PDA

View Full Version : Do you think new full auto weapons will ever be legal again in this country?


Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 4:31 PM
At the federal level for the the average law abiding citizen or do you think it will always remain restricted to legal use by police/military and common illegal use by gangs and cartels? Do you think the supreme court will ever grow some balls and protect the 2nd amendment right to select fire and auto weapons? IF an armed robber or a criminal gang comes into my house i'd much rather have full auto capability than the 10 round semi auto bs we have here. And our ridiculous politicans have the nerve to say we don't need more than 10 round semi auto with basically no timely reload capability for home defense(yee). Do these people realize what ordinary law abiding citizens are up against in terms of gangs and cartels? Normal People are routinely assaulted in their own homes by groups of men even with no involvement with gangs or cartels whatsoever. IF these guys have machine pistols attacking you how could you say a 10 round 9mm pistol is all u need for self defense?

Sunday
08-04-2012, 4:43 PM
When guns are outlawed only the government and other criminals will have them. IMO the future for gun ownership is besides the mini victories are grimmmmmmm. The people we keep on reelecting do not care . There is a good chance if guys are attacking you with sub machine guns you will loose the fight anyway.

m03
08-04-2012, 4:44 PM
I think we should focus on attainable goals first and then work from there.

Paul S
08-04-2012, 4:45 PM
At the federal level for the the average law abiding citizen or do you think it will always remain restricted to legal use by police/military and common illegal use by gangs and cartels? Do you think the supreme court will ever grow some balls and protect the 2nd amendment right to select fire and auto weapons? IF an armed robber or a criminal gang comes into my house i'd much rather have full auto capability than the 10 round semi auto bs we have here. And our ridiculous politicans have the nerve to say we don't need more than 10 round semi auto with basically no timely reload capability for home defense(yee). Do these people realize what ordinary law abiding citizens are up against in terms of gangs and cartels? Normal People are routinely assaulted in their own homes by groups of men even with no involvement with gangs or cartels whatsoever. IF these guys have machine pistols attacking you how could you say a 10 round 9mm pistol is all u need for self defense?

You can legally have fully automatic weapons now. At least based upon federal law. There are hefty fees and the route to legal ownership I'm sure is fraught with complication. Actually, according the the law in California it is possible to own fully automatic weapons too. HOWEVER,
again it requires special approvals etc...which are NEVER given except to a few movie company armorers. (Like the old Federal marijuana tax stamp. On the books...but none were ever issued so the feds could continue the anti-marijuana enforcement efforts.)

Now, if what you are really asking is will full auto arms ever be allowed to the average citizen in California the simple answer in my view is no.

huntercf
08-04-2012, 4:46 PM
I'm hoping, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

littlejake
08-04-2012, 4:48 PM
IIRC -- it was 1986 when the full auto crowd was sold down the river -- i.e.: no new ones in circulation in those states that permitted them. I would doubt that will be undone.

As for CA ever being an NFA state -- 1.0E-99 probability.

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 4:48 PM
Doubtful.When they are trying to ban evil looking semi autos the evil looking full autos don't have a chance.

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 4:53 PM
When guns are outlawed only the government and other criminals will have them. IMO the future for gun ownership is besides the mini victories are grimmmmmmm. The people we keep on reelecting do not care . There is a good chance if guys are attacking you with sub machine guns you will loose the fight anyway.

Yeah but anyone who values there life even a little would way rather walk into a house unarmed or armed with a 9mm or something than a house with say this...

http://www.tucsonshooting.com/pic/2007-11/00-11-12-07-043.jpg
Deterrence makes us safer.

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 4:54 PM
You can legally have fully automatic weapons now. At least based upon federal law. There are hefty fees and the route to legal ownership I'm sure is fraught with complication. Actually, according the the law in California it is possible to own fully automatic weapons too. HOWEVER,
again it requires special approvals etc...which are NEVER given except to a few movie company armorers. (Like the old Federal marijuana tax stamp. On the books...but none were ever issued so the feds could continue the anti-marijuana enforcement efforts.)

Now, if what you are really asking is will full auto arms ever be allowed to the average citizen in California the simple answer in my view is no.

I said new weapons... not like a 10k mac 9 or a 50k tommy gun... and for the average joe...

The War Wagon
08-04-2012, 4:59 PM
After the NEXT Revolution, yes. In fact, I suspect they'll be REQUIRED! :gunsmilie:

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 5:02 PM
After the NEXT Revolution, yes. In fact, I suspect they'll be REQUIRED! :gunsmilie:

I don't think full auto will be required. I'm not a soldier never been in combat so I really don't know but I would think its best to use semi auto and get accuracy out of the shot.

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 5:05 PM
I don't think full auto will be required. I'm not a soldier never been in combat so I really don't know but I would think its best to use semi auto and get accuracy out of the shot.

select fire man... wouldn't that be nice for a change:43::43:

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 5:07 PM
select fire man... wouldn't that be nice for a change:43::43:

Sure it would but I don't know if it would be required in battle.

Capybara
08-04-2012, 5:08 PM
Not to nit pick but California is an NFA State. Besides the aforementioned machine guns, which only armorers/prop shops for Hollywood and FFL7/FOT2s can have, collectors can own DDs with the agreement that they can never shoot them.

Anyone who can own guns legally can also own AOWs, C&R SBS and SBRs in California, all NFA weapons that require a tax stamp.

You will never see consumer ownership of machine guns in this state, I would say that we are headed the other way and we may soon not be able to own many other types of popular, common weapons here.

RMP91
08-04-2012, 5:09 PM
Sure it would but I don't know if it would be required in battle.

I hear the military almost NEVER uses burst/full auto on standard issue weapons anymore.

Hell, I'm hearing stories that they are installing "blocking" devices on the fire selectors so they can't' be put on burst/FA.

Makes you wonder that we thought we in CA had it bad... Look at our military! :eek:

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 5:10 PM
Not to nit pick but California is an NFA State. Besides the aforementioned machine guns, which only armorers/prop shops for Hollywood and FFL7/FOT2s can have, collectors can own DDs with the agreement that they can never shoot them.

Anyone who can own guns legally can also own AOWs, C&R SBS and SBRs in California, all NFA weapons that require a tax stamp.

You will never see consumer ownership of machine guns in this state, I would say that we are headed the other way and we may soon not be able to own many other types of popular, common weapons here.

And I remember not to long ago people were saying CA was heading in the right direction when I talked about how crappy CA gun laws were.They told me oh they are heading in the right direction! Sure they are..I just hope their decisions don't effect the rest of the country.

eric556
08-04-2012, 5:28 PM
At the federal level for the the average law abiding citizen or do you think it will always remain restricted to legal use by police/military and common illegal use by gangs and cartels? Do you think the supreme court will ever grow some balls and protect the 2nd amendment right to select fire and auto weapons? IF an armed robber or a criminal gang comes into my house i'd much rather have full auto capability than the 10 round semi auto bs we have here. And our ridiculous politicans have the nerve to say we don't need more than 10 round semi auto with basically no timely reload capability for home defense(yee). Do these people realize what ordinary law abiding citizens are up against in terms of gangs and cartels? Normal People are routinely assaulted in their own homes by groups of men even with no involvement with gangs or cartels whatsoever. IF these guys have machine pistols attacking you how could you say a 10 round 9mm pistol is all u need for self defense?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0BgLk1i9yY

^Slide Fire Solutions SSAR-15. Perfectly legal and cost $370.00. It might as well be full auto. You gotta love the loop holes in this country.

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 5:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0BgLk1i9yY

^Slide Fire Solutions SSAR-15. Perfectly legal and cost $370.00. It might as well be full auto. You gotta love the loop holes in this country.

Better not get one if you live in CA.

RMP91
08-04-2012, 5:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0BgLk1i9yY

^Slide Fire Solutions SSAR-15. Perfectly legal and cost $370.00. It might as well be full auto. You gotta love the loop holes in this country.

:ban: Don't advocate felony firearms violations!


CGN has a hard enough time staying online with all of the anti-gun cyber attacks going on. Don't give them any more reason to silence our voice!

Intimid8tor
08-04-2012, 5:59 PM
You can legally have fully automatic weapons now. At least based upon federal law. There are hefty fees and the route to legal ownership I'm sure is fraught with complication. Actually, according the the law in California it is possible to own fully automatic weapons too. HOWEVER,
again it requires special approvals etc...which are NEVER given except to a few movie company armorers. (Like the old Federal marijuana tax stamp. On the books...but none were ever issued so the feds could continue the anti-marijuana enforcement efforts.)

Now, if what you are really asking is will full auto arms ever be allowed to the average citizen in California the simple answer in my view is no.

Federal fees are only $200 so no biggie there.

But, I don't see the GCA of 86 repealed, ever. SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to go down that road and politicians wouldn't support it if someone had the nuts to introduce legislation.

Could you imagine the lost wealth that would happen if it was? A $20K DIAS, suddenly worth $100.

Capybara
08-04-2012, 6:06 PM
Don't see the GCA ever being repealed, I would be more paranoid with the way the country is going that if I had a $20k AK-47 or M16, if they ever do repeal/change or modify the NFA/GCA, my investment would become close to worthless.

Sucks that the Slidefire is iilegal in California, as are Tannerite, regular capacity mags, basically, if it is fun, it is illegal in this state.

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 6:08 PM
Don't see the GCA ever being repealed, I would be more paranoid with the way the country is going that if I had a $20k AK-47 or M16, if they ever do repeal/change or modify the NFA/GCA, my investment would become close to worthless.

Sucks that the Slidefire is iilegal in California, as are Tannerite, regular capacity mags, basically, if it is fun, it is illegal in this state.

Probably be around 2k at most.

SilverTauron
08-04-2012, 6:16 PM
At the federal level for the the average law abiding citizen or do you think it will always remain restricted to legal use by police/military and common illegal use by gangs and cartels?

