Do you think we'll get Machine guns back?

[Turbo Teg]

I'm hoping with DC case that if everything goes as hoped and the 2A gets ruled an individual right, that it will open the doors to repealing the '89 import ban and '86 machine gun ban and possibly the '34 NFA. I thought I heard something about lawsuits ready to go on this stuff depending on how the SC rules in DC V Heller, anyone know? It would be great to be able to buy an M-16 with just a NICS check, but even if the NFA stayed the same, I'd be happy. Just bieng able to afford one would be good enough. Is this something that can be possible with the S.C ruling it an individual right?

Also, if we did get them back, and the NFA was still there, do you think the tax stamp would go away when buying one? What about for stuff that you already own? I would think so as you can't tax a right. I've been wanting to Put a 10 inch barrel and a supressor on my M4, but I don't wanna pay 400.00 in tax stamps just to modify shit that I already own/will own.

[mikehiggins]

1. No way

Even if the SCUSA knocks down the current scenario, there is no way the private citizen is going to legally own an automatic weapon in this nation, no matter what the NRA and the GOP hope. Anyway, a small, compact .44 handgun is much more dangerous to all concerned, and those are the kinds of weapons I beleive might become more easily obtained legally if the decision goes the way the gunguys hope.

Legally, of course, is the issue. Handguns are only marginally harder to obtain on the street than high quality coke.

[Turbo Teg]

3. UHH

Hello, you can already legally own a machine gun if you got the cash, along with sawed off shotguns, short barreled rifles, silencers and other "destructive Devices" such as the M203 grenade launcher and M79. What I'm hoping for is the end of the '86 ban which will bring the prices down to a reasonable level.

[bossy22]

5. a small compact

.44 handgun? is there such an animal?

i dont think the laws governing sales are going to change- you obviously know almost nothing about the case. The Apellete court already has said that reasonable restrictiosn such as background checks and waiting periods are constitutional- but outright bans are not.

[spin]

12. Charter Arms .44 Bulldog fits the bill...

small, compact .44 revolver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Arms_Bulldog

The weapon David Berkowitz aka: Son of Sam, .44 Caliber Killer, used to murder six people and wound seven others in New York City between 1976 and 1977.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_sam

[bossy22]

13. that must have been

hell to fire

[Turbo Teg]

14. It is a .44

But not a magnum. It's a .44 special.

[spin]

15. Compact .44 mag...OK...

Taurus Tracker:

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=227&category=Revolver

http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-Tracker44.htm

[Turbo Teg]

16. It's not compact.

It has a 4 inch barrel and wieghts 34 oz.

[spin]

17. Depends on who defines compact ...

From: http://www.gunblast.com/Taurus-Tracker44.htm

"The overall length is just under nine inches and the cylinder diameter measures 1.554 inches, making for a compact trail gun that can do double duty as a concealed carry weapon in a good holster."
*******
Smith and Wesson makes a much lighter .44 mag...the 329PD which weighs in at 26 ounces but is on a larger frame and holds 6 rounds: (Must have a really nasty recoil.

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/smithandwesson/smithandwesson329PD.asp

I guess for what you might define as compact, the American Derringer Co made a .44 mag derringer for a while (the model 4). They stopped production of this weapon in 2003. I wonder why? Must have felt like a hand grenade exploding in you hand when you fired it!

http://books.google.com/books?id=dtXAksiLURkC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=Derringer++44+mag&source=web&ots=wu_M-_in_K&sig=jfax0uMSFRoNOUIeAjyMwV1hF0g&hl=en

[bossy22]

18. i would

not want to shoot one of those


eek

[Turbo Teg]

19. That's true

I guess the tracker could be a carry gun for Shaq. LOL. I had this dude who was probably 6'8 6'9 buy a desert eagle from me. He said he was gonna carry it from time to time. That was probably the only person I've ever personaly seen that may be able to pull it off!

