Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/31/2006 5:32:53 AM EST
Due to the "apparent defeat of the amendment by voice vote" - is there a way to confirm the actual votes, and if the numbers, despite Rangel's statement that "it passed" (the Hughes Amendment) - repeal the law?


The Hughes Amendment

In 1986, to reaffirm Congress`s intent in passing the GCA and prevent improper law enforcement by BATF, Congress approved the Firearms Owners` Protection Act (FOPA).7 Near the end of debate on the measure, late at night with most members of the House of Representatives absent, Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) introduced an amendment related to fully-automatic firearms. Despite an apparent defeat of the amendment by voice vote, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding over the proceedings, declared the amendment approved. Hughes and Rangel were longtime "gun control" supporters.

BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986. The effect of the interpretation has been to "freeze" the number of privately owned fully-automatic firearms at roughly 150,000, an exact figure being unavailable due to privacy protection requirements that apply to tax-based laws such as the National Firearms Act. The crime-fighting utility of the 1986 "freeze" was questionable, since no legal, civilian-owned fully-automatic firearm had been used to commit a violent crime. BATF`s director at the time, Stephen Higgins, had testified before Congress in 1986 that the misuse of legally-owned fully-automatic firearms was "so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem." Farmer v. Higgins

After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF. Farmer contended that BATF`s interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF. Farmer also questioned whether Congress had the power, under the Constitution, to ban the mere possession of a type of firearm and whether the exercise of any such power would violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer`s favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF`s interpretation, but did not rule on the constitutional issues raised. The NRA`s Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case. The Court declined, as it does the vast majority of cases. Thus the decision stands in the Eleventh Circuit, which encompasses Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act

Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA`s registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA`s registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.


Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:44:13 AM EST
Vote Republican first.

Remember CHARLES RANGEL is still in the US House.

Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:48:27 AM EST
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:51:51 AM EST
Massive non-compliance
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:51:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


They don't have to.

The NRA is made up of gun owners (us) and we have to make clear to our representatives we want action on 922 (o).

Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:52:22 AM EST
File> Open> "National Firearms Act"> Edit> Undo.

Thanks, Micro$oft!
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:54:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


What'd they say?
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:57:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


They don't have to.

The NRA is made up of gun owners (us) and we have to make clear to our representatives we want action on 922 (o).



It would be nice if as a lobbying group they would put pressure on our representatives. Isn't that why I pay dues?
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 5:59:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By ORinTX:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


What'd they say?


They didn't reply to my email. I forgot to ask when they called for more money this weekend.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:00:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
File> Open> "National Firearms Act"> Edit> Undo.

Thanks, Micro$oft!


Fuggin A!
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:01:21 AM EST
The whole bullshit NAME OF THE BILL/LAW disguise is so hard to accept.... "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"

Sure, there was some kind of "protection" but at what cost??!!!
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:03:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By extra_ammo:
The whole bullshit NAME OF THE BILL/LAW disguise is so hard to accept.... "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"

Sure, there was some kind of "protection" but at what cost??!!!


The FOPA 1986 was the best pro gun bill ever to pass.

Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:07:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


They don't have to.

The NRA is made up of gun owners (us) and we have to make clear to our representatives we want action on 922 (o).



It would be nice if as a lobbying group they would put pressure on our representatives. Isn't that why I pay dues?


We have other work to be done before we go after Hughes.

Things like nationwide CCW and putting the kaibosh on whatever ban the dems propose next year.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:07:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


They don't have to.

The NRA is made up of gun owners (us) and we have to make clear to our representatives we want action on 922 (o).



It would be nice if as a lobbying group they would put pressure on our representatives. Isn't that why I pay dues?



every one of us should forego our next firearms purchase, and set the money aside. we should all write the NRA and tell them i have a "donation" of (however much money you set aside) that will be sent when something is finally done with the MG ban.

i bet two things:

1) the total amount of the potential "donation" would be A LOT!

2) we'd actually see the NRA do something.


Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:11:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By ORinTX:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


They don't have to.

The NRA is made up of gun owners (us) and we have to make clear to our representatives we want action on 922 (o).



It would be nice if as a lobbying group they would put pressure on our representatives. Isn't that why I pay dues?


We have other work to be done before we go after Hughes.

