User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/15/2004 11:53:39 AM EDT
[#1]
I wish we could just go buy them ( at reasonable ie $900.00) also. The libs don't get / don't care as it is a tactic of their's to confuse and agitate the sheeple to get their way. BigDozer66 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:34:39 AM EDT
[#2]
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:40:25 AM EDT
[#3]
Fixed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:42:24 AM EDT
[#4]
1. Legal MG owners were never a threat to public safety. Crimes with NFA machine guns were next to nothing.
2. With the general public believing that the AWB covered machine guns, and hence new ones are already legal, this may have a better chance of passing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:45:40 AM EDT
[#5]
Uh, because ALL gun control laws are un-Constitutional...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:47:17 AM EDT
[#6]
I know of the Dayton OH cop IIRC 86 but what was the other one? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:59:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Gary Kleck-- "Over the past 50 years, no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has ever been used in crime, and that was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer. On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison" Gary Kleck is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 5:04:41 AM EDT
[#8]
Edit: nevermind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 5:13:53 AM EDT
[#9]
Recent incident where a dealer shot a friend, and eventually himself with a 3 round burst AUG, over a woman.
illegal conversion job, from what i've been told. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 5:14:59 AM EDT
[#10]
Ah, I searched for threads about it to make sure I was correct, couldnt find any. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 5:18:27 AM EDT
[#11]
Prices have to stay high in order for us to maintain a solid track record with NFA items.
CHEAP NFA items will result in their appearance in crime over time. RIght now, NFA items are treated like children... safe queens for a lot of them. - BG |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 5:20:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Before '86 there were cheap full autos I believe. Still only one crime commited with a legally owned MG since '34. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 5:25:06 AM EDT
[#13]
Wider availability and lower price means it's inevitable that they will show up in crime eventually.
However it will still not be a significant segment of violent crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:29:42 AM EDT
[#14]
So has anyone asked their reps or sens if they would support ending the 86MG ban? if so what did they say?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:37:48 AM EDT
[#15]
I think people are forgetting that legal NFA firearms require a substantial background check & a long wait. So unless it is stolen (and most guys with NFA stuff keep them under lock & key) it is unlikely it'll ever be involved in any criminal activity. You also can't transfer it without the new buyer going through the same procedure, unlike regular firearms which can be sold privately most places.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:38:08 AM EDT
[#16]
This is actually quite easy.
The 1986 FOPA is not clear cut that it bans the transfer of automatic weapons after 1986 (as I understand, I am not a lawyer). The ban is based upon the BATFE's intrepetation of the law. All it takes is the BATFE to reverse their position. As for a legislative cure, there isn't one. The only possibility is a conservative supreme court as appointed by Republicans to reverse what should be clearly unconstitutional laws. Three more justices could do it. We need to replace Stevens, O'Connor and Bader-Ginsberg and we should have enough. Why do you think they didn't retire during Bush's first term? They are liberals and they are praying for Kerry to replace them with more communists. I don't know why we don't impeach them as they are full of shit. After the McCain Feingold bullshit, they obviously don't give a rats ass about the constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:46:21 AM EDT
[#17]
The main problem with Gansters using MG's was during the Proibition of Alcohol, once that went away it no longer was a problem but by then it was too late and we had the NFA of '34 to deal with. Now jump a head. The main problem with "drug dealers" using MG's(or AW's for that matter)is because of the "War on Drugs", get ride of the War on Drugs and the problem with MG's/AW's being used by drug dealers will vanish over night. The guns are not the problem, they are a sympton of a bigger problem, the problem of illegal drug use. Legalize drugs and you'll no longer have the problem of illegal drug use or of semi-auto/full auto weapons being used by drug dealers.
