permitted Concealed Carry for now.

I'm happy to stay over here in reality, where more people having more guns is a good thing for us (legally, politically, and philosophically). Even if that means we have to "compromise" on absolute purist idealism to get there. We lost our rights over a period of decades. To be frank, you're a little naive if you think we're going to get them all back in one fell swoop.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Kharn
10-27-2010, 11:41 AM
fredieusa,
if your opinion of the GCA was not so bad and the FOPA was not needed, might I ask if you ever lived under that oppression? Were you a shooter between 68 and 86?

The GCA sucked, every box of ammo had to be signed for with no mail order available. FFLs lived in fear of unwarranted ATF raids multiple times per year affecting their business without even probable cause. 75% of ATF's prosecution during that time were later determined "constitutionally improper". Individuals could only buy eifles and shotguns in their state of residence and there was no 'safe passage' provision in federal law until FOPA became law. FOPA also prohibits a federal registry of non-nfa firearms.

Still think FOPA was a bad idea?

ke6guj
10-27-2010, 11:51 AM
fredieusa,
if your opinion of the GCA was not so bad and the FOPA was not needed, might I ask if you ever lived under that oppression? Were you a shooter between 68 and 86?

The GCA sucked, every box of ammo had to be signed for with no mail order available. FFLs lived in fear of unwarranted ATF raids multiple times per year affecting their business without even probable cause. 75% of ATF's prosecution during that time were later determined "constitutionally improper". Individuals could only buy eifles and shotguns in their state of residence and there was no 'safe passage' provision in federal law until FOPA became law. FOPA also prohibits a federal registry of non-nfa firearms.

Still think FOPA was a bad idea?yup, all ammo sales were logged for 18 years and it was such a pain that they passed the FOPA to get rid of that requirement. IIRC, those ammo logs never led to the conviction of a prohibited person possessing ammo. Now with AB962, CA thinks they can do it better.

wash
10-27-2010, 11:58 AM
This is still small money when the federal government is spending trillions.

I would love to see the NFA registry re-opened and import restrictions lifted but there are only two ways to do that, through congress or in the courts.

We can't get federal CCW reciprocity through congress so I doubt that NFA changes could happen without a major shift in gun control attitudes (bigger than the best case result in the next ellection).

That leaves the courts and then it might be easier to kill the whole NFA registry than re-open it through some court's decision. And even if the registry did get re-opened, why volunteer to increase the tax?

I think this is the same reason why California will never be able to charge an "assault weapon tax" even if we force them to allow "assault weapon" registration for all non-prohibited people who want one.

CAL.BAR
10-27-2010, 12:28 PM
Why bother? CA still DOES NOT allow FA MG's and never ever will.

Python2
10-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Why bother? CA still DOES NOT allow FA MG's and never ever will.
Huh? I know someone in your neck of the woods who has Class 3 license:p

wash
10-27-2010, 12:38 PM
After it is determined that banning "assault weapons" serves no compelling public interest, California won't have much of an argument for banning machine guns...

That may take quite a long time but we can get there eventually.

Exile Machine
10-27-2010, 12:46 PM
I would have paid twice that amount for one that didn't require the BB/low cap mags.

I may need to raise my prices. :43:

CAL.BAR
10-27-2010, 1:01 PM
Huh? I know someone in your neck of the woods who has Class 3 license:p

I once saw a pig fly once (with the aid of a catapult) but that doesn't make it your everyday occurrence.

Class 3's are nearly impossible (and very expensive)to get here and usually only seen in the movie or FFL circles. Totally different than getting a tax stamp like in other states.

Kharn
10-27-2010, 1:03 PM
Class 3 is the dealer, the weapons themselves are 'Title II' (Title I is your standard rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc)

CAL.BAR
10-27-2010, 1:03 PM
After it is determined that banning "assault weapons" serves no compelling public interest, California won't have much of an argument for banning machine guns...

That may take quite a long time but we can get there eventually.

Your kidding right? KA doesn't need to have an argument - you should know that by now. There is no real logic to any of the KA gun and weapons laws.
KA people are scared to death of guns. The blacker and more evil the more they fear them. There is no way FA's would ever get past the KA legislature (or general population either)

wash
10-27-2010, 1:06 PM
I mean a legal argument.

If we ever get NFA items legalized, it will be through the courts.

stillnotbob
10-27-2010, 1:14 PM
I don't think the NFA registry is ever going to be reopened legislatively as long as there is a concern about the drug cartels in Mexico.

Politicians will just think that the Mexican Cartels will get their MGs even easier from here... even though they are not really getting any of them from the U.S.