Some correction is in order here. Contrary to gun store myth, full auto weapons are legal for citizens to own.A citizen with a clean record who follows the ATF Form 1 registration guidelines can own a full-auto weapon. If you have $20K to burn on a Beretta 93R automatic pistol and some measure of patience, you can carry the thing legally as a CCW piece in many states.;)


Do you think the supreme court will ever grow some balls and protect the 2nd amendment right to select fire and auto weapons? IF an armed robber or a criminal gang comes into my house i'd much rather have full auto capability than the 10 round semi auto bs we have here. And our ridiculous politicans have the nerve to say we don't need more than 10 round semi auto with basically no timely reload capability for home defense(yee).

Looking at things from a practical viewpoint for the most part full auto capability is a waste of ammo in a civil defense scenario. A citizen facing a crook rarely even has to fire one shot in most defensive situations. As several recent examples prove, armed crooks don't carry guns to play Die Hard, they carry them for compliance. At the first sign of armed opposition the bad guys typically hit the road. Even for tactical police and military useage, full auto is a waste . Since one bullet is enough to kill when aimed properly, sending another 2 rounds which will hit bystanders helps no one.


That being established, this isn't why the NFA is in place.Washington D.C. was powerless to stop the Dillenger-era banditry for whom submachine guns were the perfect weapon-the large magazine & high rate of fire were good for suppressing police and armed citizens long enough to hit the road with their loot. The typical civil shooter back then had no use for a submachine gun that would start keyholing at 50 yards,and the full auto rifles like the BAR were nigh uncontrollable, so thus there wasn't much protest when DC enacted the NFA laws. Its like expecting an outcry against banning Bugatti Veyrons ;most people would care less about a million dollar boutique sports car being legal.



Do these people realize what ordinary law abiding citizens are up against in terms of gangs and cartels? Normal People are routinely assaulted in their own homes by groups of men even with no involvement with gangs or cartels whatsoever. IF these guys have machine pistols attacking you how could you say a 10 round 9mm pistol is all u need for self defense?


If you put those 10 rounds into the foreheads of your invading crooks, it won't matter what full auto guns they brought to the fight. Aimed single shots generally beats random mag dumps for lethality.

Note carefully that if you have the money and live in an appropriate state which permits it, NFA items are legal to own and shoot. They're expensive, but expensive is not equal to being banned outright. In my state I could even CC a select fire handgun if I legally registered it. In California, obviously the situation is different since your state lawmakers have made it clear they do not want ANY firearm, full auto or otherwise, to be legal for citizens to own in CA.

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 6:22 PM
Some correction is in order here. Contrary to gun store myth, full auto weapons are legal for citizens to own.A citizen with a clean record who follows the ATF Form 1 registration guidelines can own a full-auto weapon. If you have $20K to burn on a Beretta 93R automatic pistol and some measure of patience, you can carry the thing legally as a CCW piece in many states.;)


Looking at things from a practical viewpoint for the most part full auto capability is a waste of ammo in a civil defense scenario. A citizen facing a crook rarely even has to fire one shot in most defensive situations. As several recent examples prove, armed crooks don't carry guns to play Die Hard, they carry them for compliance. At the first sign of armed opposition the bad guys typically hit the road. Even for tactical police and military useage, full auto is a waste . Since one bullet is enough to kill when aimed properly, sending another 2 rounds which will hit bystanders helps no one.


That being established, this isn't why the NFA is in place.Washington D.C. was powerless to stop the Dillenger-era banditry for whom submachine guns were the perfect weapon-the large magazine & high rate of fire were good for suppressing police and armed citizens long enough to hit the road with their loot. The typical civil shooter back then had no use for a submachine gun that would start keyholing at 50 yards,and the full auto rifles like the BAR were nigh uncontrollable, so thus there wasn't much protest when DC enacted the NFA laws. Its like expecting an outcry against banning Bugatti Veyrons ;most people would care less about a million dollar boutique sports car being legal.





If you put those 10 rounds into the foreheads of your invading crooks, it won't matter what full auto guns they brought to the fight. Aimed single shots generally beats random mag dumps for lethality.

Note carefully that if you have the money and live in an appropriate state which permits it, NFA items are legal to own and shoot. They're expensive, but expensive is not equal to being banned outright. In my state I could even CC a select fire handgun if I legally registered it. In California, obviously the situation is different since your state lawmakers have made it clear they do not want ANY firearm, full auto or otherwise, to be legal for citizens to own in CA.

But don't you think we need high cap mags and full auto so we can have better suppressive fire?

TNP'R
08-04-2012, 6:26 PM
But don't you think we need high cap mags and full auto so we can have better suppressive fire?

Suppressive fire of what?

SilverTauron
08-04-2012, 6:29 PM
But don't you think we need high cap mags and full auto so we can have better suppressive fire?

What you call "Suppressive Fire" is called "Negligent Homicide" in court . Juries tend to look down on people who recklessly send bullets downrange without concern for where they end up.

Dreaded Claymore
08-04-2012, 6:39 PM
What you call "Suppressive Fire" is called "Negligent Homicide" in court. Juries tend to look down on people who recklessly send bullets downrange without concern for where they end up.

Best post on Calguns this week. Thank you. :notworthy: Also, thank you for participating here on Calguns from whichever state you're in. It's good to have discussion and encouragement from people in the "free states."

Kappy
08-04-2012, 6:50 PM
You can legally have fully automatic weapons now. At least based upon federal law. There are hefty fees and the route to legal ownership I'm sure is fraught with complication. Actually, according the the law in California it is possible to own fully automatic weapons too. HOWEVER,
again it requires special approvals etc...which are NEVER given except to a few movie company armorers. (Like the old Federal marijuana tax stamp. On the books...but none were ever issued so the feds could continue the anti-marijuana enforcement efforts.)

Now, if what you are really asking is will full auto arms ever be allowed to the average citizen in California the simple answer in my view is no.

This. You can legally own them... you just get in trouble for not paying the stamp. That's my understanding.

Spartanmk1
08-04-2012, 6:54 PM
Yeah but anyone who values there life even a little would way rather walk into a house unarmed or armed with a 9mm or something than a house with say this...

http://www.tucsonshooting.com/pic/2007-11/00-11-12-07-043.jpg
Deterrence makes us safer.



Hey OP, great job borrowing that image from Gunwebsites.

If you will take note, not all off that brass is Nato 5.56, nor could a 100 Beta mag hold that much ammo even if it was 5.56.

dustoff31
08-04-2012, 7:06 PM
This. You can legally own them... you just get in trouble for not paying the stamp. That's my understanding.

It is illegal to own them without the Form 4 (stamp). The Form 4 is specific by make, ser number, caliber, etc. to that particular firearm, and must be completed and approved, with the stamp affixed before the gun can be legally transferred.

G60
08-04-2012, 7:55 PM
It's going to take quite a while do undo Reagan's mess.

Emdawg
08-04-2012, 7:56 PM
What you call "Suppressive Fire" is called "Negligent Homicide" in court . Juries tend to look down on people who recklessly send bullets downrange without concern for where they end up.


That maybe so for we law-abiders, but the question is whether the criminals care for the difference.:13: :36:

bob7122
08-04-2012, 8:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0BgLk1i9yY

^Slide Fire Solutions SSAR-15. Perfectly legal and cost $370.00. It might as well be full auto. You gotta love the loop holes in this country.

not legal in CA

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 8:27 PM
Hey OP, great job borrowing that image from Gunwebsites.

If you will take note, not all off that brass is Nato 5.56, nor could a 100 Beta mag hold that much ammo even if it was 5.56.

Yeah, it looks like some of it might be pistol rounds. It was just to make a point though...

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 8:32 PM
That maybe so for we law-abiders, but the question is whether the criminals care for the difference.:13: :36:

This is the problem. They can call it whatever they want but we deserve the same rights as LEO's. I mean those police in annaheim can shoot unamred citizens and nothing happens to them. It happens all the time around the country where cops shoot unarmed people or use suppressive fire and injure innocent bystanders. I'm not at all for it ever being ok for anyone including cops to shoot unarmed bystandars. I'm just saying if they get away with being fired or suspended for killing innocents, some of are shot intentionally while unarmed shouldn't people at least not be prosecuted for using suppresive fire against armed criminals. In an unlikely event a stray bullet hits someone isn't it still better to take out the dangerous criminal who probably would have killed or injured many other people anyway?

gunsmith
08-04-2012, 8:32 PM
I think in 10/20 yrs it will be defacto legal, new tech will make it so we can make any gun we like in our garages.
The genie has been out of the bottle a long time-We Are Winning They Are Losing.

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 8:39 PM
I think in 10/20 yrs it will be defacto legal, new tech will make it so we can make any gun we like in our garages.
The genie has been out of the bottle a long time-We Are Winning They Are Losing.

Do you really think this or do you think they will just try to ban or restrict 3-D printers?


I assume you know why I say this...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/30/do-3d-printers-make-prohibitions-impossi

I_Love_My_.38
08-04-2012, 8:48 PM
I think we should focus on attainable goals first and then work from there.

Agree with this but also doubt we'll ever get FA

dustoff31
08-04-2012, 8:54 PM
Do you really think this or do you think they will just try to ban or restrict 3-D printers?


I assume you know why I say this...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/30/do-3d-printers-make-prohibitions-impossi

3d printers might make prohibitions impossible (to enforce). But they can't make very long prison terms impossible to impose when you get caught with things that you aren't supposed to have, i.e. home made machine guns.

Vacaville
08-04-2012, 9:03 PM
Sorry, but I have little faith in our government officials accomplishing anything that doesn't further entrench, empower, or enrich themselves. Not going to happen without major upheaval.

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 9:10 PM
Agree with this but also doubt we'll ever get FA

FA is attainable if we had a president with some balls and a republican congress possibly. First the president could disband the ATF. THen he could granting Pardon to anyone federally prosecuted of possessing a FA firarm Lastly the congress could strike down all gun regulations. If this didn't work he could always appoint someone that would defend gun rights like bork. IF they wouldn't confirm them just keep offering the same type of nominee for the next several years!

Banaholic California
08-04-2012, 9:13 PM
3d printers might make prohibitions impossible (to enforce). But they can't make very long prison terms impossible to impose when you get caught with things that you aren't supposed to have, i.e. home made machine guns.