[spin]

20. My compact gun is a S&W 642...

a 5 shot .38 +P snub nosed revolver which I carry in my pants pocket. It weighs only 15 ounces. http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m642.htm

A few weeks ago, a friend and I went shooting, he brought his Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 mag revolver which weighs 48 ounces. http://www.chuckhawks.com/ruger_super_blackhawk_revolvers.htm

We shot and traded guns and shot again. At the end we both agreed that the felt recoil of the two weapons was similar.

Compact light weight guns are easy to carry, but it helps to be a masochist if you plan to shoot them a lot.

[Turbo Teg]

22. yeah,

of my carry guns is a .40 glock 27, and it's relively easy to carry, but there's a good amount of torque on my wrist when I shoot it, a little more than the 642, although I've never shot one with +P ammo. Strangely enough though, I'm pretty accurate with it. I like it a lot.The wieght of the heavy gun will cut down the recoil pretty good. I love firing the 686 loaded with full house .357 magnums. It's really not to bad, and a good boom!

[spin]

28. My favorite target revolver is a six inch S&W 686...

very accurate and a lot of fun to shoot.

I bought the 686PP version which is power ported and definitely helps to reduce muzzle flip with .357 mag loads. I've run thousands and thousands of rounds through it. Possibly the best gun I've ever owned. The Black Patridge front sight works better for me than the red ramp sight.

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/smithandwesson/smithandwesson686PP.asp

[maxidivine]

72. I love my 6" 586!

What a fun gun to shoot!

My fiance drew a face on a box (said it was me) and was shooting at it this weekend, she missed every time though, I really need to get us into that safety and use class.

[L1A1Rocker]

26. My compact is

a Colt Officers .45 ACP. I carry it daily.

[iverglas]

79. and we are offered another chance

to remember the departed.



Sniff. That was one of my faves, was L1A1Rocker.

[dmallind]

35. try the .357 version - I'm a 280lb gorilla and it was too much for me. NT

;lk

[spin]

41. I avoided the super light .357 but I did buy

a S&W model 60 with a three inch barrel. With this weapon I can shoot accurately at a longer range than the airweight 642. Rapid fire with .357 rounds is manageable. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/Model_60-15.htm

While not as easy to carry as the Model 642 (which I carry in my pants pocket), it's not all that uncomfortable in a belt holster and it's still easy to conceal.

[maxidivine]

73. my compact

Is a Glock 27, and I love it.

It is small, a little chunky feeling but not bad, and I kind of like that. The finish seems incredibly durable, it is more reliable than I deserve it to be, and I found out this weekend I am actually quite a good shot with it!
My stance and grip was all wrong before, but I have corrected it and I was popping off soda bottles from 25 yards quite often.

And it is pretty powerful too, for a concealment-sized gun, definitely gives enough horsepower.

[old mark]

71. The Charter Arms Bulldog...

...is a 5 shot revolver chambered in .44 Special. It is relatively inexpensive, but not a terribly good gun-they have very poor quality control- depending on when you bought yours it may be good or not.
Charter has gone bankrupt twice and is now in its third incarnation-quality is said to have improved.

They are pretty lightweight guns, and I found them not much fun to shootdue to uncomfortable recoil with heavy bullet loads.

mark

[SteveM]

37. Hmm. Full-auto guns are already legal to possess under Fed. law.

Doesn't the NRA already support the regulation of full-auto weapons? I have no idea what the GOP wants, but you seem to have considerable knowledge of them -- what do you think?

The "ease" of obtaining a .44 has already been well-established in most states. It's D.C., Chicago, S.F., etc., which may be affected by any SCUSA decision.

[jody]

2. IMO the #1 priority is making certain law-abiding citizens maintain their inalienable right to keep

and bear handguns for self-defense.

Given the continued funding of gun-ban efforts by deep-pocket entities such as the Joyce Foundation, I believe we pro-RKBA types will probably have to fight for ever.

