If the Federal machine gun ban were struck down, who would it hurt?

[derby378]

Your humble Webmaster may be asking for it today.

But seriously, if the Federal ban on civilian ownership of full-auto firearms were to be struck down as unconstituional, why should Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign have a snit fit about it?

Here’s the deal. The US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the DC gun ban on Tuesday, March 18, and the Department of Justice has filed an amicus curiae brief (No. 07-290) in support of the DC government in the case of DC v. Heller. As a reminder, this will be the first time that the Court has issued a definitive ruling on the Second Amendment’s meaning and parameters since the US v. Miller case in 1939.

So, naturally, Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign welcomes the brief with open arms. Helmke is smart enough not to declare outright victory on the matter, but he is obviously happy that the Bush administration apparently feels, in Helmke’s words, that the Second Amendment "should not be a barrier to the adoption of sensible gun laws that help save lives."

More here:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=161038273&blogID=367389626&Mytoken=0631BA8D-CFA5-40F6-8CE06AB646998F5537794837

[bossy22]

1. nobody

if the controls on NFA Title 2 weapons stayed in place- all except the hughes amendment- nothing would happen except a decrease in the price of machien guns....which wouldnt be a bad thing but i still couldnt own one--i dont think any Chief here would be okay with it-unless it was a retired LEO...because they never commit crimes with machine gun....woops...forgot the only crime ever commited with a legally held machine gun was by a police officer....my bad

[bluerum]

2. Who would it hurt? Who do you think it would hurt?

Arms dealers and manufacturers.

Might piss off a few gun owners too. But for my part, I would sleep a little better.

[LiberalArkie]

3. I think just about everything should be banned bu 50 cal, why you ask

It would put the feel of God into all the self-righteous people running around in their armoured vehicles, like the politicians and the very wealthy.

[MaryCeleste]

7. I recall seeing where Barrett can come out with a ban buster in 416 caliber.

That will still do a number on just about anything out there.

[bossy22]

4. well tuesday will be the day

i think i will download the oral arguments on wed. when they come out.....i wonder when we will get a decision

in other words... HERE WE GO!!!!!!!

[derby378]

5. For better or for worse...

I think the final decision from SCOTUS will come sometime in June.

[bossy22]

6. i think for better

and the way the antis are freaking out also give sme hope

[-Wolverine-]

8. who would it hurt....

Well, people who dumped $20,000 would be screwed.

Because I could by my own new M-16 for $900. lol

[derby378]

9. Hey, but look at it this way...

You just paid the gun dealer a buttload of cash, so he better be nice to you when you want to test out that Class 3 at his range.

:hi:

[Boomer 50]

15. I'll lose a lot more than that

But it's a loss I'll happily accept to be rid of that vile trash of US Code.

[WWFZD]

19. Eggzackly

I really will feel sorry for the folks who spend the big cash for an MG but I just might pick up a full-auto of my own in a year or two because the ruling that's about to be handed down to us will do exactly that.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. It would hurt me

A two-second rip with the full-auto, then it's back to one-stage reloading press. A week of labor sent downrange in a few seconds. It hardly seems worth it.

:rofl:

[derby378]

14. Dang, son...

What sort of hardware are you sporting? PM me if you like.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. Nothing at this time, nothing "full auto", anyway

...but if the ban were lifted and prices fell, well, I'd be tempted.

Reloading can be a bit of work for an old fart, even for the small appetites of my semi-autos and bolt-guns. Especially the "full-length-resizing" step. A few hundred .30-'06 and I'm ready for beer-and-advil. If I had a FA gun, like a WW2-vintage BAR or a M60, I'd probably develop "reloader's elbow" or some such thing.

But mostly I was joking. Sorta. If having a machinegun is legal, cheap, etc, then feeding it certainly isn't.
:hi:

[slackmaster]

11. It would hurt wealthy collectors who paid ridiculous prices for weapons

Prices have been inflated to absurd levels since the 1986 closure of the Registry.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Like the wealthy businessman's

Personal toys...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RReAI3M1_K0

(Whom shall remain nameless)

For those of us, that preach and preach about "equity" seem to go silent when it is about something that they, themselves don't care about...

People don't realize that in order to keep THEIR civil rights, unhindered, they must even defend the ones that they themselves don't agree with.

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. Pretty much...

it would allow those kinds of weapons to be available to average people like us who have the desire to go through the background checks and pay our $200 tax on them, instead of just rich people who can afford to pay the several thousands of dollars for those currently in circuation.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

17. It would certainly hurt my bank account.

Machine guns are cheap but
Ammo is expensive.

[HALO141]

23. That's what I'm thinkin. n/t

.

[AlinPA]

18. I'm not sure what a machine is- I think about the kind the soldiers set up

in a battle and feed the strings of bullets into and sit back and fire away. Or are they the kind of rifle where you squeeze the trigger once and a lot of bullets come out?

[benEzra]

20. Under Federal law, a machinegun is any gun that fires more than once

when the trigger is pulled.

All civilian (NFA Title 1) guns must fire once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and cannot fire again until the trigger is released. They also cannot be easily convertible to machinegun status, or else they are considered a machinegun even if not actually converted.

Possession of any machinegun is a 10-year Federal felony outside of police/military/government duty, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4). All machineguns manufactured after April 1986 are restricted to government use only, no exceptions.

[AlinPA]

21. Thanks. Probably the military type I mentioned would only be collector's items.

[benEzra]

22. Quite. If you DO obtain a BATFE Form 4, you'll pay $15,000+ for an AK-47...

Thanks. Probably the military type I mentioned would only be collector's items.

Quite. Wealthy collectors' items.

If you do go through the necessary approval process and obtain a BATFE Form 4, which authorizes you to possess an automatic weapon, you'll pay $15,000+ for an AK-47 or M16 assault rifle and upwards of $75,000 for some collectible WW2 machineguns. And there are some very rare machineguns that sell in the six-figure range, so working-class collectors need not apply.

Now, non-LEO civilians can freely own NON-automatic guns that look like AK's and whatnot (I own a civilian AK lookalike, for example, and the AR-15 is the most popular centerfire target rifle in America), but I'd say those are popular as target rifles and defensive carbines rather than as collectibles, since they're not the real thing.

[L1A1Rocker]

27. Are you forgetting the shoestring that ATF ruled as a machine gun?

[Turbo Teg]

24. It would hurt the pocket book

of all the people that paid multiple thousands of dollars on the machine guns during the ban. Although I've heard many of them would take the hit to have the right back. It would really be any different than it is now. Even if the prices decreased to reasonable levels, they would still be relitivley expensive.

[L1A1Rocker]

25. Can you say. . . .

Form 1?! Boy I'd be locked in the workshop for weeks if that ever happened!

[Turbo Teg]

26. Yeah, I'd be the mad proffesor.

[smb]

28. Well, It'd Hurt Collectors

Making things more available (unless there's a network effect involved, which isn't the case here) tends to make them go down in value.