THis is very true. I think the point though is that people who want to use machine guns for illegal violence won't care much so is there really any point in banning people who seek to use them lawfully from using them? IF you can just print m60 receiver for say $500 printer+ polymer cost and then buy all the other parts isn't it silly to ban people from just buying new receivers. The "mass muderers" and spree killer types like the AUrora Joker could just do this and since they will be going to jail for a long time for MURDER i doubt they care that its illegal to print a receiver...

Robidouxs
08-04-2012, 11:30 PM
I could go down to the shop and buy a Full Auto M-16, it would cost me $15,000. But why would I do that? I could have many other guns on my list in semi auto and still be happy. My friend in the National Guard tells me the only time he is to use full auto is to suppress the enemy or as a last ditch desperation move. He told me that the rifle goes from safe to semi 99% of the time.

myusername
08-04-2012, 11:41 PM
To answer the original question. No, I don't see CA allowing full auto guns in the foreseeable future. Have you ever noticed the people who scream loudest for gun control are usually the ones with taxpayer paid armed security details?

Assault weapons are not for hunting or for home defense. They are to enable the People to protect themselves from tyrannical government, and to ensure that what is going on right now in Syria, and the tyranny that ranges from Burma to Chad and beyond never happens here in the USA. Assault weapons are to protect ourselves, our families and our neighbors in the event of breakdown of the social order or when legal authority is unable or unwilling to respond.

DonFerrando
08-04-2012, 11:55 PM
I could go down to the shop and buy a Full Auto M-16, it would cost me $15,000. But why would I do that? I could have many other guns on my list in semi auto and still be happy. My friend in the National Guard tells me the only time he is to use full auto is to suppress the enemy or as a last ditch desperation move. He told me that the rifle goes from safe to semi 99% of the time.

I was a machine gunner in the Bundeswehr with the old MG3, a firearm capable of more than 1000 RPM. The way to shoot it is in the shortest bursts you can possibly muster. 3 shots or less in one squeeze is ideal, everything past that is a waste. This was at average engagement distance in rural scenarios. Never once did I get to "spray and pray", that's just not how it's done.

SgtMerc
08-05-2012, 12:16 AM
Even if you did have select fire, you really wouldn't use it. We had to do burst drills and zipping 3 rounds from belly to forehead was the norm. And if you didn't hold the trigger for the full three rounds, you'd get one round, then a burst of two on the next pull, or 2-1.

I'd like the option, but to think you'd be protecting your home with burst fire is unrealistic. And if the common populace is in a position to need suppressive fire, the laws have already gone out the window.

Kappy
08-05-2012, 1:05 AM
It is illegal to own them without the Form 4 (stamp). The Form 4 is specific by make, ser number, caliber, etc. to that particular firearm, and must be completed and approved, with the stamp affixed before the gun can be legally transferred.

What is the difference between that and what I said?

Emdawg
08-05-2012, 1:09 AM
This is the problem. They can call it whatever they want but we deserve the same rights as LEO's. I mean those police in annaheim can shoot unamred citizens and nothing happens to them. It happens all the time around the country where cops shoot unarmed people or use suppressive fire and injure innocent bystanders. I'm not at all for it ever being ok for anyone including cops to shoot unarmed bystandars. I'm just saying if they get away with being fired or suspended for killing innocents, some of are shot intentionally while unarmed shouldn't people at least not be prosecuted for using suppresive fire against armed criminals. In an unlikely event a stray bullet hits someone isn't it still better to take out the dangerous criminal who probably would have killed or injured many other people anyway?

Tell me about it. In my city there have been 7 officer-related shootings since January. Two of them were this week. One was a 71 year old man. The last one was at the restaurant I worked at the day he was killed.

No one can blame an officer for protecting themselves, but restraint should be shown. The "shoot first, questions later" mentality is BS.

CavTrooper
08-05-2012, 5:22 AM
We Are Winning They Are Losing.

Prove it.

bohoki
08-05-2012, 10:47 AM
the only way i see it happening is if it becomes a states right issue with guns avoiding the interstate commerce

SilverTauron
08-05-2012, 11:33 AM
the only way i see it happening is if it becomes a states right issue with guns avoiding the interstate commerce

Its been tried by the State of Montana with HB 0246 .Essentially Montana enacted a law stating weapons and ammo made in the state which are not removed from Montana's borders and are stamped "Made in Montana" are exempt from the Federal Commerce Act, and the NFA statutes accordingly.

Source legislation here:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/HB0246.pdf


Here's the ATF's predictable response to the law. Essentially, since you need an FFL to legally make a firearm for commercial sale if you hold a license you better follow the NFA , or your FFL will grow wings .



http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2009/07/071609-openletter-ffl-montana-legislation.pdf

Quiet
08-05-2012, 11:39 AM
the only way i see it happening is if it becomes a states right issue with guns avoiding the interstate commerce

Feds have stated that in order for this to work, every part that is used to make the firearm must be made within the state. If any part used to make the firearm is made in another state, then that firearm is subject to Fed laws/regulations.

bohoki
08-05-2012, 2:05 PM
Feds have stated that in order for this to work, every part that is used to make the firearm must be made within the state. If any part used to make the firearm is made in another state, then that firearm is subject to Fed laws/regulations.

every single part? got a reference letter to that?

are they requiring you to smelt your own iron as well?

sounds like build partys are going to be a tad more complicated but if you have ever seen the parts for a sten its do able

SilverTauron
08-05-2012, 3:08 PM
Feds have stated that in order for this to work, every part that is used to make the firearm must be made within the state. If any part used to make the firearm is made in another state, then that firearm is subject to Fed laws/regulations.

Read the Montana law. It states the following:

Section 3. Definitions. As used in [sections 1 through 6], the following definitions apply:
(1) "Borders of Montana" means the boundaries of Montana described in Article I, section 1, of the 1889
Montana constitution.
(2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but
are not essential to the basic function of a firearm, including but not limited to telescopic or laser sights,
magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition
carriers, and lights for target illumination.
(3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
(4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition has been created from
basic materials for functional usefulness, including but not limited to forging, casting, machining, or other
processes for working materials.


Further down...


Generic and
insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or
ammunition to federal regulation.


Thus, all you would need for compliance with regard to an AR15 is a Montana-made lower receiver that's approriately marked. The Federal response has nothing to do with the parts: "Federal Law supersedes local guidance" according to the ATF's opinion.In other words, the NFA is Federal law and because Federal law supersedes local rules its all hogwash. Too bad they don't say the same thing about the FOPA and New Jersey Airports.....

polo.45
08-05-2012, 3:14 PM
No.... I think we.ll be lucky if we can keep the ones we have.

kcstott
08-05-2012, 3:17 PM
I hear the military almost NEVER uses burst/full auto on standard issue weapons anymore.

Hell, I'm hearing stories that they are installing "blocking" devices on the fire selectors so they can't' be put on burst/FA.

Makes you wonder that we thought we in CA had it bad... Look at our military! :eek:

There is a little sheet metal device that can be installed under the pistol grip to block the selector from going to the full burst position. military has been using them for three decades that I know of

Dantedamean
08-05-2012, 4:17 PM
I think when people my age get into power they will. I'm 23. I grew up in the video game generation, as a child we were exposed to much more violence then the current generation. We are much more desensitized and realize that inanimate objects don't cause violence. In another 40 years I think our gun rights will be much better then they are now.

RMP91
08-05-2012, 5:04 PM
I think when people my age get into power they will. I'm 23. I grew up in the video game generation, as a child we were exposed to much more violence then the current generation. We are much more desensitized and realize that inanimate objects don't cause violence. In another 40 years I think our gun rights will be much better then they are now.

They didn't have video games when the GCA and NFA were passed, did they?

You might be on to something :)

dustoff31
08-05-2012, 6:50 PM
I was a machine gunner in the Bundeswehr with the old MG3, a firearm capable of more than 1000 RPM. The way to shoot it is in the shortest bursts you can possibly muster. 3 shots or less in one squeeze is ideal, everything past that is a waste. This was at average engagement distance in rural scenarios. Never once did I get to "spray and pray", that's just not how it's done.

Not to mention barrels get expensive! Especially, when they are not supplied by the government.

I saw plenty of people burn barrels on M60s, as I 'm sure you did with the MG3.

dustoff31
08-05-2012, 6:53 PM
What is the difference between that and what I said?

Not a lot. Just didn't want anyone to get the impression that they could build or acquire an MG, and then try to buy a stamp after the fact.

Banaholic California
08-05-2012, 7:13 PM
To answer the original question. No, I don't see CA allowing full auto guns in the foreseeable future. Have you ever noticed the people who scream loudest for gun control are usually the ones with taxpayer paid armed security details?

Assault weapons are not for hunting or for home defense. They are to enable the People to protect themselves from tyrannical government, and to ensure that what is going on right now in Syria, and the tyranny that ranges from Burma to Chad and beyond never happens here in the USA. Assault weapons are to protect ourselves, our families and our neighbors in the event of breakdown of the social order or when legal authority is unable or unwilling to respond.


I'm talking nationally. I'm talking new firearms, not preban firearms!!! Read the title!!

"New" and "country" not any and california...

Banaholic California
08-05-2012, 7:20 PM
Even if you did have select fire, you really wouldn't use it. We had to do burst drills and zipping 3 rounds from belly to forehead was the norm. And if you didn't hold the trigger for the full three rounds, you'd get one round, then a burst of two on the next pull, or 2-1.

I'd like the option, but to think you'd be protecting your home with burst fire is unrealistic. And if the common populace is in a position to need suppressive fire, the laws have already gone out the window.

Obviously you don't live in a bad neighborhood.... The laws have gone out the window. Gang and cartel wars going on all the time. Law abiding citizens do need suppressive fire... how else do you deal with this...

http://youtu.be/8XfNqf_vWBo
The sad truth is communities all over socal and eastbay are like this... Innocent people get harrassed by groups of gang bangers like this.

donw
08-06-2012, 8:01 AM
Hey OP, great job borrowing that image from Gunwebsites.

