PDA

View Full Version : Including Semi-Auto AR's Into the NFA?


SilverTauron
11-28-2012, 7:05 PM
I recently checked out a book on gun control history, and in one of the chapters it notes the following regarding the history of the National Firearms Act:

"Additionally, the committee rejected a definition of machine guns that included semi-automatic firearms with 10 round magazines, a definition that would have excluded modern assault weapons"

In that same chapter the author notes that the NFA was established because the Government's ability to tax certain activities has legal precedent. With that noted, is it possible for Obama or a current rep in Congress to pull a "Gut & Amend" to attach language changes the definition of a "machine gun" in the NFA to include any semi-auto rifle with a 10+ round magazine?

Such a measure would be far less risky judicially speaking than a stand-alone renewed AWB, and with the inclusion of semi-auto rifles to the NFA it would de-facto outlaw those rifles anywhere a CLEO wouldn't sign a Form 1.

What are your thoughts?

stix213
11-28-2012, 7:19 PM
Won't be even brought to a vote in the house.

yellowfin
11-28-2012, 7:28 PM
Don't give them ideas.

Cunha
11-28-2012, 7:34 PM
Don't give them ideas.

quoted for truth

tcrpe
11-28-2012, 7:45 PM
Won't be even brought to a vote in the house.

The House is starting to line up for tax hikes.

jdberger
11-28-2012, 8:19 PM
Please please please don't throw me in that briar patch.

SilverTauron
11-28-2012, 8:23 PM
The House is starting to line up for tax hikes.

That's what has me concerned. Remember the NDAA and the attachment of US citizens being detained? That has nothing to do with the NDAA's purpose, which is a budget authorization for the military. Yet if a rep voted against the NDAA because of the attached detainment verbiage, they'd get pilloried for "voting against the military budget" come election year.

With this "Fiscal Cliff" nonsense building notoriety, I'm concerned that the gun grabbers will try the same tack with gun laws. If a Conservative House rep votes against the Fiscal Cliff budget due to a shady gut and amend maneuver for gun control, they'll be at risk of getting voted out in 2014 when the Democrat challenger inevitably mentions that the Republican incumbent "voted for Tax Hikes on the middle class!"

RMP91
11-28-2012, 8:45 PM
Damned Double Post...

RMP91
11-28-2012, 8:45 PM
As far as Republicans compromising on the "Fiscal Cliff" by sacrificing gun rights... No chance, it'd be the ultimate betrayal. They'd have several million angry Americans (including servicemen/women, veterans and LEOs) gathering in Washington D.C. as well as in every capital city around the country (read: That 2nd Civil War that you keep hearing about). This may sound extreme to most, but I know that a scenario like this is in the back of the minds of every sane (key word) lawmaker out there. They know better (or at least, they should).

Remember the Cyber-Security bill from earlier this year? Shumer and McCarthy tried to tack on a high-cap ban to it to sneak it under the radar. It didn't end well.

On top of that, now that Obama's been re-elected (unfortunately), he's had every chance in the world to try his hand at full blown gun control.
That hasn't happened (yet, and I hope it stays that way).

I do not think he's serious on full blown gun control like *most* here claim. If that were the case, we'd have AWB II shoved down our throats by now...

Then again, we still have the House by a healthy margin. Either way, that ban will never reach his desk, especially without a Grandfather and Compensation clause. Ex-post facto bans are illegal and unconstitutional.

Our fears are better placed elsewhere right now, like with our economy, finding/keeping jobs and keeping our families fed and happy in this cluster**** of evil, lies, deception and immorality we call planet Earth.

winnre
11-28-2012, 8:51 PM
I may not have all the guns I want before a stupid ban kicks in, but I have a helluva lot more than if there was no threat of any ban.