RobG
10-27-2010, 1:21 PM
Umnnn.....for that amount I could get me an M4 or an MP5 in another country I call second home. I just have to shell out $200 every two years to renew the license;) Frankly, I am seriously tempted just for the hell of having one:D

I was under the impression the $200 tax stamp is a one time deal, unless the item is resold:confused:

CAL.BAR
10-27-2010, 1:26 PM
I mean a legal argument.

If we ever get NFA items legalized, it will be through the courts.

I understand. Even before 1986 FA's were illegal in KA. Just b/c something is Federally legal, it doesn't mean the states can't ban it themselves. Unless the Fed. moves to occupy the entire field, states are free to regulate more heavily. So, even if the Fed ditched the NFA altogether, unless they moved to occupy the entire field we here in KA will remain with our snotty noses pressed against the window.

Sorry.

stix213
10-27-2010, 1:31 PM
I'd pay $3k for an FA tax stamp if I could also buy high cap mags.

Turning my AR into full auto will be pretty lame with 10 round mags :p

Kharn
10-27-2010, 1:35 PM
I was under the impression the $200 tax stamp is a one time deal, unless the item is resold:confused:In America its $200 whenever the ownership changes. He might be referring to somewhere other than the other 49 states.

Python2
10-27-2010, 1:44 PM
I was under the impression the $200 tax stamp is a one time deal, unless the item is resold:confused:

That is in the US of A not the country I am referring to. The $200 I mentioned was for a Fire Arms license to own renewable every 2 years and in addition to CCW renewable every year. And the 3K I mentioned was for the purchase of the M4 or MP5 itself:D Interesting enough, you can also apply a CCW for the M4 or any machine pistol you elect. Dont make sense considering the tropical humid weather there;)

ke6guj
10-27-2010, 1:46 PM
Umnnn.....for that amount I could get me an M4 or an MP5 in another country I call second home. I just have to shell out $200 every two years to renew the license;) Frankly, I am seriously tempted just for the hell of having one:D



I was under the impression the $200 tax stamp is a one time deal, unless the item is resold:confused:

In America its $200 whenever the ownership changes. He might be referring to somewhere other than the other 49 states.

key words, another country. probably not talking about the US. Yes, it is a $200 (or $5 for AOW transfer) one-time tax with regards to NFA making/transfering that many people think is a yearly fee.

edit: too slow:D

RobG
10-27-2010, 1:50 PM
That is in the US of A not the country I am referring to. The $200 I mentioned was for a Fire Arms license to own renewable every 2 years and in addition to CCW renewable every year. And the 3K I mentioned was for the purchase of the M4 or MP5 itself:D Interesting enough, you can also apply a CCW for the M4 or any machine pistol you elect. Dont make sense considering the tropical humid weather there;)

Gotcha. 3k for a MP5, hell I'd work a bunch of OT for that:D

Peter.Steele
10-27-2010, 2:21 PM
Interesting enough, you can also apply a CCW for the M4 or any machine pistol you elect. Dont make sense considering the tropical humid weather there;)


I haven't lived in Maine for quite some time now, but back when I did live there, the license didn't specify "pistol." If you owned it legally and could conceal it, then you could carry it.

Do you have a FA battle rifle? Do you have a trenchcoat? Are you big enough for it to be hidden?

Then you're good to go!

Python2
10-27-2010, 3:01 PM
Gotcha. 3k for a MP5, hell I'd work a bunch of OT for that:D

Yep, same here:D

E Pluribus Unum
10-27-2010, 4:03 PM
What if the government didn't just want to charge me $3000 for the right to state an opinion, but wanted to flat out prohibit me from stating it? It can certainly do it right now, if my opinion was judged to be dangerous and inflammatory enough ("Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater"). That has been accepted as a reasonable limitation on 1st Amendment speech right for the last 100 years, and I see no reason why a similar limitation on 2nd Amendment rights could not stand judicial review for another 100.

And that is why I believe a tax, which gives government reasonable incentive to grow the FA ownership, is a better means of achieving the end result.

Show me where the first amendment says "Shall not be infringed."

The second amendment is so important, I think the framers put the "shall not be infringed" in there to take away the notion of "reasonable restrictions".

The only place "shall not be infringed" appears in the bill of rights is in the second amendment. I don't believe any amount of government oversight is constitutional with regards to the second.