If you will take note, not all off that brass is Nato 5.56, nor could a 100 Beta mag hold that much ammo even if it was 5.56.

geeeeeeeeeeeeeez...just picking up something like that would give you a hernia...how could one expect to weild it inside a house/room/enclosure well enough to be efficient?

weapons like this are, normally, crew served. everyone in our squad carried ammo for the MG/AR/s.

even a "Tricked out" AR will often times top the 10 lb mark. that's a lot of weight in a fast fight.

in response to the full auto? not during this life-time...

Dantedamean
08-06-2012, 10:24 AM
They didn't have video games when the GCA and NFA were passed, did they?

You might be on to something :)

Nope, and we're constantly having to defend our media. People from all angles try and say that video games cause violence. My generation knows better then most that inanimate objects don't cause violence, violent people do.

model63
08-06-2012, 11:20 AM
Hey OP, great job borrowing that image from Gunwebsites.

If you will take note, not all off that brass is Nato 5.56, nor could a 100 Beta mag hold that much ammo even if it was 5.56.

Maybe he borrowed it from the VPC and is undercover deep behind friendly lines.

I don't mind a good full auto conversation, watching a vid on crips and bloods shooting each other from 2009 as much as the next guy, but I don't get the whole 'suppressive' fire thing. Any Suppression or Repression going on I suppose would be by those who say we can't have it and using it on us to enforce compliance....i.e. any semi-auto only is 'suppressed fire' IMO and fully auto as a std on our selector switch by design would be non-suppressed... :43:

I feel like we are being goated into making points regarding this. The vast majority of people I would assume want the very baddest guns for good guys and no guns for bad guys. If you are a good guy and can afford beta dumps, cosmetic barrel shrouds, pistol grips, adjustable stocks and the ability to shoot more than one bullet with a single trigger pull and you don't harm people unnecessarily in the process any more than you do with multiple trigger pulls, go for it... its a < free country.

Bhobbs
08-06-2012, 11:32 AM
Federal fees are only $200 so no biggie there.

But, I don't see the GCA of 86 repealed, ever. SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to go down that road and politicians wouldn't support it if someone had the nuts to introduce legislation.

Could you imagine the lost wealth that would happen if it was? A $20K DIAS, suddenly worth $100.

GCA was passed in 68. FOPA was passed in 86 and was amended to ban transfer of new FA to civilians by Hughes.

Jason_2111
08-06-2012, 11:34 AM
What you call "Suppressive Fire" is called "Negligent Homicide" in court . Juries tend to look down on people who recklessly send bullets downrange without concern for where they end up.

^^^ Absolutely this, +1000.

From a self-defense perspective, as a civilian, you have to remember this important fact: You are responsible, morally, legally, and completely, for every single round that goes down that barrel. There is a huge difference in being on patrol in Crapistan and having to lay down suppressive fire to cover a retreat/attack/whatever... and standing your ground in your home when two crackheads come at you.
If each crackhead had 4 or so holes in a nice group in the chest, that will be a lot more understandable to a jury of your peers than 50 holes, plus 2 dead kids that were sleeping in their house across the street that were hit by stray fire.
In John Wu movies and in combat, sure, there is suppressive fire and collateral damage. In your house, these things should not exist. If you find the need to dump mag after mag... go get some training and learn how to use your tools properly and effectively. ;)

curtisfong
08-06-2012, 12:05 PM
I don't get the whole 'suppressive' fire thing

Too bad there isn't a globally interconnected network of computers that have a ton of information, and some way to search for specific information.

stix213
08-06-2012, 12:46 PM
Even considering going after FA right now would be suicide. You'll more likely create a far reaching court precedent that will then be turned around and used against us on so called AW's and the like, than to actually get us anything positive.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-06-2012, 1:44 PM
Too bad there isn't a globally interconnected network of computers that have a ton of information, and some way to search for specific information.

That would be cool. A "Net" of sorts. A net full of information. An "Inter-Net" of sorts...

:)

A.W.D.

model63
08-06-2012, 4:40 PM
That would be cool. A "Net" of sorts. A net full of information. An "Inter-Net" of sorts...

:)

A.W.D.

LOL...Wasn't that guy McNamara a big proponent of that....yeah I think he was... or was that bullets per body count thing the OP guys idea...

BTW...

Any idea where I can look up the words Irony and Sarcasm? I seem to have misplaced my Webster book with all those words inside with things that tell you about what words mean? :rolleyes:

HowardW56
08-06-2012, 7:32 PM
NO!

glockwise2000
08-06-2012, 7:46 PM
The only way I could see a new FA owners would be for some free states to secede the union. And through lax of law from the newly separated republic, a new FA would rise and into the hands of civilians.

Other than that, I am not optomistic that the 1986 rule would even get struck down, unless it can get inserted as an amendment.

smle-man
08-06-2012, 8:23 PM
Do you really think this or do you think they will just try to ban or restrict 3-D printers?


I assume you know why I say this...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/30/do-3d-printers-make-prohibitions-impossi

When I was in the service the Special Forces showed a bunch of us how many weapons could be manufactured from a standard sedan. These included knives, crossbows, spears, spring booby traps and a really cool single shot open bolt shotgun that would slam fire, eject the fired case and stay open to load the next round. The higher end stuff took some skill to make and some power tools but it just about all the materials were there. Banning firearms won't keep them out of determined hands.

corrosively_armed
08-06-2012, 10:11 PM
I'd love to have a few choice full autos but from your neighbor's point of view,, if you have any,, a barrage of 9mm ammo from your mp5 may not be welcome.

At the federal level for the the average law abiding citizen or do you think it will always remain restricted to legal use by police/military and common illegal use by gangs and cartels? Do you think the supreme court will ever grow some balls and protect the 2nd amendment right to select fire and auto weapons? IF an armed robber or a criminal gang comes into my house i'd much rather have full auto capability than the 10 round semi auto bs we have here. And our ridiculous politicans have the nerve to say we don't need more than 10 round semi auto with basically no timely reload capability for home defense(yee). Do these people realize what ordinary law abiding citizens are up against in terms of gangs and cartels? Normal People are routinely assaulted in their own homes by groups of men even with no involvement with gangs or cartels whatsoever. IF these guys have machine pistols attacking you how could you say a 10 round 9mm pistol is all u need for self defense?

corrosively_armed
08-06-2012, 10:15 PM
I'm 35 and the laws have gotten worse in California. As states that are more relaxed become more populous they will likely go more anti gun because unfortunately the number of idiots doing stupid things with guns goes up with population.

I think when people my age get into power they will. I'm 23. I grew up in the video game generation, as a child we were exposed to much more violence then the current generation. We are much more desensitized and realize that inanimate objects don't cause violence. In another 40 years I think our gun rights will be much better then they are now.

donw
08-07-2012, 7:27 AM
^^^ Absolutely this, +1000.

From a self-defense perspective, as a civilian, you have to remember this important fact: You are responsible, morally, legally, and completely, for every single round that goes down that barrel. There is a huge difference in being on patrol in Crapistan and having to lay down suppressive fire to cover a retreat/attack/whatever... and standing your ground in your home when two crackheads come at you.
If each crackhead had 4 or so holes in a nice group in the chest, that will be a lot more understandable to a jury of your peers than 50 holes, plus 2 dead kids that were sleeping in their house across the street that were hit by stray fire.
In John Wu movies and in combat, sure, there is suppressive fire and collateral damage. In your house, these things should not exist. If you find the need to dump mag after mag... go get some training and learn how to use your tools properly and effectively. ;)

probably the best advice i've read yet.

the law (concept) says "You are innocent until proven guilty"...keep in mind...you better be able to PROVE BEYOND A SHAWDOW OF DOUBT there was an IMMINENT threat on the life(ves) of you and/or your loved ones.

i knew a man who shot and killed an intruder who had threatened to kill him and kicked in his homes door with a loaded revolver in his hand. the man was convicted of "Lying in wait" because he had armed himself after being threatened but, he did not "Retreat" or call the police; he spent seven years in prison. hopefully, but not truthfully, the "Stand your ground" rectified situations like that.


using your head is the "Best defense" NOT a sensless, unaimed, hail of bullets...

freespool
08-07-2012, 4:35 PM
I always wonder what I'm not getting when I read these regular 'how long til I can have a machine-gun?' threads. Is the rest of the country really that different than here in Cali in their attitudes about widespread ownership of machine guns? Am I the one out of touch - this could happen? How?

I can't imagine more than a tiny fraction of the population believe this would be a good idea, purist 2A yearnings aside. This is far from the current 2A front, and it would take a major shift in public perception of the imminence of large-scale loss of civil order to change that - and even then the first instinct of many or most would be for redoubled military suppression efforts, not privateer militia.

chris
08-07-2012, 6:33 PM
we lost that after the NFA in 1934. so no i doubt it. i would like for us to keep what we have now and not worry about FA weapons.

BluNorthern
08-07-2012, 6:53 PM
I think we're being trolled for responses by the OP.

Could be wrong but that's my first impression.

model63
08-09-2012, 7:29 AM
I think we're being trolled for responses by the OP.

Could be wrong but that's my first impression.

That was my point as well...I truly believe we will start to see more of this over time as fuel for the other side to frame us as anything but what we are.

Some people here should have 'Test Balloon' as their handle here... of course it could just be paranoia on my part....as all of us are according to the other side and we should all put our faith in the state legislature and understaffed police to protect us.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8778652#post8778652
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=562728 (almost zombie thread 6/15 to 7/10 looking for a vid)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=585506 (7/9 bump looking for a vid)

Jason_2111
08-09-2012, 8:40 AM
There is a little sheet metal device that can be installed under the pistol grip to block the selector from going to the full burst position. military has been using them for three decades that I know of

Not on deployment.
That's for range qualification only, and it snaps right off if you're not careful... it's aluminum.
It's also not used by every unit. It's pretty useless really.