ClarenceBoddicker
11-28-2012, 10:49 PM
Under current ATF regs almost all semi-auto firearms are "readily restorable" to full auto fire. ATF has not set time limit for how long it takes to "restore" a firearm to full auto fire. The courts have consistently sided with ATF as firearms experts & generally do not overturn their rulings. Many semi-auto firearms could be quickly & easily modified to meet the ATF's broad definition of a machine gun. Research the RPB court case exhibit video that showed how easy conversions are with simple hand tools. ATF tried to suppress this video & ban it from public viewing. ATF could rule both semi-auto ARs & AKs machine guns due to how easy they can be "converted" to meet ATF's BS definition of a MG. ARs will accept M-16 fire control parts, or DIAS/LL & a shoe string can be used on AKs. Many blowback guns can be "converted" by removing or grinding parts & gluing/shimming the firing pin forward.

Remember how quickly ATF can change their prior rulings. Open bolt guns are a good example. The Striker-12 & USAS-12 are another example. Due to 922o any guns reclassified as a machine gun would turn into instant contraband unless another amnesty was done. Gun grabber groups like Brady would sue to block any new amnesty due to 922o.

POLICESTATE
11-28-2012, 10:51 PM
They won't need to ban guns, they'll just raise taxes to the point that you'll need to sell your guns in a gun buy back event so you can eat.

SilverTauron
11-28-2012, 11:15 PM
Under current ATF regs almost all semi-auto firearms are "readily restorable" to full auto fire. ATF has not set time limit for how long it takes to "restore" a firearm to full auto fire......... Due to 922o any guns reclassified as a machine gun would turn into instant contraband unless another amnesty was done. Gun grabber groups like Brady would sue to block any new amnesty due to 922o.

There is a difference between what is legal and what can be enforced. Re-classifying a firearm as an MG administratively may ban the weapon, but how does the government know who owns what? Its like banning yellow Skittles-without some form of registration beforehand to ID which people have the contraband, its pointless.

They won't need to ban guns, they'll just raise taxes to the point that you'll need to sell your guns in a gun buy back event so you can eat.


Again, without some form of mandatory registration the government would have to depend on the "Honor System" to collect. While we still have the 4473/Etrace system and state databases, the ATF doesn't have the manpower to accurately track every single AKM and AR15 sold in 'free' states like Texas, Montana, and so forth.

Thus the need for intermediary legislation like a registry. Haynes vs United States establishes precedent for avoiding self-incrimination regarding gun registration, so the Anti's have to accommodate current owners SOMEHOW. Hence a national registry, which we already have in the form of the NFA. The latter is attractive because it dodges the Tiert Amendment that outlaws the creation of a "new" gun registry after 1986.

stix213
11-29-2012, 1:06 AM
The House is starting to line up for tax hikes.

The NRA doesn't bring the hammer down on house members over taxes.

MXRider
11-29-2012, 1:48 AM
Clearly,CA residents typically don't understand NFA laws. This is nothing you should even be worried about as its a ridiculous idea. It would require a complete rewrite in law of what is considered a "sporting rifle" which is what a 16" barrel semiautomatic AR15 is to the feds. Also, there are plenty of semiautomatic rifles in NFA registry, they are called SBR's.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

tcrpe
11-29-2012, 6:03 AM
The NRA doesn't bring the hammer down on house members over taxes.

Well, you have a lot of faith in the GOP, and they cast the votes in the House, not the NRA.

This morning I'm reading that the GOP is ready to go along with "Raise taxes now, cut spending later." $1.2 trillion in tax hikes.

Mesa Tactical
11-29-2012, 6:40 AM
"Additionally, the committee rejected a definition of machine guns that included semi-automatic firearms with 10 round magazines, a definition that would have excluded modern assault weapons"

In 1934, the only rifles with ten round magazines were Thompson submachineguns, BARs and the like. The Mauser and Springfield, the primary battle rifles of the day, each held only five rounds. Even ten round pistols were rare. So in that context, rifles with ten round magazines were somewhat unusual.

Heller affirms the right of Americans to keep and bear arms "in common use." Today, the AR-15 is the most popular and ubiquitous centerfire rifle platform in America, and every major rifle manufacturer, except Marlin, offers one (even Savage!). Rimfire versions are available at Big 5 Sporting Goods outlets, next to the soccer balls and gym pants. Gun grabbers would have a very difficult time making a case today that there is something inherently novel or dangerous about these rifles.

Jason's briar patch comment is right on the money. If this became Federal law, Alan Gura would secure a ruling that would gut "assault weapon" bans in every state that has enacted one.

a1c
11-29-2012, 6:52 AM
Not gonna happen.