Kharn
10-27-2010, 5:44 PM
When Reagan signed the FOPA, the House was solidly in Democratic control and had been so since 1954 (and if you ignore 1946 and 1952, it had been Democratic since 1930). The ordinary Democrats weren't strongly for gun control, but their leadership controlled the purse strings and thus they followed party lines or risked being replaced in the primaries. FOPA was first proposed in 1980 and had been locked in committee every year by the anti-gun House leadership, it took a multitude of back-room deals by the NRA to gather enough signatures to force an immediate floor vote at which point it passed. Figuring they had one shot, and assuming any reasonable court would see a ban on MGs as an infringement they went full steam ahead. Reagan asked the NRA if he should sign the bill or not due to the MG ban, they assured him it would be defeated in federal court within six months and to sign it anyway. Oops.

It wasn't until the Republican Revolution in 1994 that Republicans had an even semi-reliable hold on the House. You also have to look at the context of the 1980s, the anti gun side was just getting started, guns were a normal part of American life and the MG ban was basically a final 'well, F you too!' as the House leadership was powerless to stop its passage.

nicki
10-27-2010, 6:15 PM
Roger Waters was asked in 1986 would he ever play "the Wall". His reply was he would when "the Berlin Wall" fell.

3 years later it fell and true to his word, he put together a all star cast and performed "the Wall".

Never say Never.

That being said, if a machinegun case came to the SCOTUS today, we would get no more than 4 votes. The issue is Justice Kennedy and that is per Alan Gura.

As much as I would like to see the NFA repealed, we are a long way off.

Opening up the registry is something that is a possibility and that would happen if it got attached to a must pass bill and Obama signed it.

As a stand alone bill, no way.

Other factors to consider.

The Movie industry is not happy about the ban because it applies to them.

Many older veteran's have war trophies, when they pass away, widow's are in possession of illegal full autos.

World War Two was the last war where standard military arms were bolt action rifles. Many troops were armed with sub machine guns and the first assault rifles appeared.

Don't know what standard arms were in Korea for the Chinese, but since Vietnam all countries have been using select fire arms as standard infantry arms.

Then there is the black market issue. How many illegal machineguns are there in the United States. We have 250k legal ones, if we have 2 to 3 million illegal ones, it blows out the argument that the ban works.

So, let's say it will be interesting.

Nicki

B Strong
10-27-2010, 6:54 PM
I think it's true, it'll take a quite a few years for the courts to become comfortable enough with FA weapons to fairly consider the challenge the 1968 law that closed the registry. But what if we, gunowners of America, pitch towards a legislative solution which takes advantage of current concern with fiscal situation? Let us say that out of 80,000,000 gun owners only 1% would want to purchase a fully automatic weapon - a fairly conservative assumption, I'd say. And let us further say that the tax stamp for the FA weapons was set at something like $3000 - a rough equivalent of what $200 stamp was in the 1930s. That is $2.5B - a hefty chunk of change towards paying off the debt. Not to mention the stimulus to the economy of producing 800,000 guns. I think it could work. What do you think?

GCA '68 only shut down the importation of MG's after the effective date of the law - FOPA '86 shut the registry as of 5-19-86.

The tax stamp is not and should not be a profit center, and any taxation of the existing right to possess firearms should be attacked, not expanded.

The NFA may not fall, Heller, Macdonald, and other cases not yet settled in our favor being besides the point - the issue is just too contentious.

wildhawker
10-27-2010, 7:17 PM
Speaking of Waters and The Wall, I look forward to seeing him play HP this December. I'm a little disappointed that it won't be what's left of the band, but Snowy White always performs admirably (and in some cases better, I think, than Gilmour).

/threadjack

sorensen440
10-27-2010, 7:28 PM
I think you vastly over estimate those willing to pay 3k for a NFA stamp.
Id pay it

wash
10-28-2010, 6:43 AM
I understand. Even before 1986 FA's were illegal in KA. Just b/c something is Federally legal, it doesn't mean the states can't ban it themselves. Unless the Fed. moves to occupy the entire field, states are free to regulate more heavily. So, even if the Fed ditched the NFA altogether, unless they moved to occupy the entire field we here in KA will remain with our snotty noses pressed against the window.

Sorry.
If it's unconstitutional for the federal government to ban full auto firearms, then it's unconstitutional for California.

While Nicki might be right about not having the votes in SCOTUS, after we beat up the Anti's enough and get back 99% of our rights, gun control might no longer be a litmus test for SCOTUS nominees and we might actually get justices that can tell that arms doesn't mean everything except machineguns.

xLusi0n
10-28-2010, 7:27 AM
There are a lot of people with a lot of money invested in MGs that would not like to see their investment drop like their 401K/home values did a few years ago. Those people are in positions that influence or have the ability to influence gun-related lobby groups.