[Turbo Teg]

6. That may be true..

But I think people are becoming more pro gun these days. We now have more states then ever with concealed carry, which I believe will only further the Pro-gun cause. I think in the next generation or so, anti-gunners will be a lot fewer and far between, and I think that the pockets may not be so deep. I think people are getting over thier fears of the "unknown". Look at now a days, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. 15-20 years ago, hardly anyone wanted one, or owned one. I sell about 10 a week, just myself in a store with at least 6 guys working the counter at any give time. I haven't sold a bolt action rifle in about 3 weeks. Of the long guns I sell, I sell 3 the most. AR-15 variants, Ak-47 varients, and some kind of home defense shotgun, usually an 870 or a 500. All together my shop sells between 350-400 guns a week. What I've also noticed is that it's not really hard nosed gun people buying stuff either. Yesterday I sold a new Smith and Wesson M&P to an old lady for concealed carry, I sold a little NAA mini to another middle aged lady yesterday (who strangly enough, her and everybody who was with her was covered in Obama buttons which I thought was funny). I also see a lot more younger people buying guns. I sold an AK-47 to this kid about a week ago on his 18th birthday. As I said, hopefully the next generation will be better.

[jody]

8. Have you been an FFL dealer or salesperson for over a decade? Have things changed? n/t

[Turbo Teg]

9. Not for a decade

But almost half of one. In the time I've been working there, I've seen more women, younger and older people people coming to buy guns. It's still mainly males between the late 20s to mid 40s or so though. I think our newer CCW law has been one of the reasons for this. I think this has put the thought of "refuse to be a statistic" in peoples heads, even if they don't carry a gun.

[gorfle]

4. I doubt it.

I doubt we will ever see machine guns commonly available in civilian hands again.

I for one don't mind so much. I don't believe that fully automatic fire will be a necessary benefit for any insurgency. Fully automatic weapons are primarily suppression weapons and insurgents generally do not attempt to suppress technologically superior forces. All such attempts would to is bring the attention of armor and/or air support to deal with you.

Effective insurgency will require hit-and-run tactics. These tactics will probably result in the "acquisition" of military grade small arms along the way.

Personally, I could never see being able to afford to operate a machine gun even if they were cheaply available. AK-47 ammo is currently running about $.20 per bullet. A 30-round magazine thus contains $6 worth of ammo. The AK-47 is capable of firing 600 rounds per minute. This means in theory you can discharge a 30-round magazine in about three seconds. That's not much fun at the shooting range for my money.

[Turbo Teg]

7. True.

But having the select fire feature would still be nice to have. I would probably never use it, or if I did it wouldn't be everytime, but I like knowing it's there. I'd have something to take to Knob Creek with me. I'd get an MP5sd since ammo for a 9mm is still relitively cheap.

[Irreverend IX]

31. SMGs would be the most practical full-autos for civil defense.

MP5s would be quite an asset in close quarters, but the most valuable insurgent weapons would be scoped rifles in .308 or the heavier precision rounds. The main annoying things about the '86 ban are the insane prices and the fact that because of the '86 ban, certain cool items like the FN P90, the .22 LR minigun and the desktop belt-fed .17 HM2 machinegun can never be owned by civilians.

[gorfle]

39. I would not choose a full-auto for civil defense.

I would not recommend nor consider a fully automatic weapon for civil defense. Machine guns are inherently inaccurate and the risk of overpenetration through walls, etc., is great.

I believe a short-barreled pump shotgun is still the best civilian defense weapon for close quarters combat.

Don't get me wrong, I think machine guns are cool and I would love to fire one some day. I just can't see any Constitutional need to bear them and I believe the opportunities for mayhem with such a weapon are so great that it is an unnecessary risk. Granted, I think someone who knows what they are doing can kill a lot more people with 30 rounds in a pistol than they will be able to with 30 rounds in a machine gun, but all it would take is 1 machine-gun mass killing and it would set back the entire pro-RKBA movement forever.

