Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/2/2003 11:46:40 AM EDT
Our nation's primary gun law is the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed in the wake of the murders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert Kennedy. Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns (effectively freezing the number of them in circulation):

This provision was adamantly opposed by the NRA. In fact, some of its most radical members did not want the McClure/Volkmer bill to pass if it contained this provision.
Immediately following the enactment of this law, the NRA announced that "its highest priority" in the next Congress would be to repeal the ban on machine guns. To date they have not introduced legislation to do this.

This is what we need to have changed!
I want the ability to get a new machine gun. Why not? I can get an old used one now, why not a new one. The NRA and we the people need to change the law!

Your thoughts and rants wanted.

Link Posted: 7/2/2003 11:51:50 AM EDT
Try to get your facts straight. The '68GCA did NOT ban the sale and manufacture of the Machine Guns - it banned importation of many foreign weapons (MG were included) It was the 1986 McClure/Volkmer bill which the BATF is using to prohibit the sale of new Machinguns to citizens. The purpose is to eventually have no machineguns in circulation. Eventually they will either cost too much or be too worn to shoot. It was a backhanded (and long term approach) to permanently baning an entire type of firearm. This is exactly how CA banned 'AW's.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 12:07:18 PM EDT
Forrest, I believe it says McClure/Volkmer bill in my post. I am not trying to nit pick, I just think law abiding U.S. citizens should have the ability to get new weapons, not just re-circulate the old ones. As long as we ALL want the AWB to sunset, why not get this bill repealed too?
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 12:34:58 PM EDT
The short answer: only the very narrow fringe of the 90 million US gun owners care about MGs. The VAST majority of the US population do not know MGs are legal (in 33 states) at all, and if they found out there was a group trying to get NEW ones made available to citizens... well you'd have better luck promoting pedophile priests as daycare owners and Boy Scout troop leaders! JMHO -TriggerFish (don't think I wouldn't love to get some NEW MGs at a more reasonable $$)
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 12:47:05 PM EDT
Iraqis can have them for now. I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before our Gov't sez "Just call the police if you have a problem". It works in America see we have the lowest murder and theft rate in the world! Oh wait American police don't fix all our crime problems, oh well I'm sure noone will be in a big hurry to tell Iraqis that. Glockdog Any one ever seen a green Glock? Airborne!!
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 12:58:21 PM EDT
If the US Supreme Ct strikes down the CA ban (Silveira case) the MG statutes would be a fine next target. We all know that there can be reasonable restictions on gun ownership, but a ban, whether direct or indirect, should be tested.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:06:16 PM EDT
Bangz, Can you expand on this Silveira case? I have been away from home (CA) for a long time. Calvin
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:18:28 PM EDT
See, I guess today blew me away, because I'm watching Fox News, and the big debate is over teachers carrying guns in the classroom. I see a shift from the "ICK" Feinstein "Gag" way of thinking, to a more "Homeland Defense" way of thinking. It's like this: take 30 of us off this site, and put us in a community together. Noone is going to prey on the other because we all know the other has means to protect themselves with guns. Why should we stop at machineguns like a brick wall. (Well I know why stop there and everyone have a personal nuke.)But the point is, how many machine guns have been used in an act of crime by a private citizen, that came about the gun legally? I read somewhere it was none. So if you have no reason for a law get rid of it. The owner of a pre-1986 MG can't have one made after 1986? Why? Difference in gun? Might make the person go out a shoot up the world? Blah Blah Blah. Point made. Damn this soapbox is geting high. Time to get down.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 1:22:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Spooge5150: Forrest, I believe it says McClure/Volkmer bill in my post.
View Quote
You indicated both M/V & the '68 GCA. I was trying to clarify which does what.
I just think law abiding U.S. citizens should have the ability to get new weapons, not just re-circulate the old ones.
View Quote
I agree with you there!
As long as we ALL want the AWB to sunset, why not get this bill repealed too?
View Quote
AW will sunset because the law was written to sunset - its much easier to prevent a reauthorization than it is to pass an entirely new law to repeal an old one. That's political fact. Untill you get a much stronger pro-gun congress there is no chance of such a bill making it through both houses. I doubt you could even get an admendment through which would fix the problem.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 2:17:22 PM EDT
After the first time I had shot a machine gun, I thought it was awesome, but I could not believe that I cant walk into a store and buy one. My ex-girlfriend shot an MP5 the same day and wanted one in a bad way. It took all afternoon to explain why we could not own one in the state of michigan with out certian lisenses. I have been thinking of starting up my own web site, Michiganders for a Machine gun State. When my class schedule is not so hectic I will give it a go, as to stir up as much trouble as possible.
Link Posted: 7/2/2003 2:42:22 PM EDT
There are a several problems/hurdles re: MG legalization. for one, the SC tends to respect standing law. That is, the longer a law has remained on the books, the harder it is to repeal it. Consider slavery, which was grossly unconstitutional, yet it remained for years. Even afterwards, "separate but equal" was a common theme right up to 60's. It took [u]generations[/u] to change the law in this regard. For another, political & legal culture dictates the terms by which we live. The 2nd may allow MG ownership, but legal & political culture dictate otherwise. The SC is definitely not immune to politics. My wife has opined that, absent the NRA's (& GOA's?) political clout, the SC would not stand in the way of a firearms ban being passed in this country. Sylviera v. Lockyer is a purely civil gun-rights case case w/ no "escape-hatch" side issues for the court to run off on; very much a quintessential 2nd Amend. case. If it gets appealed to the SC & is turned away, you can be guaranteed where the 2nd will be headed. Everytime the SC dumps a potential 2nd Amend. case, it only serves to embolden the legislature. ********** Actually, FA ownership isn't surprising for a country like Iraq. The former regime wasn't threatened by private FA ownership because both it & its citizens knew that it had the uppe hand. Citizens w/ MG's are no match for an army of tanks, planes, helibirds, & armed troops. It's no contest. There, as here, the the military is vastly more powerful than Joe & his comparitively paltry MG collection. The former regime had a different "control issues" from the regime here. Your dream is appealing, but it ain't gonna happen. There just aren't enough out there who want it to happen, or else it would. We may live in a republic, but the sad truth is that the loudest still get fed first.
Top Top