Another paranoid thread that belongs to OT.

Grumpy-old-man
11-29-2012, 6:53 AM
Hi everyone

Basic problems with an NFA reclassification on ready convertibility grounds are
1. If registration into the system is allowed (difficult to see how, post Hughes in '86) the system would be swamped if only 1/10 of owners complied. The system already is overloaded with the tiny numbers of NFA devices out there - now multiply that by several orders of magnitude.
2. Since anyone with an unregistered piece would be in violation of the NFA, look for a huge number of illicit conversions to occur (NOT advocating it, just saying - if people are already in trouble for keeping their pieces how many will convert them since its the same penalty). Hopefully the BATFE will not want to increase the number of illicitly held FA by maybe 3 orders of magnitude (when MILLIONS of guns are outlawed, what percentage is converted? seized? hidden?).

I would at least like to think that there is enough sanity left in gov't that they won't walk down that road. Maybe whistling by the graveyard on my part though.

Maybe the best tactic to avert that particular disaster would be to politely point out the problems for their side, should they use that tactic. Sometimes people get just what they wish for and really regret it afterwards. My take is that the political left would be in that boat if they did reclassify self loaders. But what do I know?

All the best,
Grumpy

jwkincal
11-29-2012, 7:15 AM
Rimfire versions are available at Big 5 Sporting Goods outlets, next to the soccer balls and gym pants. Gun grabbers would have a very difficult time making a case today that there is something inherently novel or dangerous about these rifles.

On Black Friday Big5 was selling the .223 version (ATI polymer) for $700 complete. Right next to the bike shorts and whiffle balls.

sunborder
11-29-2012, 7:44 AM
Rimfire versions are available at Big 5 Sporting Goods outlets

Big 5 sells centerfire versions as well.

lilro
11-29-2012, 8:22 AM
I recently checked out a book on gun control history, and in one of the chapters it notes the following regarding the history of the National Firearms Act:

"Additionally, the committee rejected a definition of machine guns that included semi-automatic firearms with 10 round magazines, a definition that would have excluded modern assault weapons"

In that same chapter the author notes that the NFA was established because the Government's ability to tax certain activities has legal precedent. With that noted, is it possible for Obama or a current rep in Congress to pull a "Gut & Amend" to attach language changes the definition of a "machine gun" in the NFA to include any semi-auto rifle with a 10+ round magazine?

Such a measure would be far less risky judicially speaking than a stand-alone renewed AWB, and with the inclusion of semi-auto rifles to the NFA it would de-facto outlaw those rifles anywhere a CLEO wouldn't sign a Form 1.

What are your thoughts?

I think you should stop giving them ideas.

That's what has me concerned. Remember the NDAA and the attachment of US citizens being detained? That has nothing to do with the NDAA's purpose, which is a budget authorization for the military. Yet if a rep voted against the NDAA because of the attached detainment verbiage, they'd get pilloried for "voting against the military budget" come election year.

NDAA 2013 (the new one) will legalize deceptive propaganda. These next few years are gonna get ugly.

SilverTauron
11-29-2012, 8:24 AM
Hi everyone

Basic problems with an NFA reclassification on ready convertibility grounds are
1. If registration into the system is allowed (difficult to see how, post Hughes in '86) the system would be swamped if only 1/10 of owners complied. The system already is overloaded with the tiny numbers of NFA devices out there - now multiply that by several orders of magnitude.


Somehow I doubt the Federal Government would cry much about delays from a swamped NFA system. If it turns out there's a 12 month backlog, then they'll extend the amnesty for that period of time. Alternatively the Feds may just hire more temp workers to clear the backlog, since after the amnesty further registration will be illegal anyway.




2. Since anyone with an unregistered piece would be in violation of the NFA, look for a huge number of illicit conversions to occur (NOT advocating it, just saying - if people are already in trouble for keeping their pieces how many will convert them since its the same penalty). Hopefully the BATFE will not want to increase the number of illicitly held FA by maybe 3 orders of magnitude (when MILLIONS of guns are outlawed, what percentage is converted? seized? hidden?).