Ziggy91
08-09-2012, 9:27 AM
Just noticed that the OP is probably 18, and spent the day watching Black Hawk Down or playing Call of Duty before this thread started. I have not seen signs of intelligence in this thread.
Everybody else, good job on the replies to him. I'm glad that not all of us are brainless.

curtisfong
08-09-2012, 10:08 AM
Just noticed that the OP is probably 18, and spent the day watching Black Hawk Down or playing Call of Duty before this thread started

The video game generation is the next generation of gun owners. Better get used to it and learn how to educate them. Quickly.

Uxi
08-09-2012, 10:12 AM
We can hope for a sweeping SCOTUS ruling but doubt it. If Romney wins and Republicans take the Senate, could see it in the next term, perhaps. At least the repeal of Hughes... Do you think full auto will ever be attainable by mere mortals in California should be the question...

Banaholic California
08-24-2012, 9:02 PM
I think we're being trolled for responses by the OP.

Could be wrong but that's my first impression.

NO i legitimately believe that full auto and select fire weapons should be allowed. I'm just very libertarian. No lie. I also believe every drug should be un regulated by the government... Of course I wouldn't mix those to but i'm a firm believer in cognitive and pretty much every other type of liberty to the utmost. IDK why i'm here and not in the free state project to be honest.

Banaholic California
08-24-2012, 9:08 PM
Just noticed that the OP is probably 18, and spent the day watching Black Hawk Down or playing Call of Duty before this thread started. I have not seen signs of intelligence in this thread.
Everybody else, good job on the replies to him. I'm glad that not all of us are brainless.

Ohhh no please don't stereo type. I hate call of duty. Way too unrealistic. I prefer Arma II if I'm gonna play a military shooter. I'm aslo not 18 and really don't like Hollywood military movies... They are always made so poorly. This is more of a liberty issue for me than a practical issue. Sure most of us may never "need" a full auto weapon but most of us also don't "need" a a 1000hp+car like this. When usee negligently or maliciously either can be quite dangerous. Still that is no reason to ban things and punish people who use them legitimately as well as reduce aggregate social utility by hamstringing consumer preferences to prevent a few mishaps or accidents a year.

No one "needs" a car like this.... but banning stuff like this or taxing it out of existence really doesn't solve as much as bannaholics think... and ruins alot of peoples lives by creating criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN6E-_0wXos

curtisfong
08-25-2012, 12:07 AM
Ohhh no please don't stereo type

Ignore him. He's clueless and clearly has no understanding of the shifting video game demographics. His kind are not long for this world.

Cali-Shooter
08-25-2012, 12:51 AM
Honestly, the best bet (affordably) is bumpfire stock weapons. They have not only an AR version, but now for AK's as well! They might make them for Uzis next.

However, one can still dream for new legal full-autos for the citizenry...

ClarenceBoddicker
08-25-2012, 1:40 AM
No, 922o will never be repealed & the SCOTUS will never overturn it. The NRA would just love for all non "sporting" guns like NFA ones to disappear overnight. They do not embrace the correct wide original intent of the 2A ie: current military arms in the hands of well trained & equipped citizens for self protection from tyrannical governments, both foreign & domestic. The NRA follows a narrow "sporting" view of the 2A, even though I don't see anything about hunting in the 2A.

The ones on here bashing machine gun ownership for citizens are hypocrites. If NFA weapons were cheap & easy to get, even in CA, they would all have some. It's a common human trait to shun something or someone you can't have, due to envy or jealousy.

freespool
08-25-2012, 2:47 AM
... It's a common human trait to shun something or someone you can't have, due to envy or jealousy.

Or to covet such - and that seems to me where the groundswell loses steam. There's just not enough of a persuasive RKBA argument for full auto in current life, and all rights acquire some boundaries. If it came to where there was a need beyond the current 'civilian' armory stockpiles - your revolution scenario - FA guns would flood in (and be cheap!), like they do elsewhere, and arise from conversion of SA.

It's clear where and why the battle lines for RKBA have naturally evolved, and militating for FA alienates too many rational folks who would otherwise become natural allies. The more immediate battles have promise and deserve the honor of deference. I say let pistol RKBA prove itself first.

Capybara
08-25-2012, 6:06 AM
I can't imagine with the weight and mass of my Uzi and the microscopic recoil of the 9mm round that a bumpfire stock would be possible.

I have tried repeatedly to bumpfire mine and it doesn't work.

Honestly, the best bet (affordably) is bumpfire stock weapons. They have not only an AR version, but now for AK's as well! They might make them for Uzis next.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-25-2012, 7:02 AM
Hey OP, great job borrowing that image from Gunwebsites.

If you will take note, not all off that brass is Nato 5.56, nor could a 100 Beta mag hold that much ammo even if it was 5.56.

I think it's just a fun picture to help illustrate the point of the post...
This isn't a technically accurate "show and tell" thread for FA firearms.

A.W.D.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-25-2012, 7:11 AM
...In another 40 years...

...You might be on to something :)

Yep.

A.W.D.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-25-2012, 7:13 AM
...Anyone who can own guns legally can also own AOWs, C&R SBS and SBRs in California, all NFA weapons that require a tax stamp...

Anyone, huh?

Well. How do you propose I (regular working citizen) should go about getting a suppressed SBR legally here in CA?
I would love to know, really. I have plans for a build :)

A.W.D.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-25-2012, 7:18 AM
Even if you did have select fire, you really wouldn't use it...And if the common populace is in a position to need suppressive fire, the laws have already gone out the window.

Sound about right to me.

A.W.D.

FullMetalJacket
08-25-2012, 1:03 PM
Full auto is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down my particular priority list. I honestly don't have much of a need (beyond the coolness of having it) for full-auto, anyway. And I'd like to get SEMI-AUTOS again, first. And I'd like to get LTC before that.

The Schumers and Feinsteins will eventually be gone from the Senate and, with things trending our way, perhaps in a decade or two there will be some ability to reform the 1986 law.

If a change in the law increased the fee for a full-auto weapon to, say, $1000 but allowed civilians to own newly manufactured ones, civilians would come out way ahead and the government could get some revenues. (And they're loathe to cut things that bring them revenues.) It might cost you $2500 plus $1000 in fees for a new M4, but that would still be much, much less than the $15,000 or so you'd need to get something remotely similar in a pre-'86 model today.

As for California, barring some incredibly unforeseen legal victory, not in our lifetime (and, probably, not ever) will civilians get access to full-auto.

vincewarde
08-25-2012, 10:57 PM
My thinking is probably not. Here's my reasoning:

SCOTUS has, at this point, given two standards as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment:

1) The weapon must have "militia value" (Miller) - Obviously full auto passes this test.

2) The weapon must be "in common civilian use" (Heller) - Handguns pass this test, but full auto weapons probably do not. Even when they were not hard to own (legally speaking), they were not commonly owned by civilians.

3) Justice Scalia opined on Fox News Sunday recently that the weapon must be "bearable". One person must be able to carry it. I take his opinion seriously since he wrote both the Heller and McDonald decisions. If this principle is established, then some full auto weapons would be banned by virtue of size.

Please understand that I would be happy to see opportunities for civilian ownership and lawful use of full auto weapons expanded. I just don't see it as feasible from a legal standpoint - or a political standpoint. Even the Swiss, who can buy their military weapons at the end of their service, must convert them to semi-auto only before they are sold to the Swiss veteran.

Banaholic California
08-25-2012, 11:39 PM
No, 922o will never be repealed & the SCOTUS will never overturn it. The NRA would just love for all non "sporting" guns like NFA ones to disappear overnight. They do not embrace the correct wide original intent of the 2A ie: current military arms in the hands of well trained & equipped citizens for self protection from tyrannical governments, both foreign & domestic. The NRA follows a narrow "sporting" view of the 2A, even though I don't see anything about hunting in the 2A.

The ones on here bashing machine gun ownership for citizens are hypocrites. If NFA weapons were cheap & easy to get, even in CA, they would all have some. It's a common human trait to shun something or someone you can't have, due to envy or jealousy.

I wish we could be more like switzerland. I wish we could have a well trained civilian militia instead of a world police force.

nicki
08-26-2012, 12:41 AM
My thinking is probably not. Here's my reasoning:

SCOTUS has, at this point, given two standards as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment:

1) The weapon must have "militia value" (Miller) - Obviously full auto passes this test.

2) The weapon must be "in common civilian use" (Heller) - Handguns pass this test, but full auto weapons probably do not. Even when they were not hard to own (legally speaking), they were not commonly owned by civilians.

3) Justice Scalia opined on Fox News Sunday recently that the weapon must be "bearable". One person must be able to carry it. I take his opinion seriously since he wrote both the Heller and McDonald decisions. If this principle is established, then some full auto weapons would be banned by virtue of size.

Please understand that I would be happy to see opportunities for civilian ownership and lawful use of full auto weapons expanded. I just don't see it as feasible from a legal standpoint - or a political standpoint. Even the Swiss, who can buy their military weapons at the end of their service, must convert them to semi-auto only before they are sold to the Swiss veteran.


The SCOTUS has now ruled that the second amendment is an individual right and we have a right to bear common arms.

So, we are clear, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has at this time been somewhat settled, although we have many more years of litigation to see how extensive this is.

However, the whole militia issue has not been addressed because back in the 1790's, you not only had a right to keep and bear arms, but you also had a duty to own, maintain and show up for militia training with arms suitable for modern combat.

The 9th circuit Silveria case which the SCOTUS declined to review came out with a ruling that the 2nd amendment protects the right of states to arm their militias.

Basically the 9th circuit in their efforts to rewrite the constitution to uphold AB23 may have created a vehicle for us to bring back state militias.

I don't expect Cali to do anything, but there are some other Western States in the 9th circuit that may want to push the issue by saying they want to form state militias armed with full auto M4s.

If a state formed militias, then full autos could become very common.

State's could argue that the Hughes amendment infringes on their right to arm their militias with arms suitable for the common defense.

Southwestern states such as Arizona, New Mexico and Texas could argue that they are being invaded by violent foreigners and that their is a compelling public safety issue.

Arizona Gov Jan Brewer and Texas Gov Rick Perry just might actually do something like this just to thumb their noses at Obama.