Things like nationwide CCW and putting the kaibosh on whatever ban the dems propose next year.


i'm against any gun ban "lawmakers" come up with, but i'll be honest with you, if i could buy select-fire guns again for a normal price, i'd never buy another semi-auto again.

an AWB wouldn't even be a flicker on my care-o-meter if i could buy real weapons. (please note: i'm not saying i wouldn't work against a new AWB, because i would.)


Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:11:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By extra_ammo:
The whole bullshit NAME OF THE BILL/LAW disguise is so hard to accept.... "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"

Sure, there was some kind of "protection" but at what cost??!!!


The FOPA 1986 was the best pro gun bill ever to pass.



I'm inclined to agree.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:11:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 6:12:17 AM EST by JIMBEAM]

Originally Posted By ORinTX:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I asked the NRA but they wont touch it.


They don't have to.

The NRA is made up of gun owners (us) and we have to make clear to our representatives we want action on 922 (o).



It would be nice if as a lobbying group they would put pressure on our representatives. Isn't that why I pay dues?


We have other work to be done before we go after Hughes.

Things like nationwide CCW and putting the kaibosh on whatever ban the dems propose next year.


If the Dems are busying tring to block new FA they might not have time to push another AWB.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:14:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By mr0w1:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By extra_ammo:
The whole bullshit NAME OF THE BILL/LAW disguise is so hard to accept.... "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"

Sure, there was some kind of "protection" but at what cost??!!!


The FOPA 1986 was the best pro gun bill ever to pass.




I'm inclined to agree.


I agree with the exception of the FA stuff. I don't think repealing the FOPA is good or possible. New legislation allowing FA or modifying the FOPA might work.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:17:12 AM EST
WE DO NOT WANT TO REPEAL FOPA 1986
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:17:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:

Originally Posted By mr0w1:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By extra_ammo:
The whole bullshit NAME OF THE BILL/LAW disguise is so hard to accept.... "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"

Sure, there was some kind of "protection" but at what cost??!!!


The FOPA 1986 was the best pro gun bill ever to pass.




I'm inclined to agree.


I agree with the exception of the FA stuff. I don't think repealing the FOPA is good or possible. New legislation allowing FA or modifying the FOPA might work.



I'd love to have affordable FA just as much as the next arfcommer, but I'd rather have my mail order ammo and my interstate safe-travel laws. Gotta be careful when trying to change just one part of a law -- you may get what you want, but something else changed or thrown on at the last minute that you didn't. That's how the FA part of the FOPA was added, as a matter of fact.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:17:53 AM EST
Strike the "sporter clause" from the 68 GCA.

If you go after the Hughes Amendement specifically it will all be about "Uzis onthe streets" and nobody is gonna risk their political career for machine guns.

You go after the "sporter clause" and it's about illegal regulation and Constitutional issues.

And in the process you also get rid of the 89 import ban as the sporter clause is the basis for that one as well.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:23:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Strike the "sporter clause" from the 68 GCA.

If you go after the Hughes Amendment specifically it will all be about "Uzis on the streets" and nobody is gonna risk their political career for machine guns.

You go after the "sporter clause" and it's about illegal regulation and Constitutional issues.

And in the process you also get rid of the 89 import ban as the sporter clause is the basis for that one as well.


this is what I was thinking, kill that "sporting purposes" nonsense!
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:26:42 AM EST
Folks on the Highroad.org are working to make silencers title 1:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=226347
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:33:37 AM EST
I actually would promote an assault weapons ban, if we could register new machine guns.

Before you flame me, hear me out.

Not like the last AWB, but put limits on rifles. Not mags or ammo. It'd keep guys that probably shouldnt have them, from being able to buy them. As for people who are into guns more than "I got da AK wit da beamz" like most members here, we could get full auto stuff by doing the paperwork.

Imagine if the ATF did start accepting new mg's; they'd probably have a melt down.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:35:46 AM EST
The problem with this plan, is we would likely face opposition from both sides--anti-gun people, and current FA gun owners. I can't see how someone who has ten (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars invested in FA weapons, not fighting a repeal of the ban on new FA weapons.

