Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2009, 9:50 PM
HotRails's Avatar
HotRails HotRails is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,484
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default NFA possession anywhere in the US

Does anyone think that someday the '86 ban could be lifted and the registery for NFA weapons reopened for new post 86 civilian registries? Maybe state laws in CA wont allow it, but perhaps in the free states.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-01-2009, 9:54 PM
SwissFluCase's Avatar
SwissFluCase SwissFluCase is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Marin County
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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

Regards,


SwissFluCase
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:01 PM
HotRails's Avatar
HotRails HotRails is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,484
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissFluCase View Post
I believe the 9th circuit court partially lifted the 1986 ban, but we don't get any benefit from this. That ban seems to be on very shaky legal ground from what I have read. I'm sure it can be challenged, but I don't remember anybody doing so.

Regards,


SwissFluCase
I have also heard that the NRA supported it, and Ronald Reagan Signed it. Is this true?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:14 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,288
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotRails View Post
I have also heard that the NRA supported it, and Ronald Reagan Signed it. Is this true?
Yes and yes. I guess the NRA thought that it would be thrown out of court in 6 months. I personally think that what we gained with the FOPA was minor, and we would have gotten it anyway, and what we lost was major (a whole class of guns, countless gun owners facing serious felonies for having a wrong part in a gun). I think it was a big mistake.

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

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

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:18 PM
Jpach's Avatar
Jpach Jpach is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 4,721
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Wow wtf how are machine guns not protected by the 2A?
__________________
PM or Email me if you have questions: Jpach89@gmail.com

Check out my LMT .308 AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotton View Post
I have to try that method of attaching the front of a sling to the gun via pubic hair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomb_on_bus View Post
Best part of buying that stock is it comes with its own complimentary jar of anal lube! There were several flavors to choose from, regular, hot cinnamon, or bacon. Im a man of danger so I chose Hot cinnamon to use with my bump fire buttstock.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:40 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,288
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpach View Post
Wow wtf how are machine guns not protected by the 2A?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8th circuit in Fincher
Accordingly, under Heller, Fincherís possession of the guns is not protected by the Second Amendment. Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use. Furthermore, Fincher has not directly attacked the federal registration requirements on firearms, and we doubt that any such attack would succeed in light of Heller. Accordingly, because Fincherís possession of guns is not protected by the Second Amendment, the district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing him from arguing otherwise to the jury.
He's asking for the Supreme Court to review this. My guess is they will probably not review it, or if they do, they will uphold the conviction. I don't like that, I think it's wrong, but I think it's reality.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:52 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Funny thing is, the original '34 NFA was enacted as a TAX act because at the time it was believed that machineguns were in fact protected under the 2A. The thinking at the time was that they weren't banning these guns, they were just adding an extra tax to them and anyone who wanted to pay the tax could still get the guns.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

Last edited by CHS; 02-01-2009 at 10:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:54 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

1. NRA did not at all support the ban on new manufacture. It was a last minute tack on to a bill that was otherwise NRA supported.

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

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:57 PM
SwissFluCase's Avatar
SwissFluCase SwissFluCase is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Marin County
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
1. NRA did not at all support the ban on new manufacture. It was a last minute tack on to a bill that was otherwise NRA supported.

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

-Gene
A pistol in your holster is worth two machine guns in your safe.

Regards,


SwissFluCase
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-01-2009, 10:59 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,288
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
1. NRA did not at all support the ban on new manufacture. It was a last minute tack on to a bill that was otherwise NRA supported.
I agree, that's the right way to say it. The NRA supported the bill. The Hughes Amendment was a last-second thing at midnight or whatever. The NRA didn't support the Hughes Amend. of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
2. Potentially we can end the new manufacture restriction but that is not and can not be a near term goal. We need to secure most everything else first.
Yes.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-01-2009, 11:15 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
Funny thing is, the original '34 NFA was enacted as a TAX act because at the time it was believed that machineguns were in fact protected under the 2A. The thinking at the time was that they weren't banning these guns, they were just adding an extra tax to them and anyone who wanted to pay the tax could still get the guns.
The tax, $200, was at the time impossible for the vast majority of people to pay. A rifle at the time cost $15. It was not a tax that was at all intended to be collected, but to destroy the market and exclude almost everyone from buying the items listed. It was as intended at the time blatant oppression, going unchallenged only due to King FDR's (to believe he was otherwise is foolish at best) virtually unquestioned lock on power followed by continued Donkey party control on Congress for the continuum of the Depression to WWII through the Cold War, 3 events creating conditions which made the citizenry almost completely unwilling to question central government power. (Except in the mid to late 60's to push it to the left even further, and we all know what that did for 2A rights. It both baffles and sickens me that in all the "fight the power" and "question authority" nobody seemed to bother questioning the NFA and GCA when they darn well should have.)
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-01-2009, 11:22 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin2 View Post
The tax, $200, was at the time impossible for the vast majority of people to pay. A rifle at the time cost $15. It was not a tax that was at all intended to be collected, but to destroy the market and exclude almost everyone from buying the items listed.
I know all this.