Arizona is in the 9th circuit, Texas is in the 5th. Could get interesting.

The American people are not cool with private ownership of full autos, but when the full autos are being used for their safety, things could be different.

Of course right now, we have many other things to deal with first.

Nicki

JackRydden224
08-26-2012, 12:55 AM
Just noticed that the OP is probably 18, and spent the day watching Black Hawk Down or playing Call of Duty before this thread started. I have not seen signs of intelligence in this thread.
Everybody else, good job on the replies to him. I'm glad that not all of us are brainless.

You might want to think twice on that. If they are the next generation of gun owners and voters then we might have something going on. The current young generations don't vote. If they realized that they can't have all the cool COD guns then they might go out and change that.

Never underestimate the persistence and entitlement of the young'ins. Think of all the influence they would have with their social media and protests if used for our fight. If they can get the job done then I would not mind to have them on my side. I'll take all the allies I can get.

CDFingers
08-26-2012, 5:57 AM
Well, with proper permits, they're still legal.

CDFingers

Dantedamean
08-26-2012, 10:23 AM
My thinking is probably not. Here's my reasoning:

...

2) The weapon must be "in common civilian use" (Heller) - Handguns pass this test, but full auto weapons probably do not. Even when they were not hard to own (legally speaking), they were not commonly owned by civilians.

...



I hate this common use BS. Its so stupid. In order for us to get something back it must be in common use. However if something is illegal in most states and costs 25k for a descent rifle in states where it's not, of corse it's not going to be in common use.

To me, full auto is in common use in the military. 40mm launchers are in common use in the military. The AA 12 is in common use in the military. Yet all those are restricted. However a 37mm launcher isn't, a saiga 12 isn't. Common use, just another scheme to get **** banned.

It's like the AWB in Cali. How can you argue AR15s are in common use when you can't even legally own one after 2000. So because they ban them they get to argue they are not in common use. Thats the same concept as a criminal killing a witness so they can't incriminate them during a trial.

HowardW56
08-26-2012, 10:36 AM
I hate this common use BS. Its so stupid. In order for us to get something back it must be in common use. However if something is illegal in most states and costs 25k for a descent rifle in states where it's not, of corse it's not going to be in common use.

To me, full auto is in common use in the military. 40mm launchers are in common use in the military. The AA 12 is in common use in the military. Yet all those are restricted. However a 37mm launcher isn't, a saiga 12 isn't. Common use, just another scheme to get **** banned.

It's like the AWB in Cali. How can you argue AR15s are in common use when you can't even legally own one after 2000. So because they ban them they get to argue they are not in common use. Thats the same concept as a criminal killing a witness so they can't incriminate them during a trial.

Common Use is not limited to common use within one state...

AR-15's are in common use in California, since the Bullet Button was created... There have been hundreds of thousands sold...

tommyid1
08-26-2012, 10:38 AM
All I want is suppressors.

SilverTauron
08-26-2012, 11:19 AM
Full auto weapons in most of America are not outlawed.I chalk up the relative rarity due to the fact that for 99% of civil shooters,including yours truly see no practical use for it.One of the reasons the NFA was sucessfully passed in the 1930s is because the law abiding voter had little use for a Thompson or other automatic weapon.They're huge,impractical for hunting,and are inferior to a 12 gauge or 30-30 lever at home defense distances.Id submit a .45 pistol still beats the full auto submachine gun in the defensive role,since the entire point is to stop the attack:and the most effective way to do that is by hitting your target.

It takes thousands of rounds of practice with full auto to get accurate hits,and for most of us that's just plum too much money to sink into ammo.A Glock 18 can deplete a 33 round mag in about 3 seconds.In 30 seconds you'll have burned 100 rounds with time to spare.Don't practice,and I daresay a full auto weapon is an extreme *liability* to the man or woman defending their home.A 6 pot revolver only has 6 chances to hurt a bystander.An untrained homeowner letting loose with Dad's Beretta 93R can cause greivous collateral damage.

From my perch,forget about full auto.Its akin to owning a supercharged Lamborghini:it's a great idea on paper,but in real life you gotta pay an insurance note for it.

luvtolean
08-26-2012, 11:40 AM
They're only rare because of the cost thanks to the limited supply, state limitations and fed "tax stamp" hassles.

Otherwise, there'd be absolutely no reason not to buy a select fire M16 rather than an AR, and just not use the burst option on the selector if you don't want to.

America's service rifles and machine guns have traditionally been designed by people working off contract and "tinkering" and selling designs to manufacturing concerns. Since 86, there has been no new American designed issue rifle/machine gun adopted by our military...food for thought.

freespool
08-26-2012, 1:49 PM
They're only legal because they're rare. If they were cheap and commonly owned, the demand to make them illegal wouid shortly become undeniable. Until that changes, there's no chance they will become readily available. The 2A lever is available to use for FA, but it's hard to imagine anyone who matters taking up the cause.

mag360
08-26-2012, 4:28 PM
They already are legal you just need lots of money and connections to convince the state you are a business. Im sure the guys that have the permits for them are allowed to "test" new models, etc.

mag360
08-26-2012, 4:36 PM
But in general i think in the duture they will be completely obtainable by modest means. A really fast AR semi auto can fire at the equivalent rate of 350 or so rpm. A full auto would be around 600

Capybara
08-26-2012, 9:47 PM
Yes, anyone of legal age who has the right to legally own a gun can own an AOW, C&R SBS or SBR in California. You didn't know this?

You are asking about a suppressed SBR. Suppressors are illegal to own in California, I never mentioned suppressors. Modern SBRs are illegal to own in California without a DOJ Dangerous Weapons permit, which you aren't going to get unless you supply firearms to the movie studios or are a manufacturer.

As I wrote, you CAN obtain a C&R SBS or SBR IF you can locate one that is NFA registered, transferable and is pre-1962 and you will need a SOT2/FFL7 who is willing to do the transfer for you, there are several dealers in Northern California and several in SoCal as well.

Pretty simple to understand, but difficult to find, but not impossible. Of course, these C&R SBS and SBRs must comply with the California AW laws to be legal here but there are a few SBS police specials out there, Franklin Armory just posted a while ago that they just bought a Remington SBS that was from a police department. It seems as if C&R SBS are hard to find but C&R SBRs are REALLY difficult to find. Set up an NFA Trust, pay the tax stamp and wait about 7-9 months and you are in business.

So if having a suppressor is important to you, you will have to move. If having a modern SBR is important to you, move to Nevada or Arizona, but at least here in the Golden State, you can legally own a C&R SBS or SBR.

Anyone, huh?

Well. How do you propose I (regular working citizen) should go about getting a suppressed SBR legally here in CA?
I would love to know, really. I have plans for a build :)

A.W.D.

ClarenceBoddicker
08-27-2012, 2:14 AM
I think we should focus on attainable goals first and then work from there.

Every Federal anti-gun law since 1927 could have been easily repealed by W Bush during the 4 years that the GOP had control of the Congress. The way was there but the will was lacking. The Republicans just like the Democrats do not believe in individual rights or the 2A.

I don't think full auto will be required. I'm not a soldier never been in combat so I really don't know but I would think its best to use semi auto and get accuracy out of the shot.

Read some books by combat vets. The books by Lurps & Seals in Vietnam are some of the best. Some good books about human wave attacks in WWII (Edson's Ridge) & Korea (Frozen Chosin) are good also, but heavily censored compared to 'Nam books. Full auto has a time & place, that's why all military's use it. SMGs & GPMGs are 2 examples.

Sure it would but I don't know if it would be required in battle.

See ^

I hear the military almost NEVER uses burst/full auto on standard issue weapons anymore.

Hell, I'm hearing stories that they are installing "blocking" devices on the fire selectors so they can't' be put on burst/FA.

Makes you wonder that we thought we in CA had it bad... Look at our military! :eek:

Pure BS, see ^

Federal fees are only $200 so no biggie there.

But, I don't see the GCA of 86 repealed, ever. SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to go down that road and politicians wouldn't support it if someone had the nuts to introduce legislation.

Could you imagine the lost wealth that would happen if it was? A $20K DIAS, suddenly worth $100.

The NRA still fully supports the '34 NFA, FA & DD ban in the '68 GCA & the '86 FOPA. W Bush could have repealed all Fed anti-gun laws or called for another NFA amnesty & a ton of guns could have been registered.

Don't see the GCA ever being repealed, I would be more paranoid with the way the country is going that if I had a $20k AK-47 or M16, if they ever do repeal/change or modify the NFA/GCA, my investment would become close to worthless.

Sucks that the Slidefire is iilegal in California, as are Tannerite, regular capacity mags, basically, if it is fun, it is illegal in this state.

At some point all NFA weapons will be required to be sold back to the Feds, just like in the UK & Australia. The US will at some point make all CA anti-gun laws into Federal law.

Some correction is in order here. Contrary to gun store myth, full auto weapons are legal for citizens to own.A citizen with a clean record who follows the ATF Form 1 registration guidelines can own a full-auto weapon. If you have $20K to burn on a Beretta 93R automatic pistol and some measure of patience, you can carry the thing legally as a CCW piece in many states.;)


Looking at things from a practical viewpoint for the most part full auto capability is a waste of ammo in a civil defense scenario. A citizen facing a crook rarely even has to fire one shot in most defensive situations. As several recent examples prove, armed crooks don't carry guns to play Die Hard, they carry them for compliance. At the first sign of armed opposition the bad guys typically hit the road. Even for tactical police and military useage, full auto is a waste . Since one bullet is enough to kill when aimed properly, sending another 2 rounds which will hit bystanders helps no one.


That being established, this isn't why the NFA is in place.Washington D.C. was powerless to stop the Dillenger-era banditry for whom submachine guns were the perfect weapon-the large magazine & high rate of fire were good for suppressing police and armed citizens long enough to hit the road with their loot. The typical civil shooter back then had no use for a submachine gun that would start keyholing at 50 yards,and the full auto rifles like the BAR were nigh uncontrollable, so thus there wasn't much protest when DC enacted the NFA laws. Its like expecting an outcry against banning Bugatti Veyrons ;most people would care less about a million dollar boutique sports car being legal.