Not to mention that supporting anything to do with putting more MG in the hands of the public is political suicide for any legislator.

NightOwl
10-28-2010, 7:54 AM
Not to mention that supporting anything to do with putting more MG in the hands of the public is political suicide for any legislator.

I'm not sure I agree with that. While there might not be enough legislators to pass something along those lines, I wouldn't go so far as to say that none are adequately supported by their constituants to make noises to that effect.

Kharn
10-28-2010, 7:59 AM
There are a lot of people with a lot of money invested in MGs that would not like to see their investment drop like their 401K/home values did a few years ago. Those people are in positions that influence or have the ability to influence gun-related lobby groups.

Not to mention that supporting anything to do with putting more MG in the hands of the public is political suicide for any legislator.The vast majority of MG owners are in it for the grins, not the money. Anyone that stated they hope the MG ban remains in place to protect their investment at Knob Creek would be chased out of town.

yellowfin
10-28-2010, 8:05 AM
Not to mention that supporting anything to do with putting more MG in the hands of the public is political suicide for any legislator.Any legislator from California and Maryland, perhaps, but other than that most wouldn't have a problem.

Bhobbs
10-28-2010, 8:05 AM
I would buy one of those Mini M1919's that shoots .22 LR. Probably the only MG I could afford to shoot.

Kharn
10-28-2010, 8:09 AM
Reagan signed the bill on NRA's advice. In hind sight, what is easier, getting ammo deregulated or allowing the public to own MG's ? It was a bad trade off, which should not have happened. An MG you for which you have to buy ammo by the 20 count box from the local gun store isn't very useful beyond being a paperweight. Try finding 7.7, 7.92k, 8mm, even FMJ .30-06 (9mm was even somewhat hard to find before Beretta won the Army handgun contract) in any significant quantity (more than 2-3 boxes) for anything less than highway robbery prices at a gun store within driving distance without using the internet, that is what life was like before 1986.

No one expected gun rights to advance as far as they did under the FOPA until just before it was signed into law. Just like no one expected Heller to win until Roberts and Alito were sworn in and even then it was a nailbiter.

timmyb21
10-28-2010, 11:34 AM
Getting rid of all the stupid California regulations would be my top priority.



This. All I want is to have my so called assault weapon be configured the way it was designed: pistol grip, detachable un-neutered mags, and a big scary flash hider. :rolleyes: Can we take care of this before going after the NFA?

stag1500
10-28-2010, 12:43 PM
Glad to hear that, it must be nice being being able to afford all that. May god bless you with more. I am sure there are lots of "rich" people out there that can do better.

What about guys like me, who are financially mediocre (or maybe even below average in some standards) ??

Let's not forget that the $200 tax stamp in 1934 was meant to be cost prohibitive. An outright ban at time wouldn't have survived so they resorted to the next best thing.

$200 today might seem somewhat insignificant, but that's neither here nor there. The government taxing someone for exercising their constitutional right is just wrong no matter what the size of the tax may be.

B Strong
10-29-2010, 5:54 AM
An MG you for which you have to buy ammo by the 20 count box from the local gun store isn't very useful beyond being a paperweight.

Try finding 7.7, 7.92k, 8mm, even FMJ .30-06 (9mm was even somewhat hard to find before Beretta won the Army handgun contract) in any significant quantity (more than 2-3 boxes) for anything less than highway robbery prices at a gun store within driving distance without using the internet, that is what life was like before 1986.

No one expected gun rights to advance as far as they did under the FOPA until just before it was signed into law. Just like no one expected Heller to win until Roberts and Alito were sworn in and even then it was a nailbiter.

Maybe because I'm kinda an old fart I know different, but I can tell you that long before the internet, there was this thing we used to find ammo in quntity for reasonable prices:

Shotgun News

All the calibers you referenced (except for 7.7 Jap) were available in quantity cheap. My friends and I bought /06 and 7.92 Mauser by the pallet load, under .20 a round.

Belted ammo was similarly priced.

Cheap 7.62 x 39 didn't come around until the early eightes when the Chinese stuff first came in, but that was before the 'net too.

Draankol
10-29-2010, 6:40 AM
But if they were still $200 and the registry were reopened you could buy 3 for the price of one.

15, actually...

Kharn
10-29-2010, 6:52 AM
Maybe because I'm kinda an old fart I know different, but I can tell you that long before the internet, there was this thing we used to find ammo in quntity for reasonable prices:

Shotgun News

All the calibers you referenced (except for 7.7 Jap) were available in quantity cheap. My friends and I bought /06 and 7.92 Mauser by the pallet load, under .20 a round.