I would at least like to think that there is enough sanity left in gov't that they won't walk down that road. Maybe whistling by the graveyard on my part though.

Criminals routinely use illegally converted full auto firearms anyway, NFA or no. People who don't give a spit about the Feds already own illegally converted weapons. Another law wouldn't change that dynamic;remember the entire point of gun control is to make exercising your rights too difficult to bother.

IMO, sanity and government doesn't belong in the same sentence.



Maybe the best tactic to avert that particular disaster would be to politely point out the problems for their side, should they use that tactic. Sometimes people get just what they wish for and really regret it afterwards. My take is that the political left would be in that boat if they did reclassify self loaders. But what do I know?

All the best,
Grumpy

The political left has made it a goal to ban self-loading rifles since the 1930s. The original definition of the NFA would have included modern arms like the AR15 and AKM. When it comes to gun control , logic takes a backseat.

ClarenceBoddicker
11-29-2012, 8:42 AM
There is a difference between what is legal and what can be enforced. Re-classifying a firearm as an MG administratively may ban the weapon, but how does the government know who owns what? Its like banning yellow Skittles-without some form of registration beforehand to ID which people have the contraband, its pointless.




Again, without some form of mandatory registration the government would have to depend on the "Honor System" to collect. While we still have the 4473/Etrace system and state databases, the ATF doesn't have the manpower to accurately track every single AKM and AR15 sold in 'free' states like Texas, Montana, and so forth.

Thus the need for intermediary legislation like a registry. Haynes vs United States establishes precedent for avoiding self-incrimination regarding gun registration, so the Anti's have to accommodate current owners SOMEHOW. Hence a national registry, which we already have in the form of the NFA. The latter is attractive because it dodges the Tiert Amendment that outlaws the creation of a "new" gun registry after 1986.

All they would have to is send out a bunch of threatening letters & many people would surrender their guns. Search for the; Compassico MAK-90 "recall" in the mid 1990s. A bunch of Chinese milled MAK-90s were deemed by the ATF to be machine guns because they had the full auto selector notch & markings, but the 3rd hole & bolt carrier rail slot was not there. A bunch of guys got burned on that one. They could also do a taxpayer funded "buy back" like in Australia. ATF could easily use manufacturer & importer records to do "crime traces" to track down the now banned guns. Post 9/11 almost all Fed agencies share databases which makes once formidable tasks like this much easier. A much easier route would be to pass a law that requires all firearms in the US to be Federally registered. Neither the GOP or the SCOTUS would do much to oppose that.

sholling
11-29-2012, 9:27 AM
Won't be even brought to a vote in the house.
The senate would just use a gut and amend and the deem the changes to have passed the house - Kinda like Obamacare.

Under current ATF regs almost all semi-auto firearms are "readily restorable" to full auto fire. ATF has not set time limit for how long it takes to "restore" a firearm to full auto fire. The courts have consistently sided with ATF as firearms experts & generally do not overturn their rulings. Many semi-auto firearms could be quickly & easily modified to meet the ATF's broad definition of a machine gun. Research the RPB court case exhibit video that showed how easy conversions are with simple hand tools. ATF tried to suppress this video & ban it from public viewing. ATF could rule both semi-auto ARs & AKs machine guns due to how easy they can be "converted" to meet ATF's BS definition of a MG. ARs will accept M-16 fire control parts, or DIAS/LL & a shoe string can be used on AKs. Many blowback guns can be "converted" by removing or grinding parts & gluing/shimming the firing pin forward.

Remember how quickly ATF can change their prior rulings. Open bolt guns are a good example. The Striker-12 & USAS-12 are another example. Due to 922o any guns reclassified as a machine gun would turn into instant contraband unless another amnesty was done. Gun grabber groups like Brady would sue to block any new amnesty due to 922o.
This is an actual possibility. This administration has a history of using executive orders and regulations to bypass congress and impose its will.

There is a difference between what is legal and what can be enforced. Re-classifying a firearm as an MG administratively may ban the weapon, but how does the government know who owns what? Its like banning yellow Skittles-without some form of registration beforehand to ID which people have the contraband, its pointless.