If you put those 10 rounds into the foreheads of your invading crooks, it won't matter what full auto guns they brought to the fight. Aimed single shots generally beats random mag dumps for lethality.

Note carefully that if you have the money and live in an appropriate state which permits it, NFA items are legal to own and shoot. They're expensive, but expensive is not equal to being banned outright. In my state I could even CC a select fire handgun if I legally registered it. In California, obviously the situation is different since your state lawmakers have made it clear they do not want ANY firearm, full auto or otherwise, to be legal for citizens to own in CA.

You have to be a Class 3 dealer or manufacture to own post 1986 dealer samples. Unless a newer gun can use an unmodified registered transferable auto sear you can't legally convert it to FA.

SMG are the best weapon for home defense. MGs do not have length requirements in most states. Just because it's FA does not mean you dump the mag. Watch some SMG competitions. You fire in quick controllable bursts. Many times you don't have time to make aimed shots, but point burst fire is very effective.

NFA had nothing to do with real crime. A few hyped up crimes were used as an excuse, with the NRA's blessing, to ban a class of guns that posed a perceived danger to the government & the rich elites. A popular labor led communistic revolution was feared by the entrenched and corrupt establishment. The same excuse was used in the UK in 1920 to ban MGs & heavily restrict pistols. There were very few full auto weapons in the hands of citizens in the 1920's & 1930's due to limited availability & high cost. A new Thompson 1921/7 SMG (about the only FA you could buy then) cost about $200, which was 1/2 the cost of a new car or 13 months of rent. This was during the great depression. Business was so slow for Auto Ordnance Corp that they just about went out of business. Only police & FBI sales kept them aflot until WWII. They folded just after WWII, due to debt from the depression period.

You still can't have post 5/19/1986 MGs without being a Dealer or SOT.

What you call "Suppressive Fire" is called "Negligent Homicide" in court . Juries tend to look down on people who recklessly send bullets downrange without concern for where they end up.

Total BS. A kill is a kill. As long as it's a legal shoot, the weapon does not matter if it's legal. You can't have a "Negligent Homicide" at the same time you have a justifiable homicide on the same bad guy. A civil jury may not like what you did, but you run that risk with any shooting. That's part of the deal when you call 911, you agree to work with LE to facilitate a civil suit by the bad guys family against you. Police State in action.

I think in 10/20 yrs it will be defacto legal, new tech will make it so we can make any gun we like in our garages.
The genie has been out of the bottle a long time-We Are Winning They Are Losing.

Dream a little dream. It's entirely possible in 20 years all semi-autos & pistols will be restricted under the NFA. If skilled enough, you can make any gun in your garage now. Look at all the guns they make in the Pakistan Tribal Region with hand tools, files, vices & drills. No NFA or GCA there. You have it backwards, we are losing not winning. Every year Fed anti-gun laws stand they get harder to challenge or repeal. In 15 years it will be 100 years since the 1st Fed anti-gun law was singed.

AK47American
08-27-2012, 2:47 AM
I dont think a gatling gun is technically full auto... why don't you just get one of those and go nuts in the desert for a while? After a little while of blowin bullets like Stalone, it gets old and costly. How often do you just load a magazine (which is only 10 for us) then rapid fire them into nowhere, then do it again? Should I even ask?

Maybe we should try to get more than 10 rounds in our magazines before we pursue 'automatic rifles for everyone!' ...That bullet button might make it tough to reload while dumpin all your ammo so quick. Might wanna work on getting rid of that too before you tackle auto guns.

Gray Peterson
08-27-2012, 8:35 AM
Dream a little dream. It's entirely possible in 20 years all semi-autos & pistols will be restricted under the NFA. If skilled enough, you can make any gun in your garage now. Look at all the guns they make in the Pakistan Tribal Region with hand tools, files, vices & drills. No NFA or GCA there. You have it backwards, we are losing not winning. Every year Fed anti-gun laws stand they get harder to challenge or repeal. In 15 years it will be 100 years since the 1st Fed anti-gun law was singed.

SBS (because of Miller) and MG's (because of Heller) are likely beyond reach, unless for MG's you repeal 922(o), which is the only bad part of FOPA 86.

You've shown no evidence that pistols & revolvers will be folded into NFA. That is not going to happen. There's no political will to do so. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the NFA branch is currently running 7-9 months wait time. If pistols get folded into that, that wait time will go up to 5 years. For access to the "quintessential self defense weapon", no court will accept that amount of time to get one. We would be able to do preliminarily injunct in court.

Uxi
08-27-2012, 9:24 AM
Yeah full auto is way overrated. It serves a military purpose for area targets and suppression but outside of those isn't really needed (snake eaters are a separate ball of wax and not really applicable since they do WTF they want anyway). Accuracy goes to **** and ammo, like everything else, only gets more expensive.

Select fire would be nice and we should have it as a matter of principle, but would probably never really use it anyway.

calixt0
08-27-2012, 11:12 AM
Just noticed that the OP is probably 18, and spent the day watching Black Hawk Down or playing Call of Duty before this thread started. I have not seen signs of intelligence in this thread.
Everybody else, good job on the replies to him. I'm glad that not all of us are brainless.

playing some of those games myself it just proves to me why semi auto is so far superior for the average untrained person than full auto is. I see over and over people dumping mags and getting killed when burst firing was a better solution.

calixt0
08-27-2012, 11:23 AM
I can't imagine with the weight and mass of my Uzi and the microscopic recoil of the 9mm round that a bumpfire stock would be possible.

I have tried repeatedly to bumpfire mine and it doesn't work.

I disagree, I've bumpfired my 22lr calico. it just takes a very delicate touch.

Sakiri
08-27-2012, 11:50 AM
I wish we could be more like switzerland. I wish we could have a well trained civilian militia instead of a world police force.

You realize that after their mandatory service they're expected to give the guns back right?

You're not supposed to keep them. And they *do* have restrictions in what you can have in your possession after your service.

That said, you don't need full auto. Yes, it could be fun. No, I'd never want one. With the idiocy of today's younger generation(the entitled bratling few that grate my nerves seem to be increasing by the day, I swear. Stupid helicopter mombies and self righteous people) I don't know if I could trust some of these kids to be in my police force in a couple decades much less own a FA firearm.

Yes, I'm jaded. Yes, I've had personal experience with too many idiots my age that let their kids do whatever they want, never disciplining because they want to be their kid's friend and not parent, and my best friend right now is paying for that with her oldest being 14 and completely uncontrollable. She's ready to send that kid to a group home it's that bad.

YMMV, of course.

ClarenceBoddicker
08-27-2012, 12:28 PM
SBS (because of Miller) and MG's (because of Heller) are likely beyond reach, unless for MG's you repeal 922(o), which is the only bad part of FOPA 86.

You've shown no evidence that pistols & revolvers will be folded into NFA. That is not going to happen. There's no political will to do so. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the NFA branch is currently running 7-9 months wait time. If pistols get folded into that, that wait time will go up to 5 years. For access to the "quintessential self defense weapon", no court will accept that amount of time to get one. We would be able to do preliminarily injunct in court.

Didn't the FOPA also enhance sentences for "gun crimes"? I don't remember about that for sure. The un-enforceability of the non registration clause kinda turns the FOPA into a joke IMO. The reason for the FOPA was due to the results of a corrupt NRA working with the gun grabbers (Dodd) & POS domestic gun manufactures to demonize & eliminate "bad" guns & furthering their failed policy of appeasement. The FOPA should not be applauded or celebrated. There is nothing good or positive about it, as long as any part of the 1968 GCA stands. The GCA is far worse than the NFA & will lead to the eventual disarmament of US citizens.

I didn't say they will be but that they could be. I also didn't mention revolvers, but I should have stated semi-auto pistols. When it comes time to Federally restrict handguns, most likely single shots & revolvers will not be targeted, at first. If you want proof of a future event, look at the past & other similar countries. Both the UK & Australia not to mention most other non countries ban or heavily restrict handguns for citizens. Another way that would be very east to ban/restrict semi-auto pistols is "reinterpret" the GCA, to include all semi-auto weapons as "readily restoreable" to full auto. Case law is on the ATF's side on this. The courts have pretty much delegated firearm technical definitions to the ATF. Under the language of the GCA & case law along with ATF rulings that defines a machine gun, any automatic or repeating firearm can be reclassified as a machine gun. All it takes is the will & the courts to look the other way, as they do so often including the SCOTUS. Remember the 1994 restricting/banning of the USAS-12 & Striker-12/Street Sweeper by using the NFA as amended by the GCA? If that happens with machine guns they will become un-registrable contraband due to 922o, which the courts have upheld & the SCOTUS has declined to rule on at least once, AFAIK.

Any bolt action rifle, shotgun or pistol can have a full auto recoil or gas operated "conversion part" like the Charlton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle), Huot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huot_automatic_rifle) or Rieder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rieder_Automatic_Rifle) device attached to it with no modification done to the weapon. Any lever action rifle or pistol can easily be turned into a magazine fed 1895 Potato Digger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun) clone, as Browning originally did with his "conversion part", with no modification done to the weapon. I'm sure someone, somewhere has successfully converted a pump or slide action rifle, shotgun or pistol to full auto with a recoil or gas operated "conversion part", with no modification done to the weapon.

I'm also sure that a revolver has been converted to full auto before, but revolvers would of course be given a pass (at first) due to historic nostalgia, like the old West. The gun owning hypocrites would be happy about that. "I don't care what they ban as long as they don't touch my single action wheel gun" *spits tobacco chew juice out.