Belted ammo was similarly priced.

Cheap 7.62 x 39 didn't come around until the early eightes when the Chinese stuff first came in, but that was before the 'net too.But IIRC you had to be an FFL to buy from Shotgun News' ammo dealers at the time, due to the GCA.

B Strong
10-30-2010, 7:19 AM
But IIRC you had to be an FFL to buy from Shotgun News' ammo dealers at the time, due to the GCA.

Wrong.

Sarco, Paragon, Global, J & G sales, all would sell to non-FFL holders, especially when you'd buy by the pallet.

bondmid003
10-30-2010, 10:29 AM
I think it's true, it'll take a quite a few years for the courts to become comfortable enough with FA weapons to fairly consider the challenge the 1968 law that closed the registry. But what if we, gunowners of America, pitch towards a legislative solution which takes advantage of current concern with fiscal situation? Let us say that out of 80,000,000 gun owners only 1% would want to purchase a fully automatic weapon - a fairly conservative assumption, I'd say. And let us further say that the tax stamp for the FA weapons was set at something like $3000 - a rough equivalent of what $200 stamp was in the 1930s. That is $2.5B - a hefty chunk of change towards paying off the debt. Not to mention the stimulus to the economy of producing 800,000 guns. I think it could work. What do you think?

I've got some swampland in Arizona to sell if you believe the antis will ever allow that to happen brother. Also 1986 and the Hughes amendment to the FOPA is what forever closed the books on full auto weapons.

yellowfin
10-30-2010, 3:58 PM
Allow it to happen? That's an "asking" perspective. We the people are the boss, not politicians. It will happen because WE TELL THEM it's going to happen. I don't recall asking antis what the hell they think is appropriate or not and it's about time we stop asking them for their worthless opinions.

freespool
10-30-2010, 4:57 PM
Allow it to happen? That's an "asking" perspective. We the people are the boss, not politicians. It will happen because WE TELL THEM it's going to happen. I don't recall asking antis what the hell they think is appropriate or not and it's about time we stop asking them for their worthless opinions.I don't track your take on representative democracy in this case - when it comes to MGs, joe citizen is the anti, in spades. What in your life's experience leads you to believe either the courts or the legislatures are likely to ever think legal MGs should be back on the table? What argument would compel members in either of those two venues to propose permitting widespread FA capability in the households of America? There's not even close to adequate political will, or any other argument, aside from the fantasy expectation that one of the least popular parts of the BOR will one day become the only one to receive unfettered respect. It's a nice thought, but it ain't gonna happen not even close.

nicki
10-30-2010, 7:08 PM
The public overwhelmingly opposes private full auto en mass, but most people would support some restricted ownership.

Neither side of the gun issue wants to go to the Supreme court on full auto and the Supreme court may want to duck the issue.

If we get the registry opened, it will be because it got attached to a must pass bill.

Hollywood is now having problems with the freeze, kinda effects them too.
Having Conservatives attach this to a must pass bill would give them cover.

States are now getting bolder and are actually standing up to feds. I expect some state to ramp up their reserves and give reserves option of having full autos.


Nicki

freespool
10-30-2010, 7:33 PM
I can believe you could get a few states to go for it. I'll bet the libs would love for gun nuts to make an issue out of FA. The notion that MGs can be snuck in somewhere is... hard to imagine.

bondmid003
10-30-2010, 7:51 PM
Allow it to happen? That's an "asking" perspective. We the people are the boss, not politicians. It will happen because WE TELL THEM it's going to happen. I don't recall asking antis what the hell they think is appropriate or not and it's about time we stop asking them for their worthless opinions.

It's called a democracy brother, everyone gets to voice their opinion worthless or not. That's actually a good thing

cmaynes
10-30-2010, 10:15 PM
I actually think it will happen, legislatively, and maybe sooner than people realize.

Right now, there's a bill called the Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=198&issue=023) which will add more guns to the registry for the first time since 1986. Doing so breaks down a psychological barrier. The 1986 cutoff is not some holy event, and the world doesn't end if more firearms are added. I also wonder if it might open more legal challenges, and also make some enforcement more difficult.

I'm also hopefully that, someday, there will be legal challenges.

I dont think that will bring much effect- That amnesty will likely allow some exotica into the legal ownership realm, but relatively few automatic weapons are allowed as bringbacks - unless they have been demil'd which would then require the same forms to be filed through ATF to restore them.... I dont know this as a fact, but I do know a number of ww2 vets who brought guns back and had to demil them....

tozan
10-30-2010, 11:41 PM
It is Funny to listen to all this miss information about autos... Just be cause they are not allowed in Kalifornia doesn't mean anything to the rest of the FREE states since the majority of this country allow FAs.