Again, without some form of mandatory registration the government would have to depend on the "Honor System" to collect. While we still have the 4473/Etrace system and state databases, the ATF doesn't have the manpower to accurately track every single AKM and AR15 sold in 'free' states like Texas, Montana, and so forth.

Thus the need for intermediary legislation like a registry. Haynes vs United States establishes precedent for avoiding self-incrimination regarding gun registration, so the Anti's have to accommodate current owners SOMEHOW. Hence a national registry, which we already have in the form of the NFA. The latter is attractive because it dodges the Tiert Amendment that outlaws the creation of a "new" gun registry after 1986.
There is a paper trail from the manufacturer to the 1st purchaser that is solid enough to get a warrant to search your property. Plus failure to turn in an illegal weapon would make you a felon facing spending most of the rest of your life in prison so most would be turned in. Telling a fed that you sold if or it was stolen when it wasn't is also a felony.

SilverTauron
11-29-2012, 10:16 AM
All they would have to is send out a bunch of threatening letters & many people would surrender their guns.
.

True, but they'd have to know where to mail them.






Search for the; Compassico MAK-90 "recall" in the mid 1990s. A bunch of Chinese milled MAK-90s were deemed by the ATF to be machine guns because they had the full auto selector notch & markings, but the 3rd hole & bolt carrier rail slot was not there. A bunch of guys got burned on that one..

Deeming one specific brand of newly-imported weapon to be illegal is very different logistically from outlawing an entire class of guns which number in the millions. The ATF can trace a batch of ONE brand of imported guns ;but there's no way they have the manpower to track literally thousands of different brands of AR15s from the distributor all the way to its final owner. It would be like the NHTSA tracking every Toyota Camry sold in model year 2010 to their final owners. Without a centralized database of gun owner information that's up to date, the Feds are fishing with a reel in the middle of the Atlantic.



They could also do a taxpayer funded "buy back" like in Australia. ATF could easily use manufacturer & importer records to do "crime traces" to track down the now banned guns. Post 9/11 almost all Fed agencies share databases which makes once formidable tasks like this much easier.
.

Federal agencies are like 3rd graders when it comes to intel.
If the situation is serious enough they'll share info, but the ATF would rather hoard data to preserve its mission. If they share info with the FBI which in turn results in the Bureau closing more cases, the ATF begins to look pretty useless on paper to the Congressional Budget Subcomittee.

As to the crime trace setup, its a laborious process to trace a gun on paper from the distributor all the way up to its current owner. For LE purposes that's OK because they're chasing one bad guy, but there's no logistical way the ATF could do that for every gun owner in America.


A much easier route would be to pass a law that requires all firearms in the US to be Federally registered. Neither the GOP or the SCOTUS would do much to oppose that.

They would HAVE to do that in order for any escalation in gun laws to take place. Right now the ATF has E-trace and several states have local gun registration, but the systems are all different, convoluted, and not directly connected to each other, which means errors and duplicate information exists that makes using it for taxation purposes impractical. Without a centralized modern database tying current gun owners to current firearms in possession, the show's over on future gun laws before it even begins. The Feds cannot tax, impound, register, or seize what they can't find.

Catch is , the 1986 FOPA bans the construction of such a new database and its legality is a Constitutional "?????" which would eventually requires SCOTUS intervention. The other side cannot assume a liberal high court would find for them; Remember Proposition H banning handguns in San Fransisco got struck down by a California district court.

The NFA however is a current system that's already being used and has passed legal muster, hence its attraction to the disarmament lobby.

MXRider
11-29-2012, 10:32 AM
Tinfoil is strong in this thread.

Gray Peterson
11-29-2012, 11:07 AM
The senate would just use a gut and amend and the deem the changes to have passed the house - Kinda like Obamacare.

The former was done (Senate gut & amend), the latter did not actually occur.

Lies & incorrect facts are the stock in trade for anti gunners.

When gun owners get things wrong, especially when it comes to legal stuff & it's to advance a narrative, it tarnishes all gun owners as hysterical & lying crazies that cannot be trusted to responsibly own guns.

Get your facts straight.