I know this is hard for some people to understand, try not to think too hard about it and maybe you'll get it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:49:27 AM EDT
[#18]
"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:50:43 AM EDT
[#19]
Exactly. Right on. Too bad noone in the senate or the house know what that means. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:51:43 AM EDT
[#20]
End of Story! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:53:07 AM EDT
[#21]
I think we could make a good case for repealing the '86 ban on new manufacture of MGs:
1. NFA rules already require a very thorough background check, waiting period, and substantial fee for every transfer of a legal MG. (of course, after we do that, we'd work on weakening/streamlining NFA transfers, but that's beside the point) 2. In over 70 years, NFA weapons have been used in exactly one crime, and that was by a police officer. Clearly, the people who go through the effort to get NFA weapons aren't committing crimes with them. 3. The ban on civilian possession of new MGs cripples the American MG development industry. Why do you think we're getting all of our submachineguns from HK? And thinking about getting our service rifles from them too? If we could sell new MGs to civilians, there would be a much greater incentive for American companies to develop new quality service rifles, and the military and police would benefit. As we've already seen in M16 mags, the military isn't a big or consistent enough buyer to ensure consistent supply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 7:56:27 AM EDT
[#22]
Really? Can someone explain this in more detail to me? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:04:45 AM EDT
[#23]
Kleck needs to update, then, cause the number is two...unless he's being picky enough that submachine gun != machine gun, or he doesn't count a duty issued firearm as 'legally owned'. www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/11/national/main505877.shtml
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:09:54 AM EDT
[#24]
I had a post on this a while back. There were a few cases based on the 86 ban.
Basically their arguments were that the tax stamp might be legal, but now that they won't accept the taxes, it is no longer legal to register them since that was the only reason for the registration was the tax. So you could get them to repeal the 86 ban because it makes the earlier one void. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:10:39 AM EDT
[#25]
Here ya go: www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html#fnb450
The website linked has a far more detailed explanation of the troubles with that amendment, but basically, which one of the two listed options the amendment really means is based on the opinion of the ATF. Thus, an Executive Order could (probably) force ATF to use the second interpretation. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:13:27 AM EDT
[#26]
the 9th circuit (also known as the 9th circuit) has already ruled the that personal manufacture of a machine gun was okay since it doesn't involve interstate commerce.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:24:22 AM EDT
[#27]
Well being that it happened in NJ I have to ask, is it legal in NJ to own NFA weapons? If no, I doubt the guy used a personally owned MG, besides that it says MP5 that doesn't mean that it has to be an FA MP5. But to the point, this is again a case of a police officer going out and commiting a crime with a full auto weapon that they legaly possesed either for work or personal use, not a civilian doing it. Also if it's a dept, gun well than it doesn't matter because it's not a privetly owned, NFA registered firearm used in a crime, which is what were talking about, privetly owned NFA registered guns being used in a crime. So right now we have either 1 or two examples as to police officers commiting crimes with NFA weapons, one privetly owned that we know of and one that was either dept. issue or privetly owned we don't know which. In either case the only crimes committed with FA NFA registered (at least posted here and known about to us)guns have been commited by cops......... |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:34:05 AM EDT
[#28]
couldn't congress change the FOPA to allow registration of newly built MGs, if they were to makw a minor change in the legilation to "clarify a few murky points" in it. That is basically how they got the ban in, why not use the same tricks to get it taken out?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:37:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Hard-Case:
It was a department-issued MP5. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:44:16 AM EDT
[#30]
I would think that the cop with a department owned MP5 would not fall into the category of "legal machineguns in civilian hands". Although it would make for an argument that machine guns in civilian hands are imperically no more liekly to be used to commit murder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:46:07 AM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:50:52 AM EDT
[#32]
Well, I guess that's pretty damning to the arguement that only military and COP's have assualt weapons, huh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:58:38 AM EDT
[#33]
The only way to do it is to KEEP '34 NFA. Then you say 'Since 1934, there has only been 1 crime committed with a legally posessed machinegun. The regulations in place have worked, and allowing new guns to be made won't change this as from 1934-1986 there was no 'crime problem', and there wouldn't be one now'... NFA 1934 and GCA 68 will never go away, so stop dreaming and start fighting the real onerous stuff (Sporting Purposes and 922(o) making ban).... We can live with a $200 tax on MGs, Supressors, and DDs... There's nothing really wrong with NICS, the FFL system, or filling out a 4473 when you buy from a dealer... But no new MGs and the import ban have to go... Remember: except to hard-core conservatives (who allready agree with us) and legal scholars, a 'Constitutional' ammendment will sail right over the head of the average citizen. To them, the 'crime' argument is paramount, and we need to focus on un-doing the constructed 'relationship' between guns & crime that the other side has set up. If you can convince people that gun control DOES NOT stop crime, they will drop their support for gun control. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:12:14 AM EDT
[#34]
FIRST we need to repeal the "sporting purposes" sections of the 1968 GCA.