All of us FA owners like my self would be pissed if someone wanted to raise the tax at all... There is no reason to raise the tax when FA are ALREADY LEGAL... It is in CALIFORNIA they are not allowed so work on Ca law and leave the rest of us alone....

So far as the 86 ban I was working for a Class III shop at the time and it had no affect on us for the most part and I don't think lifting the ban right now will have any real affect on sales of FA weapons right now (it may boost auto sear sales). At this time FA sales are very low and most of the dealers I know are way overstocked weapon prices are way down and if you shop around you can get some pretty good deals. I have been trying to sell one of my FA's for 8 months now and I have priced it for half of what it would have sold for 3 years ago and still no one wants it... I did have an offer for $1500... lol

The price I am selling for is about 3 grand for the gun and tax combined... So how in the heck do you think it would sell if raise the price to $6000 with your stamp price??????

By the way there are a lot of people in California who own FA weapons now they just keep them in FREE states. So if you are willing to pay $3 grand then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go buy one... It would be pretty simple... Just move to a FREE state for a year and buy all you want then find a place to store them and move back to California.... Then if you want to really help people out take California to court for violating your rights when you move back here and are not be able to bring your legal property into the state...

Anchors
10-31-2010, 12:02 AM
Everyone is laughing at $3,000 when people pay $15,000+ for legal fully automatic weapons with the $200 stamp.
If people could get any FA gun for a $3,000 stamp they would still end up saving at least $10,000.
If the registry was open, AR15s from 1985 wouldn't cost $15,000.

Pred@tor
10-31-2010, 1:40 PM
That'd be awesome some states are enacting firearms freedom acts and Missouri hasn't touched theirs yet. http://firearmsfreedomact.com/ through this it may be the way to get our full autos again one day soon without paying as much you do for a new car lol... If I had lots of money sure I'd buy an overpriced full auto over a car but its not worth it... The USAF offers classes for full autos so I am gonna try and do that. :D

Glad to be away from Cali I wish I could get affordable sears for my semi autos... :D I'd just open an LLC for my Title II weapons.

cmaynes
10-31-2010, 3:27 PM
That'd be awesome some states are enacting firearms freedom acts and Missouri hasn't touched theirs yet. http://firearmsfreedomact.com/ through this it may be the way to get our full autos again one day soon without paying as much you do for a new car lol... If I had lots of money sure I'd buy an overpriced full auto over a car but its not worth it... The USAF offers classes for full autos so I am gonna try and do that. :D

Glad to be away from Cali I wish I could get affordable sears for my semi autos... :D I'd just open an LLC for my Title II weapons.

anybody know what happened to the Montana SB that was going to allow local built guns to be sold to Montana citizens without ATF / DOJ involvement?

CCWFacts
10-31-2010, 4:48 PM
I dont think that will bring much effect- That amnesty will likely allow some exotica into the legal ownership realm, but relatively few automatic weapons are allowed as bringbacks

Yes, the Act will only apply to a limited range of guns (fairly old stuff). However, there are a lot of them stored away in basements and attics. The Act make it clear that the BATF must accept them even if the documentation for them is very limited or non-existent.

It's hard to guess how many weapons would be added to the registry. Certainly in the hundreds, probably in the thousands.

So it's not a huge effect on the size of the pool.

The impact is more psychological. It makes the 1986 cut-off something that is not absolute. It opens it up.

It also might open legal challenges. Why should someone have the possibility of registering a MG-42 just because his grandfather served in WWII? Why should I be able to get one? And then, why only old MG-42s? If the government thinks it's reasonable to register an MG-42, why not a modern replica? And so on. (IANAL so I'm just making stuff up here.)

tozan
10-31-2010, 10:19 PM
Everyone is laughing at $3,000 when people pay $15,000+ for legal fully automatic weapons with the $200 stamp.
If people could get any FA gun for a $3,000 stamp they would still end up saving at least $10,000.
If the registry was open, AR15s from 1985 wouldn't cost $15,000.

To bad that is not realistic... Most full autos are still going to be in 4 to 5 grand range then add a 3 grand stamp to the mix and you will still be paying a lot more for a FA then you can get one in the system for now... You are ignoring the fact you can get a FA now with tax included for less then 3 grand so why do you think it will be cheaper later? Before 1986 when I was in the FA business there were plenty of FA guns well over $4000 so even if we drop back to 1986 prices (wich will never happen) a new FA on your plan is going to be a lot more then what you can get one for now...