[duncel]

58. If you don't think it's fun, then you've obviously never done it ...

No disrespect intended, everyone's got their likes and dislikes. But I've been owning and shooting MG's for nearly 2 decades, and if you don't think it's much fun you're absolutely mistaken. In fact, after nearly 20 years I've never met anyone who, after firing an MG for the 1st time, didn't think it was the cat's meow.

Costly to own and operate these days, yes ... the price of lawfully possessable MGs and, more recently, the cost of commercially available ammunition, has greatly increased. But it's still a LOT of fun.

FWIW ...

[BadgerLaw2010]

10. Four words: Tax, Interstate Commerce, No.

[L1A1Rocker]

27. Won't apply IF

the 2A is found to be and individual right and it is incorporated under the 14th amendment. That will trump the interstate clause as these rights are protections against government.

[BadgerLaw2010]

42. Not happening. No rights granted by the rest of the Bill of Rights are construed as absolute.

The closest that one comes is the Sixth Amendment trial rights, and those are still theoretically up for "compelling interest" exceptions.

If you think anything SCOTUS does is going to grant an unrestricted 2nd Amendment *and* place it outside the taxation and commerce powers, you are smoking dope.

The only Supreme Court holding that comes even close to the combination that people seem to be expecting out of this case was Brown v. Board of Education and Brown is pretty exceptional due to what it was dealing with.

[L1A1Rocker]

43. We disagree on most but probably agree on some.

The decision in Parker did hold that some reasonable controls are allowable. Specifically they said that registration would be permissible as this would facilitate calling up the unorganized militia. The govt has a compelling interest as to who has what and ware so as to bring proper assets to bear at the proper location.

Now, IF the 2A is upheld as an individual right and IF it is incorporated under the 14A then there is a new bar to get over for restricting the right. The term is called "strict scrutiny". This hurdle that must be leaped over is how we get flag burning ruled as free speech. Abortion is protected as right to privacy, etc, etc.

Now applying strict scrutiny to gun controls means there must be a legitimate reason proven in order to have that control. Examples, armor piercing handgun ammunition. These were baned as "cop killers" though no cop has ever been killed by one. .50 caliber rifles that terrorist can use to shoot down planes. Never has happened and never will. It is a fallacy straight out of fiction novels. I really do not see ANY gun / ammo ban EVER passing strict scrutiny.

The NFA system for Title II weapons will mostly stay intact. The 86 ban could go away depending on the final ruling by SCOTUS. IF the 86 ban goes away then the $200.00 NFA tax will have to go away. I do not see HOW the 86 ban could be overturned and still have that tax remain on the right.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

11. Not in California

Our stupid Republicant governor wants little laser thingies to mark bullet casings so they can be traced back to the gun. Lotta good that will do. Anyone with half a brain who wants to commit murder with malice and aforethought will simply police the brass or use a revolver or even worse, scatter some brass picked up at a range.

Much as I would like an AR, I don't think I can buy one in California and like another poster said, who could afford to shoot fully auto? Hell, I can barely afford to take my 1911 out more than about once a month.

[ac2007]

21. ARs are legal in CA

Search for "California legal AR-15". There are several manufacturers. The downside is for them to be legal in CA, they have to have fixed magazines. It can be done.

[Turbo Teg]

23. But who wants an AR with a fixed magazine?

It's not an AR at that point. It's some kind of abomination. With all the gun laws and restrictions out there, how is the crime? It must be way low. I would think that the cops wouldn't really need anything more than a revolver out there, which would be good because then the police wouldn't need so much money to buy guns. I think it's kinda funny that even the police can't get Barret .50 BMGs out there.

[ac2007]

24. State earned what they got.

When California banned the .50s, Ronnie Barrett told the State he would not sell or service any of his rifles to any CA government agency. The one he had in hand for repair was sent back untouched with a note stating if they state was going to deny civilians their rights, he would not sell/service his products to the very agencies that would deny and prosecute them for such.