12voltguy
11-29-2012, 11:49 AM
Big 5 sells centerfire versions as well.

yup saw that in my store yesterday:)

Uxi
11-29-2012, 12:07 PM
They won't need to ban guns, they'll just raise taxes to the point that you'll need to sell your guns in a gun buy back event so you can eat.

This. They hit the limits of the absurdly stretched commerce clause with Barrycare. Unfortunately the same SCOTUS ruling gave practical carte blanche to the taxation powers, which is really what the NFA does. No expirations and indexed to inflation would not surprise one bit.

Ultimately I doubt they would go for the core semi-auto but a "reasonable" regulatory mechanism for evil features. Part of their classic divide and conquer to go after the Evil Black Rifle people and leave the "hunters and sportsman."

sholling
11-29-2012, 2:06 PM
True, but they'd have to know where to mail them.

Deeming one specific brand of newly-imported weapon to be illegal is very different logistically from outlawing an entire class of guns which number in the millions. The ATF can trace a batch of ONE brand of imported guns ;but there's no way they have the manpower to track literally thousands of different brands of AR15s from the distributor all the way to its final owner. It would be like the NHTSA tracking every Toyota Camry sold in model year 2010 to their final owners. Without a centralized database of gun owner information that's up to date, the Feds are fishing with a reel in the middle of the Atlantic.
We have these things called computers now. All that the ATF would have to do is make submitting specifically formatted records of all semiautomatic sales for the past 10 years a condition of keeping their FFL or manufacturers license. Faced with the danger of losing their businesses manufacturers, distributors, and dealers would have to provide the labor.

When gun owners get things wrong, especially when it comes to legal stuff & it's to advance a narrative, it tarnishes all gun owners as hysterical & lying crazies that cannot be trusted to responsibly own guns.

Get your facts straight.
The go back to sleep crowd is a far greater danger to our rights than those that you deem crazies for discussing real possibilities. Who would have thought that the administration would illegally facilitate the shipment of over 2000 weapons to drug cartels in order to establish a narrative yet it happened. Or that the media would cover it up. Or was F&F and hundreds of dead just a mass hallucination? Who would have thought that de facto long gun registration in direct violation of federal law would be attempted? Was that just paranoia? There is nothing that we can do including silently sleeping through the next 4 years that will stop the Progressive media from screaming that we're all a bunch of ignorant knuckle dragging paranoid racist hicks foaming at the mouth to gun down minorities - nothing! That's just reality in 21st century America. We can either work together and trade ideas freely or we can sit quietly like good little boys and girls and let it happen and in a very few years find ourselves asking WTF happened to our guns and our rights.

FWIW gut and amend was put forth as a permissible method of getting around the requirement to initiate a tax bill in the House and deeming was put forth as a permissible way to get around the lack of support for Obamacare.

SilverTauron
11-29-2012, 2:36 PM
We have these things called computers now. All that the ATF would have to do is make submitting specifically formatted records of all semiautomatic sales for the past 10 years a condition of keeping their FFL or manufacturers license. Faced with the danger of losing their businesses manufacturers, distributors, and dealers would have to provide the labor.
.

The dealers and FFLs could transmit the data, but someone at the ATF eventually has to catalog and process the info. Its like a production line bottleneck-you eliminate one block only to run into another. Instead of the ATF not having enough people to collate hundreds of millions of 4473s, they now have to cope with processing and accurately translating electronic copies submitted by thousands of distributors and FFLs across the country. Either way they don't have the manpower to construct an accurate database using the 4473s.

The only practical solution to the problem of a national registry is to start from scratch. The best way to do that is to register the "evil" guns first. Once AR's and AK's are attached to a closed gun registry, the next Administration will use the ATF to expand the system to include the next category of "evil guns" such as pistols, and down the list they go until Dad's 30-30 gets papered.

command_liner
11-29-2012, 3:08 PM
This. They hit the limits of the absurdly stretched commerce clause with Barrycare. Unfortunately the same SCOTUS ruling gave practical carte blanche to the taxation powers, which is really what the NFA does. No expirations and indexed to inflation would not surprise one bit.

Ultimately I doubt they would go for the core semi-auto but a "reasonable" regulatory mechanism for evil features. Part of their classic divide and conquer to go after the Evil Black Rifle people and leave the "hunters and sportsman."