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

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

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

Also, why is the ATF a law enforcement agency now, rather than a TAX collection agency?
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-01-2009, 11:31 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
Also, why is the ATF a law enforcement agency now, rather than a TAX collection agency?
A curious dichotomy indeed. It does act as a tax collections agency and only as that for alcohol and tobacco. It's only in the firearms capacity it decided to dress up and play Rambo in modern times. They went into yeehaw mode during Prohibition and set their own boundaries almost as anything goes; I guess it was Clinton who nudged them to take up that role again.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-02-2009, 5:17 AM
Max-the-Silent Max-the-Silent is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 786
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissFluCase View Post
I believe the 9th circuit court partially lifted the 1986 ban, but we don't get any benefit from this. That ban seems to be on very shaky legal ground from what I have read. I'm sure it can be challenged, but I don't remember anybody doing so.

Regards,


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

As bad a law as it is, I believe that the NFA is here to stay. There may well be another Amnesty in the future, but that's about the best we're going to get.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-02-2009, 6:20 AM
freakshow10mm freakshow10mm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,078
iTrader: 15 / 89%
Default

Currently, under the restructuring of the ATF under the Bush administration, the ATF is now part of the DOJ. The TTB, Tax and Trade Bureau, is now the tax collection arm of the ATF under the Treasury Dept. ATF is LE and TTB is tax collection.

If we get a president Palin and fillibuster proof conservative congress, I will have no doubt that the Hughes amendment will go away. Palin is very pro NFA.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-02-2009, 6:54 AM
DDT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow10mm View Post
Palin is very pro NFA.
huh?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-02-2009, 7:12 AM
freakshow10mm freakshow10mm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,078
iTrader: 15 / 89%
Default

Sarah Palin, the MILF that was McCain's VP nominee through out the elections? She is pro NFA meaning in favor and supportive of NFA weapons for civilian ownership like machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors, etc. All those guns are NFA weapons named after the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-02-2009, 11:00 AM
HotRails's Avatar
HotRails HotRails is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,484
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max-the-Silent View Post
That was in the Stewart case, and it's been overturned iirc.

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

Could you elaborate on the Stewart case a little? It seems like right now we are so busy fighting for some of our most basic rights that opening the registry may be unreachable.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-02-2009, 11:11 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

More on Stewart here.

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

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-02-2009, 11:13 AM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,045
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Stewart_(2003)
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by ke6guj; 02-02-2009 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-02-2009, 11:38 AM
Cypren Cypren is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Irvine
Posts: 293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

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

NFA weapons are just one cost.

On a sidenote, does anyone else find it an incredible example of the circular logic used by judges to push their own policy preferences that both Heller and Fincher use, as an argument for why the NFA/Hughes Amendment are legal, the excuse that "machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?" Gee, no kidding -- something that's been oppressively taxed for 75 years and banned for 23 isn't in common use today. Who would have thought?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-02-2009, 12:57 PM
jumbopanda's Avatar
jumbopanda jumbopanda is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northridge
Posts: 7,452
iTrader: 151 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow10mm View Post
Currently, under the restructuring of the ATF under the Bush administration, the ATF is now part of the DOJ. The TTB, Tax and Trade Bureau, is now the tax collection arm of the ATF under the Treasury Dept. ATF is LE and TTB is tax collection.

If we get a president Palin and fillibuster proof conservative congress, I will have no doubt that the Hughes amendment will go away. Palin is very pro NFA.
I lol'd.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-02-2009, 5:35 PM
HotRails's Avatar
HotRails HotRails is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,484
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

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

NFA weapons are just one cost.