That leaves us with semi-autos which for some currently legal weapons is really a machine gun that has had part(s) added by the designer like a sear to prevent it from firing in full auto. Every semi-auto weapon currently meets the ATF definition of "readily restoreable" to full auto, they simply have not reclassified them, yet. Study the 1982 RPB open bolt case & the semi banned video tape that RPBs counsel had entered into evidence over the strenuous objections of the ATF. The video show how simply & quickly many closed bolt semi auto weapons could be converted to fire full auto by doing things like gluing the firing pin forward, filing the sear down, etc. Currently, the ATF allows what a skilled person can do in a full 8 hour work day with a fully equipped machine shop to determine what "readily restoreable" is. That is why those decision are kept in the dark by the tech branch & tested on a case by case basis. ATF will never reveal what criteria they can legally use to determine "readily restoreable" means. Only highly effective counsel has a chance to stop ATF "readily restoreable" abuses in court & most times it's up the the whims of the judge. Remember ATF gets to write many of the rules the courts follow when it comes to gun cases.

The political pendulum swings both ways in cycles. We will once again have bad times when it comes to firearm civil rights like the very dark Clinton years. The gun grabbers learn from their mistakes, unlike gun owners & firearm civil rights groups. They are mostly united in their cause, where we are fragmented. When those bad times happen again, the next Federal AWB will not be so generous. It will not have a 10 year sunset clause. It will closely follow SB-23. No "bad" features other than a detachable magazine will be allowed. A registration scheme will surely be involved. The weight limit for pistols will be reduced. Initial NFA registrations be design were quick & easy during 1934, 1968 & 1994. Any possible delays in transfers however long will not challenged by the courts. Too long to wait for a semi-auto transfer, too bad just buy an un-restricted single shot or revolver.

I'm not trying to be the bad guy here, just injecting a dose of reality. Firearms civil rights people tend to get tunnel vision & not see how bad things really are in the US with anti-gun laws and precedent/case law. American citizens could easily become disarmed within a few generations. LTC is not some great win for our side, but a double loss. Americans have the natural birthright to carry concealed weapons, but we gave that away in the 1800s for nothing. Now we have agreed to ask government permission in most states if we want to carry concealed. Background checks are of course involved & a tax which is called a fee, except for in like 2-3 states. Any contract with government is a loss of freedom & is unConstitutional, especially when it comes to the 2A.

dustoff31
08-27-2012, 12:48 PM
Yeah full auto is way overrated. It serves a military purpose for area targets and suppression but outside of those isn't really needed (snake eaters are a separate ball of wax and not really applicable since they do WTF they want anyway). Accuracy goes to **** and ammo, like everything else, only gets more expensive.

Select fire would be nice and we should have it as a matter of principle, but would probably never really use it anyway.

This. People don't realize that if you get into full auto firearms, and intend to actually shoot them with any regularity, you will also get into reloading whether you want to or not.

At factory ammo prices it costs around $200.00 per (cyclic) minute to feed an average SMG or M4. For say an MG42, about $500.00 per minute.

bondmid003
08-27-2012, 9:06 PM
I wish we could be more like switzerland. I wish we could have a well trained civilian militia instead of a world police force.

As a member of what you describe as the "world police force" I find your comments offensive and proof of ignorance. While you idolize Switzerland a country that has stood by while tyrants rose up around them you spit on the "world police force" that has crossed oceans to crush those very tyrants and preserve the liberty of those they've never met. Show some respect for those that fought and died to give you the freedom you so covet.

Gray Peterson
08-27-2012, 9:34 PM
I don't even know where to even begin with this, yet I feel compelled for some reason to respond to it point by point.

Didn't the FOPA also enhance sentences for "gun crimes"? I don't remember about that for sure. The un-enforceability of the non registration clause kinda turns the FOPA into a joke IMO. The reason for the FOPA was due to the results of a corrupt NRA working with the gun grabbers (Dodd) & POS domestic gun manufactures to demonize & eliminate "bad" guns & furthering their failed policy of appeasement. The FOPA should not be applauded or celebrated. There is nothing good or positive about it, as long as any part of the 1968 GCA stands. The GCA is far worse than the NFA & will lead to the eventual disarmament of US citizens.

The NRA pre-Cincinatti Revolution was much different than NRA of today.

I didn't say they will be but that they could be. I also didn't mention revolvers, but I should have stated semi-auto pistols. When it comes time to Federally restrict handguns, most likely single shots & revolvers will not be targeted, at first. If you want proof of a future event, look at the past & other similar countries. Both the UK & Australia not to mention most other non countries ban or heavily restrict handguns for citizens.

Heller isn't in effect in the UK or Australia.

Another way that would be very east to ban/restrict semi-auto pistols is "reinterpret" the GCA, to include all semi-auto weapons as "readily restoreable" to full auto. Case law is on the ATF's side on this. The courts have pretty much delegated firearm technical definitions to the ATF. Under the language of the GCA & case law along with ATF rulings that defines a machine gun, any automatic or repeating firearm can be reclassified as a machine gun. All it takes is the will & the courts to look the other way, as they do so often including the SCOTUS. Remember the 1994 restricting/banning of the USAS-12 & Striker-12/Street Sweeper by using the NFA as amended by the GCA? If that happens with machine guns they will become un-registrable contraband due to 922o, which the courts have upheld & the SCOTUS has declined to rule on at least once, AFAIK.

Any bolt action rifle, shotgun or pistol can have a full auto recoil or gas operated "conversion part" like the Charlton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle), Huot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huot_automatic_rifle) or Rieder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rieder_Automatic_Rifle) device attached to it with no modification done to the weapon. Any lever action rifle or pistol can easily be turned into a magazine fed 1895 Potato Digger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Colt-Browning_machine_gun) clone, as Browning originally did with his "conversion part", with no modification done to the weapon. I'm sure someone, somewhere has successfully converted a pump or slide action rifle, shotgun or pistol to full auto with a recoil or gas operated "conversion part", with no modification done to the weapon.

I'm sorry, that's a little too technical for most people to understand. If that's true, then why wasn't it re-classified in the Carter Administration?

I'm also sure that a revolver has been converted to full auto before, but revolvers would of course be given a pass (at first) due to historic nostalgia, like the old West. The gun owning hypocrites would be happy about that. "I don't care what they ban as long as they don't touch my single action wheel gun" *spits tobacco chew juice out.

The amount of single action revolvers out there is negligible.

That leaves us with semi-autos which for some currently legal weapons is really a machine gun that has had part(s) added by the designer like a sear to prevent it from firing in full auto. Every semi-auto weapon currently meets the ATF definition of "readily restoreable" to full auto, they simply have not reclassified them, yet. Study the 1982 RPB open bolt case & the semi banned video tape that RPBs counsel had entered into evidence over the strenuous objections of the ATF. The video show how simply & quickly many closed bolt semi auto weapons could be converted to fire full auto by doing things like gluing the firing pin forward, filing the sear down, etc. Currently, the ATF allows what a skilled person can do in a full 8 hour work day with a fully equipped machine shop to determine what "readily restoreable" is. That is why those decision are kept in the dark by the tech branch & tested on a case by case basis. ATF will never reveal what criteria they can legally use to determine "readily restoreable" means. Only highly effective counsel has a chance to stop ATF "readily restoreable" abuses in court & most times it's up the the whims of the judge. Remember ATF gets to write many of the rules the courts follow when it comes to gun cases.

Why wasn't the "full auto can be semi-auto" thing done under Clinton in 93-94, or by Carter?

The political pendulum swings both ways in cycles. We will once again have bad times when it comes to firearm civil rights like the very dark Clinton years. The gun grabbers learn from their mistakes, unlike gun owners & firearm civil rights groups. They are mostly united in their cause, where we are fragmented. When those bad times happen again, the next Federal AWB will not be so generous. It will not have a 10 year sunset clause. It will closely follow SB-23. No "bad" features other than a detachable magazine will be allowed. A registration scheme will surely be involved. The weight limit for pistols will be reduced. Initial NFA registrations be design were quick & easy during 1934, 1968 & 1994. Any possible delays in transfers however long will not challenged by the courts. Too long to wait for a semi-auto transfer, too bad just buy an un-restricted single shot or revolver.

I don't think so. Gun grabbers are not united. There are several different anti-gun organizations which only exist to pad incomes and give people something to do. Brady Campaign, VPC, CSGV, and even MAIG keep prattering on with nothin, as the steamroller flattens them. Dan Gross & Dennis Henigan, Josh Sugarmann, Mike Bloomberg (whos cops actually caused a mass shooting), Josh Horwitz. There are less than a dozen people actually for real causing us issues. They are true believers in their cause, but the names above would not be in it if it wasn't for the income (save Bloomy, but he's rich).

My generation and younger very much likes guns. A lot. Some of us because we're enthusiasts and like the idea of having an AR-15 similar to what's in Call of Duty. Some of us because we like the idea of having something akin to a fire extinguisher nearby just in case there's a problem.

In fact, the anti-gunners are prattling and getting pissed off that EA is actually striking trademark deals with gun makers to actually use real model names for guns.

A more than Article V majority of states do not have any sort of "AW" style prohibitions.

I call that winning.

I'm not trying to be the bad guy here, just injecting a dose of reality. Firearms civil rights people tend to get tunnel vision & not see how bad things really are in the US with anti-gun laws and precedent/case law. American citizens could easily become disarmed within a few generations. LTC is not some great win for our side, but a double loss. Americans have the natural birthright to carry concealed weapons, but we gave that away in the 1800s for nothing. Now we have agreed to ask government permission in most states if we want to carry concealed. Background checks are of course involved & a tax which is called a fee, except for in like 2-3 states. Any contract with government is a loss of freedom & is unConstitutional, especially when it comes to the 2A.

The 2nd amendment has only applied to the states for a total of 6 years out of the 221 years of the Second Amendment's existence (1868-1872, 2010).

The way the anti-gunners are reacting to even the idea of forced shall-issue carry in Maryland is driving them absolutely bonkers mad. Why are you not celebrating this, rather than whining about it being licensed for the moment.

More and more states will join the "Arizona-style carry" train. We're at four, btw, not three (AZ, WY, AK, VT). Oklahoma just legalized open carry and changing their CHL to a handgun license. Florida, Texas, and South Carolina will likely follow. A pro-carry ruling from SCOTUS will accelerate those trains.

FS00008
08-28-2012, 2:30 AM
Gray Peterson, telling it like it is.