I respect Barrett greatly for that. He has publicly stated that any other state who follows CA lead with .50s will receive identical treatment. I'm hoping handgun companies will do the same with their idiotic microstamping law (assuming it is ever implemented which is unlikely).

[krispos42]

29. STI International has also stopped selling guns to California.

Cessation of California Firearm Sales


As a company, STI adhered to California’s drop test certification and DOJ listing process in 1998 for the people in competition shooting and for those who desired self-protection DESPITE the financial strain placed on a small company such as ours. Listing our two most popular firearm models was not an inexpensive undertaking. We even redesigned our compensator systems to adhere to the CA “no threaded barrel” law. Then CA’s onerous liability laws were enacted and we chose at that time not to renew certification nor to sell to LEO and governmental agencies in CA, regardless of their exempt status, because there was no exemption from liability or legal fees which could bankrupt this company. When federal law overrode CA’s liability laws, we resumed LE sales because we felt our product could be used to LE’s advantage. With the micro stamping bill, we as a company have decided enough is enough. While our sales to Law Enforcement agencies are not huge, all revenue sources are important to a company of our size and it hurts us to turn our backs on those revenues.

<more>

http://www.stiguns.com/CA-PressRelease.pdf

If we could get Beretta, Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Ruger to pull out of California... oh, man, the cops and gun owners would be in an uproar!

[Turbo Teg]

33. Yeah, that would be funny

I heard something about gun companies (except maybe colt) not selling any LEA agency AR-15 rifles or high capacity magazines if the 1994 ban was reinstated. Don't know how true it was but I thought it was a good idea, and funny too. If we as citizens don't can't have it, then the police don't need it.

[iverglas]

81. and so did you!

But maybe it just came easy like.

[X_Digger]

76. google 'bullet button'

It's not been tested legally yet, but the 'bullet button' makes an AR-15 magazine removable with a tool (which seems to meet the legal requirement). Just so happens that the tool happens to be the tip of a round.

[L1A1Rocker]

25. The summary of the Parker decision reads

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Now in MY OPINION that summary itself is enough to overturn the 86 ban. Considering the amicus filed by the Justice department, they do also. The relative part to machine guns is "The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty." That to me says that every able bodied male must keep an M-4, and a Beretta with a complete combat load out ready to go.

If SCOTUS upholds that summary or something similar the 86 ban can be challenged and most definitely overturned.

Can you tax a right? NO. You cannot tax a person's right to vote. That has already been litigated and resolved. The stamp tax will have to go away IF the 86 ban goes away. Other than that I think the NFA system will remain largely intact.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

30. We can only hope. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

32. Personally, I don't want a machine-gun

I have a single-stage reloading press, so the idea of feeding a machine-gun is sort of pointless.

Suppressors may be a good idea, though. I never understood the rationale for banning them. It's like banning mufflers on cars.

[SteveM]

38. Hunters in some European countries are required to have suppressors...

...so other species of animals are not unduly upset by a hunter's shot at a game animal.

[johnbraun]

34. Machineguns are already legal. I do think that a positive ruling will put 922(o) in danger.

[dmallind]

36. Whoops - my bad read - thought said illegal. NT

[Boomer 50]

40. Depends

If SCOTUS upholds the lower court ruling without pussing out and weakening it, yep, we'll kill the MG ban.

If SCOTUS incorporates the 2nd under the 14th, then definitely the MG ban will die, we have plans in place to make sure that the bans are eliminated much to the despair of Bush and company.

[Dukkha]

44. I'd be content with a suppressor and SBR

but the local CLEO won't sign off on them :mad: I tried to go full auto a few years back had a deposit on an UZI SMG but again county CLEOs would not sign off on the form 4. Now all machine guns are so expensive it's just a pipe dream to ever get one.