How much is a registered receiver worth now? How much would it be worth if you could buy a new one at what they would normally cost without the ban on new FA receivers? How about a RDIAS or lightninglink--I can't see them even having much collectors value if new ones could be sold
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:40:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By dmin:
The problem with this plan, is we would likely face opposition from both sides--anti-gun people, and current FA gun owners. I can't see how someone who has ten (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars invested in FA weapons, not fighting a repeal of the ban on new FA weapons.

How much is a registered receiver worth now? How much would it be worth if you could buy a new one at what they would normally cost without the ban on new FA receivers? How about a RDIAS or lightninglink--I can't see them even having much collectors value if new ones could be sold


I think RR's are in the 12-15k range now. If we could register new ones, $100 for the receiver plus $200 for the tax.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:49:58 AM EST
The other piece of that is that there are states like WA that are not full auto states, and all that would occur would be to take away the rifles that are available right now with no return for our citizens.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 6:53:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1BMF:
I actually would promote an assault weapons ban, if we could register new machine guns.

Before you flame me, hear me out.

Not like the last AWB, but put limits on rifles. Not mags or ammo. It'd keep guys that probably shouldnt have them, from being able to buy them. As for people who are into guns more than "I got da AK wit da beamz" like most members here, we could get full auto stuff by doing the paperwork.

Imagine if the ATF did start accepting new mg's; they'd probably have a melt down.



That is horrible logic.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 7:04:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1BMF:
I actually would promote an assault weapons ban, if we could register new machine guns.

Before you flame me, hear me out.

Not like the last AWB, but put limits on rifles. Not mags or ammo. It'd keep guys that probably shouldnt have them, from being able to buy them. As for people who are into guns more than "I got da AK wit da beamz" like most members here, we could get full auto stuff by doing the paperwork.

Imagine if the ATF did start accepting new mg's; they'd probably have a melt down.


The people who shouldn't have them already can't buy them legally. If they already are prevented from doing it, and ignore those laws..what makes you think they'll follow any new ones?
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 7:16:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 7:17:12 AM EST by 1BMF]

Originally Posted By Zack3g:

Originally Posted By 1BMF:
I actually would promote an assault weapons ban, if we could register new machine guns.

Before you flame me, hear me out.

Not like the last AWB, but put limits on rifles. Not mags or ammo. It'd keep guys that probably shouldnt have them, from being able to buy them. As for people who are into guns more than "I got da AK wit da beamz" like most members here, we could get full auto stuff by doing the paperwork.

Imagine if the ATF did start accepting new mg's; they'd probably have a melt down.


The people who shouldn't have them already can't buy them legally. If they already are prevented from doing it, and ignore those laws..what makes you think they'll follow any new ones?


Use it to make the libs feel safe that gun owners want to keep guns off the street, while going behind their back and re-allowing mg registration. That is all. Like the other guy said before me in the thread, IF we could buy MG's at price, I would never buy another semi again.
It we could register MG's, an assault weapons ban would be practically meaningless.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 7:33:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 7:38:10 AM EST by ORinTX]

Originally Posted By 1BMF:

Use it to make the libs feel safe that gun owners want to keep guns off the street, while going behind their back and re-allowing mg registration. That is all. Like the other guy said before me in the thread, IF we could buy MG's at price, I would never buy another semi again.
It we could register MG's, an assault weapons ban would be practically meaningless.



I don't want to have to make all my guns MGs in order to avoid a ban. I don't want to have to pay $200 to transfer all of my guns. I don't want to have to do NFA paperwork to sell any of my guns. I don't want the government to register and track every one of my guns. I don't want to have to rely on manufacturers to sell me registered machine guns in order to buy guns. Remember, under your proposal they would have to be registered as machine guns before they could be sold to me -- the semi-auto variants would be BANNED.

You're trading one freedom for another. One step forward, two steps back. The NFA is a violation of my rights and I don't want to see all EBRs suddenly become NFA weapons. It's stupid to have to pay $200 and wait for approval to put a shorter and theoretically LESS LETHAL barrel on my guns.

Picture this scenario: Things go as you propose. All EBRs that aren't grandfathered have to be machine guns going forward. Now, the ATF gets a lot of Form 4s coming in due to demand. Things slow down a little. It starts to take months (like it used to) to transfer NFA weapons. Now the ATF gets a wise idea. The government took away their '86 ban. But they have the power to effectively impose it again via INDEFINITE WAIT TIMES FOR NFA TRANSFERS. YEARS. FOREVER.