If you want I will sell you mine for $1500 but you will need to pay me $3000 for the transfer so your total price to send me will be $4500....... Or we can do it the way it is now and I will sell you the same gun for $2800 +$200 total $3000.... To me that is a no brainer why would anyone want to pay more????

Again a $3000 stamp makes no sense because you can get plenty of FA weapons now for less then your proposed stamp tax fee now...

MAYBE YOU MISSED IT LAST TIME I POSTED IT RIGHT NOW THE FA MARKET IS PRETTY SATURATED SO PRICES ARE PRETTY LOW... I can get you several FA's like a Colt M-16 for as low as $7000 ( if you lived in a Free state that is)

The other problem with the idea of repealing the 86 bill is there are not as many big names in the game who will sell to that market now and forign guns will still not be allowed in to the country. (they never have been except for demilled) There may be a lot of new comers who will come into the market but why would they want to sell real cheap when current guns are so high? They are going to keep the price up because they can.... Why would they want to sell for $1500 when they can get $7000 and up...

bondmid003
10-31-2010, 10:55 PM
www.machinegunpriceguide.com is your friend if you want to see what the current price scope is on all makes and models. Basically an entry level full auto gun like a MAC-10 still isn't cheap.

SP1200
10-31-2010, 10:56 PM
I would agree that there is much greater chance of getting the registry re-opened legislatively than judicially for a few decades. FYI- the registry was closed in 1986 not 1968.

wasn't it like Sep 27 1986?

ke6guj
10-31-2010, 11:53 PM
wasn't it like Sep 27 1986?May 19, 1988

tozan
11-01-2010, 12:08 AM
www.machinegunpriceguide.com is your friend if you want to see what the current price scope is on all makes and models. Basically an entry level full auto gun like a MAC-10 still isn't cheap.


What would you call Cheap? What would you pay for a Mac in good condition?

I looked at those prices on the Mac's and laughed... Most of them selling in So Fl are at or below the lower level. And I have seen Brand new in the box MAC-10s with silencers going for a lot less then there high side prices.

I also do not believe the BS about this statement made on that sight "But there are only about 600-700 automatic weapons available for sale in the US at any given time" this is certainly laughably wrong.... Give me 3 days and I can drive you around to a few shops near here who have almost half that many guns sitting on their shelves. I personally know of a few dealers with about 40 FA guns each in stock. I would guess Reed Knight may still have a hundred new transferable guns sitting around... I am sure if there are this many in just my little part of the country the the other 40 plus states will certainly have more then 600-700 guns for sale.

Don't get me wrong I would love to see the 1986 law go away and it would make prices go down... But raising the transfer tax to such a high amount I am against no matter what... If anything it should be eliminated...

F8ality
11-02-2010, 10:04 PM
I would be happy with SBR's, SBS's and Suppressors not worried about full auto...although I could buy a minigun haha

Scott Connors
11-02-2010, 11:07 PM
May 19, 1988

1986, not 1988. I wish it were 1988! (I'd have Form One'd a @#$%load of semis and picked up some more C&R guns to go with my MG42.)

ke6guj
11-02-2010, 11:16 PM
yup, typo. May 19, 1986

B Strong
11-04-2010, 6:47 AM
What would you call Cheap? What would you pay for a Mac in good condition?

I looked at those prices on the Mac's and laughed... Most of them selling in So Fl are at or below the lower level. And I have seen Brand new in the box MAC-10s with silencers going for a lot less then there high side prices.

I also do not believe the BS about this statement made on that sight "But there are only about 600-700 automatic weapons available for sale in the US at any given time" this is certainly laughably wrong.... Give me 3 days and I can drive you around to a few shops near here who have almost half that many guns sitting on their shelves. I personally know of a few dealers with about 40 FA guns each in stock. I would guess Reed Knight may still have a hundred new transferable guns sitting around... I am sure if there are this many in just my little part of the country the the other 40 plus states will certainly have more then 600-700 guns for sale.

Don't get me wrong I would love to see the 1986 law go away and it would make prices go down... But raising the transfer tax to such a high amount I am against no matter what... If anything it should be eliminated...

I don't know where you're getting your prices, but if you can link some NIB M10 prices under 3K, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them.

A friend recently had to sell some transferables. He moved his pieces and they went for a like amount to what's quoted in the guide, and again, I'd love to see a link to the M10's and transferable Colt '16's in the 7K $ range.

pgg
11-04-2010, 7:11 AM
transferable Colt '16's in the 7K $ range.