[Turbo Teg]

49. If you start your own LLC buisness,

You can bypass the chief LEO signature, that way, they won't be able to stop you from owning any NFA weapons. It's kinda like a loophole, the only problem is that if you disolve your buisness, you have to get rid of the weapon. If your starting the buisness for the sole purpose of owning NFA weapons, then you shouldn't have a problem. The cool part is, any of your executives can have the weapon.

[bossy22]

51. can you do this

in states that ban NFA weapons to civilians all-togehter?

[sergeiAK]

52. No -nt

[bossy22]

53. sh*t

[Tejas]

61. double tap, er, double check your laws and

make sure on NFA status in your state.

To bypass signoffs, a Revokable Trust is the way to go.

[Traction311]

45. I doubt it

But a better question would be, would other cities with tough handgun bans be forced to ease them? For example, would it be easier to obtain a handgun in NYC? What about carry permits, which are almost impossibe here?

[iverglas]

80. tsk

Perhaps if s/he had had more faith ...

[Boomer 50]

46. 922 (o) or the Hughes Amendment and why it really exists

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.

[L1A1Rocker]

47. This is the first I've herd of this.

And it is totally unacceptable! The 86 ban allowed for amnesty periods to be given from time to time yet there has never been one sense the 86 amnesty.

Are there any sources for what you were saying? I'd love to be able to get the evidence to start a little e-mail campaign.

But you know, come to think of it, me and some buds were discussing several years ago how there were machine guns at Knob Creek that were produced after 86. We just chalked it up to dealer samples on a letter.

[bossy22]

48. ATF

is hopelessly lost when it comes to their registry- infact i think they are hopelessly lost on many other things. When i applied for my C&R the ATF official that stopped by my house didnt even know the difference between the class 1 and class 3 licenses- he kept telling me i needed store hours. she eventually called back and apologized for the mix-up but it doesnt say much when your own officials dont know how to do their job.

[Turbo Teg]

50. There have been many people

That would be in jail right now for owning Legally possesed Class 3 weapons that the ATF lost registration papers for. The only reason that they didn't go to jail is because they could produce the paperwork and TAX stamp, and the ATF had to let them go. It's at least time for another amnesty period.

[Boomer 50]

56. I agree, it's totally unacceptable but it's happening

There is some documentation out there but most of it hasn't been published. I don't know who it is, but someone out there has gotten their hands on a bunch of the form 1 registrations. My understanding is that they intend to drop this bomb sometime before the election this year unless BATFE cleans up it's act and does at a minimum a broad amnesty and stops maliciously prosecuting people. I've been helping where I can but it's not as much or as effective as I would have liked.

If you want to do something about it, my advise is to contact your Senators and Representatives and demand answers. Demand an amnesty and demand hearings on the conduct of the BATFE and why post 86 transferable registrations are happening at all.

Be prepared though, when I contacted several elected officials, I was ridiculed, threatened and two of them even tried to bribe me. Of course, they probably assumed that they were safe doing that, not that I'd record my conversations or anything like that. To say that the response was poisonous is quite the understatement. These people want to protect this little gravy train and they guard it jealously.

[duncel]

57. As a slight correction, the 1986 ban did not allow for 'amnesty' ...

No disrespect intended, but the 1986 MG ban codified as 18 USC 922(o) does not includes a provision for 'amnesty'. The amnesty provision to which you refer was in the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA '68), and allows for an unlimited number of amnesties of up to 30 days (90 days?, I forget) each, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. Since BATFE was transferred to the Dept of Justice in 2004, the 'amnesty' power now falls under the Office of the Attorney General.

Immediatley following the passage of GCA '68, a single 'amnesty' period of 30 days was declared to allow owners of unregistered NFA (National Firearms Act) firearms (MG's, etc) to register them without fear of prosecution, but there was no amnesty in 1986. One assumes you merely transposed the digits (68 vs 86), but it is important to keep these things as clear as possible.