Full auto is cool, but not THAT great. Do you think it's worth it?
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:40:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By dmin:
The problem with this plan, is we would likely face opposition from both sides--anti-gun people, and current FA gun owners. I can't see how someone who has ten (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars invested in FA weapons, not fighting a repeal of the ban on new FA weapons.

How much is a registered receiver worth now? How much would it be worth if you could buy a new one at what they would normally cost without the ban on new FA receivers? How about a RDIAS or lightninglink--I can't see them even having much collectors value if new ones could be sold


Pre86 guns would retain much of their collector value just as Colt Green Labels are worth more than current Colt rifles. Pre68 imports will still be more valuable than pre86 conversions.

NFA owners would also GLADLY see their values drop for the opportunity to buy NEW NFA weapons cheap.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 9:49:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dmin:
The problem with this plan, is we would likely face opposition from both sides--anti-gun people, and current FA gun owners. I can't see how someone who has ten (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars invested in FA weapons, not fighting a repeal of the ban on new FA weapons.

How much is a registered receiver worth now? How much would it be worth if you could buy a new one at what they would normally cost without the ban on new FA receivers? How about a RDIAS or lightninglink--I can't see them even having much collectors value if new ones could be sold



NFA owners would also GLADLY see their values drop for the opportunity to buy NEW NFA weapons cheap.


I know I would .....

C&R NFA would retain it's value ....
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:03:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dmin:
The problem with this plan, is we would likely face opposition from both sides--anti-gun people, and current FA gun owners. I can't see how someone who has ten (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars invested in FA weapons, not fighting a repeal of the ban on new FA weapons.

How much is a registered receiver worth now? How much would it be worth if you could buy a new one at what they would normally cost without the ban on new FA receivers? How about a RDIAS or lightninglink--I can't see them even having much collectors value if new ones could be sold


Pre86 guns would retain much of their collector value just as Colt Green Labels are worth more than current Colt rifles. Pre68 imports will still be more valuable than pre86 conversions.

NFA owners would also GLADLY see their values drop for the opportunity to buy NEW NFA weapons cheap.


I will grant that pre86 might be worth a small premium over new, but not the difference we see now--maybe 100 times the price ($10,000+ RR vs $100+ new semi receiver). I haven't followed the price of Colt green label, but it can't be 100 times the price of a new blue label (maybe 2x-5x?).

While I may be wrong, I recall many pre86 owners referring to their weapons as investments. I can't see these guys taking lightly to their investments suddenly loosing 95% of their value, even if it means they can buy new FA toys cheap.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:12:49 AM EST
If the Repubs win next week, it would be a nice little thank you to the NRA & us for them to allow for the manufacture of new fully auto machine guns. I would even be willing to pay $1000 per stamp.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:26:30 AM EST
Doesn't HR 5005 address the FA paragraph in the 1986 Act?

I believe it allows new FA's to be owned by civilians as long as they use them for civil defense when the government calls on civilians to take up arms. This is from last months issue of Small Arms Review.

Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:29:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Doesn't HR 5005 address the FA paragraph in the 1986 Act?

I believe it allows new FA's to be owned by civilians as long as they use them for civil defense when the government calls on civilians to take up arms. This is from last months issue of Small Arms Review.



I thought it was an exemption for civilian contractors, like Blackwater folks.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:32:53 AM EST
I would have to pick up that issue of SAR and make sure but I think it actually takes the 86 ban language out of the original legislation, and that inessense voids the 1986 ban? I will check to make sure if I understood the logic correctly.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:34:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By ORinTX:

Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Doesn't HR 5005 address the FA paragraph in the 1986 Act?

I believe it allows new FA's to be owned by civilians as long as they use them for civil defense when the government calls on civilians to take up arms. This is from last months issue of Small Arms Review.



I thought it was an exemption for civilian contractors, like Blackwater folks.


that was my understanding too.


Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:34:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
Massive non-compliance


It's civil disobedience! It's about our civil rights!
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:35:56 AM EST
if you're a crimal and you have a gun, you are going back to jail. everyone else should be able to buy their MG's, Semi's, Silencers, all that other stuff at the local hardware store. fuck the tax stamps.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:38:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By dmin:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By dmin:
The problem with this plan, is we would likely face opposition from both sides--anti-gun people, and current FA gun owners. I can't see how someone who has ten (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars invested in FA weapons, not fighting a repeal of the ban on new FA weapons.