Yeah, me too. My credit card is on my desk.

tozan
11-04-2010, 7:38 PM
Send money I will sell you mine for $2800 right now... NOTE this is a serious offer for sale.... But if your in California I don't think you can buy it anyway...

But lets not side step the topic of this post are you ready to pay an additional $3000 transfer fee too??? Then it will only cost you $5800 to buy my gun. It makes no sense to raise the cost of a transfer on the National level thinking the state will all of a sudden want you to buy a FA when they do not make any money on the sale other than sales tax...

I don't have a simple link for you to go to plus that is a really bad way to buy a FA, you will always get a much better price in person or at a gun show. I have personally priced a few FAs under 7 grand in the last 8 months and and several well under $5000. Now if you are stuck on only NIB Colt M16's then you are not really being realistic, how many of you have real AR-15 Colt simi-autos NIB? There are some NIB FA guns but not a lot of them plus they of course will sell at a premium.

OK now lets get back to buying my MAC 10 lets get the paper work moving ASAP... Put your money where your mouth is and come out and test fire it and let's get the paper work started. $2800 ....

B Strong
11-05-2010, 7:01 AM
Send money I will sell you mine for $2800 right now... NOTE this is a serious offer for sale.... But if your in California I don't think you can buy it anyway...

But lets not side step the topic of this post are you ready to pay an additional $3000 transfer fee too??? Then it will only cost you $5800 to buy my gun. It makes no sense to raise the cost of a transfer on the National level thinking the state will all of a sudden want you to buy a FA when they do not make any money on the sale other than sales tax...

I don't have a simple link for you to go to plus that is a really bad way to buy a FA, you will always get a much better price in person or at a gun show. I have personally priced a few FAs under 7 grand in the last 8 months and and several well under $5000. Now if you are stuck on only NIB Colt M16's then you are not really being realistic, how many of you have real AR-15 Colt simi-autos NIB? There are some NIB FA guns but not a lot of them plus they of course will sell at a premium.

OK now lets get back to buying my MAC 10 lets get the paper work moving ASAP... Put your money where your mouth is and come out and test fire it and let's get the paper work started. $2800 ....

First of all, what form is your MAC on, who is the manufacturer, and is it NIB?

Offering your piece for sale is a little different than asserting that the national market as a whole is vastly under the (semi-current) price guide suggested prices.

My recent experience is that the price guide isn't too far off, and yes, you can buy MG's for under 5K $ - not transferable 16's in any flavor, not RDIAS, and certainly no service rifle caliber mag or belt feds. My friend that sold off some of his pieces sold off two registered reciever 16 variants (parts guns) that both went for a higher price than your asserted 7K $, and they weren't Colts... still waiting on that link...

If you read the whole thread you'd see my earlier response, which was that I believe the whole question of raising the tax stamp price to be a bad idea.

I first got involved with NFA weapons and devices when they were affordable, I have the luck to have a legal residence in a free state, and I indulged myself to the limit of my disposable income. What I paid for some of my stuff is far less than what people are paying for semiauto clone pieces now, and to be honest I can't afford to sell the things because even with the profit involved, I'd never be able to afford a better example at even today's depressed market prices.

The idea that raising the tax stamp and opening the NFTR is going to drop prices back to the pre-'86 level is a no-goer. The days of drilling and milling a $450.00 SP-1 or drilling the front pivot pin hole on a $600.00 HK and form 1ing it are never going to come back.

tozan
11-05-2010, 11:30 AM
My MAC is on a form 4 it is not NIB, it was when I got it 30 years ago for $200...

Local shops around here are very low, I guess I need to have your friend sell mine for $4000

So far as a "link" for you I don't have one because I shop in person and most Class III dealers here aren't on line I also have a lot of friends who own Title II weapons and I have seen more then a few "dump it" priced guns. I offered to sell mine a few months ago to a guy for $1200 when I just didn't feel like messing with it and it was slowing me down from moving. I spoke with ATF and decided to just store it in Fl. for the time being. My real point is there are guns out there that can be picked up pretty cheap and a $3 grand tax is stupid.

I don't have a real argument with you at all we both agree to raise the tax fee is not going to do anything and may even hurt the market more.... I also agree Repealing the 86 law will cause the cost of guns to go down and it will really open up the market to cheap conversion parts so people will be able to build much cheaper then buying one and in time that will bring the prices way down too...

Too sum it up: No higher tax and get rid of the 86 law...

Any of you guys in So Fla this weekend we are having a big Machinegun shoot BBQ should be a few .50 M-2s M-60's dozens of M-16 and variants a Mini gun, tanerite and other fiery displays and who knows what else... In the past there have been mortars, canons and even a M-72 law...