Re: Knob Creek, it is entirely likely that you saw "post-86" MG's. Post-86 MGs may be lawfully possessed not only by government agencies, but also by Federally licensed firearms dealers and/or manufacturers (FFL's) who pay the annual Special Occupational Tax (SOT) which allows them to do business in NFA firearms.

HTH,

Howard

[a_bcr]

59. Some questions

Mr. Boomer,

This is my first post here. Your posts were referenced in another forum, which is how I found this site.

I am a long-time gun owner, a hunter, and an NRA life member. I have bought and sold several machine guns over the years, so I am very familiar with the BATFE Form 4 process. I also read your remarks to my gun dealer who handles my transfers, and asked for his thoughts since he’s more familiar with these laws than I am. Based on our long discussion, I have the following questions:

- There is your assertion that around 55,000 transferrable machine guns have been added to the registry since 1986. That’s an average of 2500 per year, 50 per week (after removing two weeks for federal holidays), or ten per work day. Are you seriously claiming that, on average, ten transferrable machine guns are being added to the registry every work day, and have been for the last 22 years, in violation of 922(o)?

- Using the Colt M16A2 you referenced as an example, it should have been on a Form 1 when it was manufactured. I, as a member of the public, not law-enforcement, and not military, can not just call up Colt, pay for the rifle, and have it shipped to my dealer on a Form 3. At best they would laugh at me; at worst they would call BATFE, give them my name and phone number, and tell them what I was attempting since it is illegal.

So, what is the source of these guns? Are the manufacturers in collusion, as in, if we supply these guns we will get preferential treatment on law-enforcement and/or military contracts? Are the manufacturers victims, where they are being threatened with raids (Cavalry Arms comes to mind), loss of revenue, and potentially bankruptcy, if they don’t play ball?

Are the guns stolen? If the list of machine guns listed as lost or stolen from law enforcement or the military in the last 22 years were cross-referenced against the ones in the NFRTR, would there be any hits?

- If my dealer were to receive such a shipment he would smell a rat very quickly, and probably call BATFE himself. Dealers these days are quite paranoid about stings, especially after Bloomberg’s antics.

Hypothetically, even if I were to get the gun from the manufacturer to the dealer, and the Form 4’s are sent to ATF, the ATF should refuse to process the transfer. There are also a lot of examiners, and each are assigned a group of dealers. For this hypothetical transfer not to get rejected, every examiner during the last 22 years would have to know about this scheme. How is this process being bypassed?

- If what you are claiming is true, what do you expect will happen to the people who currently own those 55,000 “contraband” machine guns? I doubt they’ll be looking at prosections and jail time since the ATF approved the transfers, but will they have to surrender those firearms? Some are worth some serious coin. Can you say massive federal class-action lawsuit?

- There is a saying: three can keep a secret if two are dead. If the scenario you are describing is true, a whole lot more than three people know about it. You’re stating a massive, secret conspiracy between elected officials, campaign donors, firearm manufacturers and dealers, and BATF officials has existed for over two decades, and no one has blown the whistle until now. Laws broken include not just 922(o), but election laws, conspiracy, tax laws... Why haven’t you or the person you said has all this documentation gone to the media?!?!?!

- Finally, if you have people on tape threatening you to stay silent, why not go to the authorities? As someone with a CHL if someone threatens me I’m going to report it to cover my rear in case I need to use lethal force to defend myself later.

Patiently awaiting your answers,
a

[Tejas]

62. Nobody said

all of those 55k are still in-country, much less ever crossed an examiner's desk.



;)

[Hoopla Phil]

74. Was doing a search off of a NFA web site and this thread came up.

Is there anymore word on this particular information from "Boomer"?

[iverglas]

78. sadly

Boomer is no longer with us.



Perhaps it was one of those tragic kayaking accidents.