Go back and read the original arguments for the NFA. It certainly is a tax,
and in a interesting way. The Feds today do not want to argue NFA-
commerce clause against 2A. It is a sure looser, since 2A is superseding
law (passed after the commerce clause in the main body of the const.)
OK, so they want to tax us to death... Heller/McDonald ruled that 2A is
a civil right.

Now the de novo question not asked in Rock Island Armory: can the
NFA be used to tax a civil right? There is a clear message from 1965
on this point. No taxes on rights. Roberts side-stepped this recently
with his appalling health care ruling.

The feds risk loosing ALL POSSIBLE Commerce Clause control on guns
by pushing hard on the NFA issue. And risk quite a bit by pushing other
taxes on civil rights (2A rights).

SilverTauron
11-29-2012, 3:22 PM
Go back and read the original arguments for the NFA. It certainly is a tax,
and in a interesting way. The Feds today do not want to argue NFA-
commerce clause against 2A. It is a sure looser, since 2A is superseding
law (passed after the commerce clause in the main body of the const.)
OK, so they want to tax us to death... Heller/McDonald ruled that 2A is
a civil right.

Now the de novo question not asked in Rock Island Armory: can the
NFA be used to tax a civil right? There is a clear message from 1965
on this point. No taxes on rights. Roberts side-stepped this recently
with his appalling health care ruling.

The feds risk loosing ALL POSSIBLE Commerce Clause control on guns
by pushing hard on the NFA issue. And risk quite a bit by pushing other
taxes on civil rights (2A rights).

The entire point of the NFA being a tax was to sidestep its rejection on 2nd Amendment grounds. The 1934 bill successfully passed SCOTUS muster, and so did Obamacare which has established precedent that the government can tax activities it deems contrary to the public interest. Proliferation of unregistered arms fits into that regime quite neatly-and the NFA already establishes precedent for gun registration and taxation of a civil right.

Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is not considered equal to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Paying a fee for a gun license isn't looked askance, but a fee attached to a voting license would all but invite legal challenge from the ACLU and scorn by the public media.

sholling
11-29-2012, 3:26 PM
The dealers and FFLs could transmit the data, but someone at the ATF eventually has to catalog and process the info. Its like a production line bottleneck-you eliminate one block only to run into another. Instead of the ATF not having enough people to collate hundreds of millions of 4473s, they now have to cope with processing and accurately translating electronic copies submitted by thousands of distributors and FFLs across the country. Either way they don't have the manpower to construct an accurate database using the 4473s.
All that is required is to have the manufacturers and dealers submit Excel spreadsheets using the same format or fill out forms online. All of the work is done by the dealers. It really isn't hard as long as the data is correctly formatted.

The only practical solution to the problem of a national registry is to start from scratch. The best way to do that is to register the "evil" guns first. Once AR's and AK's are attached to a closed gun registry, the next Administration will use the ATF to expand the system to include the next category of "evil guns" such as pistols, and down the list they go until Dad's 30-30 gets papered.
From a technical perspective a new national registry is easier but it's politically difficult because it requires congressional action. On the other hand rule making bypasses congress completely. But the reality is that if the BATF simply reclassified all semiautomatic rifles as NFA weapons then most people would grumble and then turn them in to avoid becoming instant felons. The ATF then has the leverage to at their leisure arrest the few that kept their guns and hang them with felony convictions.

SilverTauron
11-29-2012, 3:55 PM
From a technical perspective a new national registry is easier but it's politically difficult because it requires congressional action. On the other hand rule making bypasses congress completely. But the reality is that if the BATF simply reclassified all semiautomatic rifles as NFA weapons then most people would grumble and then turn them in to avoid becoming instant felons. The ATF then has the leverage to at their leisure arrest the few that kept their guns and hang them with felony convictions.

They'd have to permit some form of amnesty to avoid self-incrimination problems via Haynes vs US. The long term goal is to take "assault weapons" out of public circulation, and a 60 day amnesty for anyone with a current evil gun gets the current weapons registered without dealing with the expense of door to door confiscation or leakage due to people not complying.

