Greetings,

Intentionally putting this post in the technical forums as I'm mainly interested in physically preparing for
likely restrictive legislation some point after the election, not in arguing over political parties, polls, candidates, or campaign
platforms.  Just think of this as my small effort to protect the value of $$$'s I've placed in transferrable machine
guns (and of course it assumes there's no significant change to the way NFA items are treated... for now).

So that said, a few specific to start off the discussion... possible things to stock up on...

Anything else that I'm missing?  Stuff like springs & barrels seem like they would be hard to ban (although, barrels are already banned from
import, so it may be possible).

I'd be especially interested in hearing from those who were into NFA during the 1st AWB ('94 - '04)-- how did
it affect what you could do?  (with the realization that even back then, all transferrables were of course 'pre ban')

Not saying I think any of this should happen, but I do think it's time to be preparing for every outcome....

Thanks,
SD

I would also get some spare parts such as extra sears if you have a RR M16. Have enough spare parts to keep it going to a LONG time. Also ammo is another thing you can never have too much of.

If we are talking hypothetical scenarios than all of the above are good starts. Never hurts to have spare parts and barrels available.

If we are exploring theoretical rare corner case scenarios (and trying to beat a law that has not been passed yet) it may be advantageous to  have at least one type of easily loadable (while installed) high cap magazine that could be pinned into the machineguns if high capacity magazine are banned (i.e. turn them in or permanently block them to 10 rounds

Some guns like  M16s this is easy since you can hinge the gun open and load from the top with the upper removed and just about any mag could be pinned in.  However it may still be nice to be able to pin in a high quality drum.

Other guns like the MP5 are going to require some type of front/rear loading drum arrangement as there is no other way to load them.   As example, MP5 owners could consider picking up a C&S metal werks - suomi style drum for  your transferable MP5 that could be pinned in vs. being stuck with 10rd only mags.

If both detachable high cap mags over 10rds are banned as well as fixed mags over 10rd on semi autos are also banned, you might sneak by both restrictions as machineguns may be absent for legislative verbiage for fixed magazine capacity restrictions.  If this happens I suspect there will be a cottage industry of innovation on how to convert machineguns to be easily loadable using a fixed mag arrangement.

The other obvious choice would be to purchase magazines for guns you don’t own but may want to own in the future.  

Its possible that the existing mags are grandfathered to their current owners but future transfer is illegal.  So you could buy a new machinegun but couldn’t legally get a proper mag for it.   There may be guns out there like AM180s that could drop in value since virtually nobody owns an AM180 drum unless they already own an AM180 and I doubt many folks are going to pay $10K for a AM180 with a 10rd drum.  Basically the only market for machineguns like those would be SOTs who could still take transfer of the specialized mags or drums, so transferables could become somewhat like pre-samples today from a available sales market perspective.

The old law had a mountain of what could be considered “loopholes” in it.  You could still buy and transfer pre-94 magazines as well as import pre-94 magazines.  There were millions of “pre-ban” mags that were imported to supply magazines for domestic guns that had pinned muzzle breaks, etc. (Many of which I suspect were really not Pre-94).  Host guns were readily available in their post ban form and could be reverted back to pre-ban config once sear was installed into the host.

Since the machinegun ban froze production in 86, there really wasn’t a machinegun out there that didn’t have readily available mags for it.  New guns like the UMP or SLC that you couldn’t get factory OEM mags for, it didn’t matter as all of those guns were post samples anyway.  From a SBR conversion perspective they were easily converted to use readily available grease gun and M16 mags.

The biggest real bonus to the prior law going away from an NFA perspective is the explosion of silencer options as before silencers were considered flash hiders and could only be installed on the limited number of preban rifles out there.

The nuclear option would be to purchase a building zoned for manufacturing and install a nice mill,lathe, etc. in it and be ready to submit for your FFL07/02 as that will most likely exempt you from any new laws passed and allow you to build whatever you needed.

Now the above is good info -- I wasn't into suppressors / silencers then, and had no idea.  And there's been
a literal "explosion" of interest in suppressors over the past few years (and I admit, it pulled me into the
NFA).  So what better way to pretty much curtail this [without messing with the NFA per se] than to just make it
such that 1st-time purchasers can't purchase can't buy new suppressor hosts?!  Perhaps bolt guns would be left
alone, but it's not much of a stretch to see ALL threaded barrels (semi-auto or no) declared, "non-sporting".


"Requiring machine gun magazines to be permanently affixed" is certainly technically possible.  I suspect then the
move would be some sort of stripper clip device... filling ideally something like a 40-rd steel magazine (in the case of
M16's, anyway).


Hadn't thought of that either, but makes sense... kind of like putting a stock on an SP-89 today, after the
sear is in place.


Yeah, we're sort of in a "golden age" for ammo purchases.  I.e., with the Internet, availability to the average
person is MUCH better than it was pre-68, and in most "free states" there are virtually no limitations on purchases.
Requiring an FFL to buy ammo (as it was under the GCA '68) is probably inevitable down the road.

Although one can "stockpile," if much of what's discussed above comes to pass, one has to assume that some
sort of "Arsenal tax" or "Arsenal registration" is likely.  I.e., "nobody needs more than 1,000 rds at any one time".
And regardless, I'm never going to be "that guy" sitting in a bunker somewhere with 1 million rds of ammo...

- - - - - -

Thanks for all the info!

Another thought is to get into reloading if you aren't already. Much cheaper to stock up on components to keep you shooting for a long time.

Certainly, and I've seen pros & cons of stockpiling components vs. finished ammo discussed for a long
time now.  Here's a reloading calculator I'll throw out as a reference--


At present, I do not reload, and with the cost of bulk "common" rounds being what it is (e.g., 9 mm,
5.56), not really worth it for me personally with how much I shoot.

From a legislative standpoint, there could be some merit depending on how any particular law
was written; e.g., if it were something like "only 1,000 rds of finished ammo at a time" then yeah,
stockpiling components would be an advantage (*I believe some foreign countries might allow this approach).

But one would have to assume that if those writing this legislation do their homework, some/all reloading
component (likely, at least primers) will be regulated just like finished ammo.  And from what I can look up
with a quick search, the GCA '68 defined "ammunition" this way--



So from my point of view this is an "it depends..." option.