[Hoopla Phil]

84. Anyone else have any information on this?

[albert johnson]

54. hopefully

[Mustbeme]

55. Yes

Yes

[derby378]

60. The 1986 ban may be in danger, but...

...I think Obama and Clinton would both do everything in their power to block repeal of that ban, even if SCOTUS rules in Heller's favor.

I have mixed feelings about the NFA, though. I'm inclined to keep it, even though it's a major hassle. My reasons have a lot to do with labor rights.

[Traction311]

69. How would they stop a SC ruling?

To defy the SC would be impeachable I'd imagine.

[RSstoppingby]

63. Keep some, dump others

Keep the NFA but dump the '89 and '86 bans

[Tejas]

64. Why?

Why keep the NFA?

Does it keep criminals from possessing F/A weapons?

It's a TAX provision, what actual criminal activity does it fight?

Families in Iraq are allowed to possess F/A weapons, why not law-abiding US citizens? Iraqis sure aren't paying the US Treasury $200 for the priviledge of owning a fully automatic weapon either, much less having to jump through the hoops that US citizens have to.

[bossy22]

65. i say scrap the NFA

but institute a strict licensing system in its place- without the tax- im sorry, i see problems with almost unfettered Machine gun ownership- a license procedure that strictly scrutinizes your background to see if you have any history of any distabilizing behavior, or any criminal actions would do fine for me.

[Turbo Teg]

66. really, I think that the standard NICS is fine.

I mean how much more damage is a full auto going to do than a semi-auto in the long run. Dumping the mags on each of them is going to result in very inaccurate fire for the most part. Also, look how many crimes are commited with assualt style weapons anyway, very few. I wouldn't really understand the need for more checks. Kinda like you can have this leathal weapon, but not this one. At any rate, I would be happy if it was like getting a CCW. You pass this little check and they give you a card that allows you to buy NFA weapons. Comprimise I guess.

[iverglas]

82. stopped by,

stomped out.

[old mark]

67. No.

I really doubt we will get anything back-politicians are too lazy to give up such a ready source of easy publicity/votes as gun control.
It is on par with anti-choice as the sleazey pol's mantra.

Remember when George B the First was president and made a speech in which he stated he was opposed to burning the American flag?
( Thank God-we can all sleep better now!)
BS marches on....

Have a great day.
mark

[limit18]

68. No

[Politically Homeless]

70. Doesn't really matter to me...

Do you think we'll get Machine guns back?

Doesn't really matter to me. Full auto is pretty overrated. It's almost impossible to hit anything on full auto because of barrel climb. Just look at the North Hollywood shootout back in '97. They sprayed hundreds of rounds and didn't manage to kill a single person.

The reason most military rifles are select fire is to provide what's called "suppression fire." The purpose of suppression fire is not to hit anything, but rather to pin the enemy down for a few seconds and render him incapable of returning fire so that your guys can get up and move around and do whatever they need to do.

[iverglas]

83. but you've got a home

with Jesus!

[jeepnstein]

75. Not going to happen.

Even though NFA weapons are some of the least prone to be used in a crime don't look for it to be repealed any time soon. I, personally, would like to the see '86 ban on new production tossed out. All it does is make NFA the realm of the very wealthy. I think as long as the tax is not prohibitive and the paperwork isn't denied arbitrarily the NFA will be here to stay.

[yodoobo]

77. Neither party is interested in reversing the ban

I think its more likely that assault weapons will join machine guns on the NFA registry.

[Furyataurus]

85. IMO.............

its the Miller decision of 1939 that would repeal the 86 and 89 bans. Since the military uses automatic/select fire weapons then it stands that they should also be available to civilians as well. I'm talking about new machine guns, the same ones the police and military get to use.

[Taitertots]

86. Just remember

When they register our other guns they are going to do the exact same thing.

[Longteeth]

87. Good point!

[Longteeth]

88. I hope so but I doubt it.

With the prices going up like they are I'll not be buying any it doesn't look like.