Once the registry expires life gets real simple for LE across the country. If they see anything that looks like an AK or AR and its owner doesn't have the magic form, the gun's owner goes to jail.

12voltguy
11-29-2012, 4:02 PM
calguns leagle types always say not to talk about a b or c out in the open, & there you go doing it.....

command_liner
11-29-2012, 4:02 PM
The entire point of the NFA being a tax was to sidestep its rejection on 2nd Amendment grounds. The 1934 bill successfully passed SCOTUS muster, and so did Obamacare which has established precedent that the government can tax activities it deems contrary to the public interest. Proliferation of unregistered arms fits into that regime quite neatly-and the NFA already establishes precedent for gun registration and taxation of a civil right.



Not quite. It was not until Heller that we got 2A as a civil right.
Eventually we get to re-argue NFA under this 'new' understanding.

Obamacare passing muster was a serious blow to the republic. When
the court rules that antecedent law (Commerce Clause) overrules
superseding law (2A), then the republic is dead. In that case, the
other meaning of the 2A comes into play. There is no more free
state.

SilverTauron
11-29-2012, 4:15 PM
calguns leagle types always say not to talk about a b or c out in the open, & there you go doing it.....

We are not the only people in America with access to legal history.;)

What, do you believe that the Justice Department employs attorneys just for kicks? When Feinstein or any legislator considers policy, they meet with lawyers to discuss the ramifications. I seriously doubt lawmakers are trolling this forum looking for better ways to screw us gun owners when they have a team of lawyers who are all too happy to shaft us.

The topic to avoid is not what THEY'LL do to us, but what WE'LL do to preserve our rights.

12voltguy
11-29-2012, 4:52 PM
We are not the only people in America with access to legal history.;)

What, do you believe that the Justice Department employs attorneys just for kicks? When Feinstein or any legislator considers policy, they meet with lawyers to discuss the ramifications. I seriously doubt lawmakers are trolling this forum looking for better ways to screw us gun owners when they have a team of lawyers who are all too happy to shaft us.

The topic to avoid is not what THEY'LL do to us, but what WE'LL do to preserve our rights.

they often do a poor job, why help them out?
SB249 not written well, when people spoke up about that mods even deleted the posts so as to not help, but you just go on being "you"

damon1272
12-01-2012, 4:05 PM
Won't be even brought to a vote in the house.

The house voted in Obama Care. Think again.

taiwon
12-01-2012, 4:12 PM
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO- but yeah, wont even make the house. there's way too many people with these guns and way too many people think its their right to own these guns. it would be political suicide

Gray Peterson
12-01-2012, 4:23 PM
The house voted in Obama Care. Think again.

A Democratic House.

donw
12-02-2012, 6:38 AM
As far as Republicans compromising on the "Fiscal Cliff" by sacrificing gun rights... No chance, it'd be the ultimate betrayal. They'd have several million angry Americans (including servicemen/women, veterans and LEOs) gathering in Washington D.C. as well as in every capital city around the country (read: That 2nd Civil War that you keep hearing about). This may sound extreme to most, but I know that a scenario like this is in the back of the minds of every sane (key word) lawmaker out there. They know better (or at least, they should).

Remember the Cyber-Security bill from earlier this year? Shumer and McCarthy tried to tack on a high-cap ban to it to sneak it under the radar. It didn't end well.

On top of that, now that Obama's been re-elected (unfortunately), he's had every chance in the world to try his hand at full blown gun control.
That hasn't happened (yet, and I hope it stays that way).

I do not think he's serious on full blown gun control like *most* here claim. If that were the case, we'd have AWB II shoved down our throats by now...

Then again, we still have the House by a healthy margin. Either way, that ban will never reach his desk, especially without a Grandfather and Compensation clause. Ex-post facto bans are illegal and unconstitutional.

Our fears are better placed elsewhere right now, like with our economy, finding/keeping jobs and keeping our families fed and happy in this cluster**** of evil, lies, deception and immorality we call planet Earth.

there are some good points here. ^^^^^

the way i see it is to NEVER trust an elected official, (most of them, anyway) especially here in California...very few EVER live up to their promises and the longer they're in office, the worse they become.