How much is a registered receiver worth now? How much would it be worth if you could buy a new one at what they would normally cost without the ban on new FA receivers? How about a RDIAS or lightninglink--I can't see them even having much collectors value if new ones could be sold


Pre86 guns would retain much of their collector value just as Colt Green Labels are worth more than current Colt rifles. Pre68 imports will still be more valuable than pre86 conversions.

NFA owners would also GLADLY see their values drop for the opportunity to buy NEW NFA weapons cheap.


I will grant that pre86 might be worth a small premium over new, but not the difference we see now--maybe 100 times the price ($10,000+ RR vs $100+ new semi receiver). I haven't followed the price of Colt green label, but it can't be 100 times the price of a new blue label (maybe 2x-5x?).

While I may be wrong, I recall many pre86 owners referring to their weapons as investments. I can't see these guys taking lightly to their investments suddenly loosing 95% of their value, even if it means they can buy new FA toys cheap.


I'm in agreement with you although I'd love to be proven wrong.

a good friend of mine and his family have a million or so tied up in "transferrables", and an ungodly amount in non-transferrables.
-it IS an investment
Another buddy of mine has a RR he purchased several years ago and he only shoots it (hell, not once this year) with the 22 conversion upper in place.

The first "corporation" has the money and probably wouldn't voice opposition...although they may not vocally support it either.

The second buddy? I have a feeling that he'd come unglued.

not that it matters, I don't forsee this occuring any time soon.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 11:55:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2006 12:04:49 PM EST by JIMBEAM]
I have no sympathy for someone who "invested" in a product that has an increased value because the supply is controled artificially by legislation. They run the risk of the supply being increased if the artifical control is removed.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:01:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I have no sympathy for someone who "invested" in a product that has an increased value because the supply is control artificially by legislation. They run the risk of the supply being increased if the artifical control is removed.


since I have no C3 toys, I'm inclined to agree with you
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:03:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I have no sympathy for someone who "invested" in a product that has an increased value because the supply is control artificially by legislation. They run the risk of the supply being increased if the artifical control is removed.


Exactly. All investments carry inherent risks.
I would love to work actively to lower the value of thier investments!
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:06:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By tifosi:

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
I have no sympathy for someone who "invested" in a product that has an increased value because the supply is control artificially by legislation. They run the risk of the supply being increased if the artifical control is removed.


Exactly. All investments carry inherent risks.
I would love to work actively to lower the value of thier investments!


If they opposed such action I am not sure how some might react.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:07:36 PM EST
I was wondering if there was a case since the NFA guns that you can buy are much more expensive then the price the Gov or PD could buy them at. You could make the claim that it is infringing the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It is unfair to the poor that can not afford $15 k for a gun that should cost $1500.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:12:00 PM EST
Like someone already pointed out it is easier and more discreet to go for the "sporting purpose" clause.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:17:05 PM EST
The NRA is not invincible. A lot of people seem to think of it as an equation...you give the NRA x amount of money, and y amount of good bills will be passed. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are some bills that just can't be passed no matter how much money you put into it. If there aren't enough votes, then there aren't enough votes. That's why the NRA has to pick and choose it's battles, using funds to fight for legislation that - while it might not be as good - have a far more reasonable chance of passing. If the NRA were to focus all it's power on one, nearly unachievable goal, it could be at the cost of something else, and we would be worse off than we started.

In short, don't be so quick to blame the NRA for not getting huge things like the GCA or 922r repealed. If they could, don't you think they would? It's just the world we live in.
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:21:32 PM EST
It would help if a few certain states would STOP ELECTING FUCKING DEMOCRATS OVER AND OVER AND OVER THE FUCK AGAIN...
Link Posted: 10/31/2006 12:48:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By NME:
It would help if a few certain states would STOP ELECTING FUCKING DEMOCRATS OVER AND OVER AND OVER THE FUCK AGAIN...

Sorry, but where does that come from? I thought the GOP controlled the flow of legislation from Congress to the Republican president in the current session. If we have anyone to blame for not changing the current NFA system, it is Republicans, and not Democrats.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top