On a sidenote, does anyone else find it an incredible example of the circular logic used by judges to push their own policy preferences that both Heller and Fincher use, as an argument for why the NFA/Hughes Amendment are legal, the excuse that "machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?" Gee, no kidding -- something that's been oppressively taxed for 75 years and banned for 23 isn't in common use today. Who would have thought?
is this an instance of the Fed increasing their powers veiled in the social/moral issue of medicinal marijuana or were they genuinely concerned that narcotics laws would become unenforcable generally as a result of medicinal marijuana?

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

What are some of the other possible avenues that could be used to attack the NFA registry and at least reopen it?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-02-2009, 5:44 PM
Max-the-Silent Max-the-Silent is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 786
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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

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

What are some of the other possible avenues that could be used to attack the NFA registry and at least reopen it?
Look into Eric Larson and his investigation into the failure of the ATF to maintain the National Firearms Registry, as well as the documented cases of ATF attempting to prosecute individuals for unregistered NFA possession where the weapon in question was registered.

If you head over to

www.subguns.com

And check the legal pages, you'll find all sorts of interesting info.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-02-2009, 8:39 PM
SwissFluCase's Avatar
SwissFluCase SwissFluCase is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Marin County
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypren View Post
On a sidenote, does anyone else find it an incredible example of the circular logic used by judges to push their own policy preferences that both Heller and Fincher use, as an argument for why the NFA/Hughes Amendment are legal, the excuse that "machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?" Gee, no kidding -- something that's been oppressively taxed for 75 years and banned for 23 isn't in common use today. Who would have thought?
I seem to remember that these were part of the notes SCOTUS used, and is not part of the ruling (or so I am led to believe). Still, it doesn't seem that the NFA would go away anytime too soon, but I would like to see the '86 ban go away, as well as the silly interstate transport permission requirement. I'd also like to see the state prohibitions go away, or in the case of CA, at least a shall-issue permit process.

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

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

ETA: Has anyone seen this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1989, BATFE published a comment where they stated that there were 130,000 registered transferable machine guns in the NFRTR. In a recent edition of Small Arms Review, the BATFE are quoted commenting that there are over 185,000 transferable MG's in the registry. Given those numbers, it is likely that there are well over 50,000 contraband machine guns in the hands of politicians and citizens in the US many of whom have no clue that they have committed a felony.
http://www.nfaoa.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=906

Regards,

SwissFluCase

Last edited by SwissFluCase; 02-02-2009 at 9:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-02-2009, 9:07 PM
HotRails's Avatar
HotRails HotRails is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,484
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

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

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

Regards,

SwissFluCase
Lifting the 86 ban would at least ease some of the price hikes for pre-86 weapons.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-02-2009, 9:19 PM
inmyownsummerami inmyownsummerami is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Highlands, Ca
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HotRails View Post
Lifting the 86 ban would at least ease some of the price hikes for pre-86 weapons.
And a lot of the guys who've spent 10s of thousands of dollars per MG are going to be pretty P.O.ed when the weapons are devalued by at least 1/2.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-02-2009, 9:21 PM
freakshow10mm freakshow10mm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,078
iTrader: 15 / 89%
Default

Actually, the many I've spoken with would be happy to have their collection devalued. They would much rather be able to buy a select fire weapon for say $200 over a semi auto weapon.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-02-2009, 9:24 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,045
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

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

edit: too slow

+1 on what freakshow said.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-02-2009, 9:51 PM
inmyownsummerami inmyownsummerami is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North Highlands, Ca
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freakshow10mm View Post
Actually, the many I've spoken with would be happy to have their collection devalued. They would much rather be able to buy a select fire weapon for say $200 over a semi auto weapon.
I'm sure most owners probably fell that way, but you know there would be a fair number of them that would whine about all the money they lost because of all of the FNGs
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-02-2009, 9:54 PM
freakshow10mm freakshow10mm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,078
iTrader: 15 / 89%
Default

It's that same generation that messed it up for the rest of us.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-02-2009, 10:00 PM
SwissFluCase's Avatar
SwissFluCase SwissFluCase is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Marin County
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
Actually, on most of the MG forums I've read, most of the guys that have large MG collections are willing to take the loss on the value of their existing MGs because they will be able to get more, and newer designs as well. No smart person relys on the value of an MG collection as an investment, since there is no way to predict how future laws may affect MGs. Who knows, they could freeze the registry tommorrow, and then what? The value of them is basically zero then.

edit: too slow

+1 on what freakshow said.
I'll bet some of the choicer items, like the old Thompsons will still be worth a lot of money, along with the WWII stuff. No one is going to be $3500 for a MAC, though...

Can you say tax write off?

Regards,

SwissFluCase
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.