This is the basis of the '89 Executive Order banning importation of "non-sporting" semi autos. The "Sporting" concept is a NAZI era artifact. We need to first drive home the fact we have a right to defensive firearms, that the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting and skeet. No more than it is about fishing or tennis or golf. Once we have that fact established, we have a better shot at bringing down the '86 FOPA amendment -- not the whole law, just the machinegun prohibition section -- and the '34 NFA. We also need to force application of the 14th Amendment to the 2nd, which would force states to honor the 2nd Amendment. Thus NY, NJ, Kommiefornia, Illinois, and individual cities (Denver, Morton Grove, IL, Wash DC, etc) cannot enact gun bans. This would also give us a shot at repealing state and city prohibitions against CCW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:16:39 AM EDT
[#35]
Simply saying we want the 86 ban repealed is not enough. We need a whole new image. That is our problem. The Klintons and their little band made a lot of use out of the term "Assault Weapons" and in doing so reinforced the idea in the public's view. In the last decade they were told repeatedly how bad those weapons were and they came to believe that mere ownership of a rifle in that category would influence a person to use it illegally.
They associated them with militias, which they also condemned. They used the word "need" when referring to firearms. They used every murder in which a semi-automatic military style rifle was used to illustrate their point that those weapons weren't good for anything else. They painted gun owners as paranoid. They twisted the truth and when that wasn't enough, invented a truth of their own. We need a movement to show the general public how our sport and our hobby really work. We need to show them that target shooting and matches can be enjoyable. We need to find some timid souls to enlighten and perhaps teach how to fire a machine gun. Who knows, once they find out how much fun it really is, they may see that we aren't so bad after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:27:18 AM EDT
[#36]
I can just picture Feinstines head exploding over this. I think she would commit hari kari on the senate floor.
Not that that would be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:33:34 AM EDT
[#37]
Because the US Supreme Court said so - TWICE! Military-style firearms (which machine-guns obviously are) are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment according to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in U.S. v. Miller (1939) and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). * In the Miller decision the Supreme Court stated, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that [a particular gun] has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument". * In the Lewis decision, the Supreme Court stated, "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'". Well a machinegun OBVIOUSLY has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" because machineguns are issued by every branch of our military AND our National Guard. SO ACCORDING TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, MILITARY-STYLE FIREARMS (LIKE MACHINE GUNS) ARE EXACTLY THE TYPE OF FIREARMS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:45:35 AM EDT
[#38]
I doubt money is an issue for those that want to use guns in crimes...I doubt many of us on here that do everything by the book and don't committ any crimes take home each week what a crack dealer does...In case you didn't know, ppl. are involved in crime because it pays...they can buy whatever they want. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:47:49 AM EDT
[#39]
That is a very good point. American companies would benefit, thus creating new jobs...it would be a win-win for everyone, except Fineswine and Brady. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:55:25 AM EDT
[#40]
With regard to subguns like STENs and MACs, the TAX was often more expensive than the GUN. The reason that criminals don't use LEGAL MGs is the amount of paperwork/BS needed to get one. Are you really going to get fingerprinted, get a sign-off, go thru a FBI background check, and keep the ATF informed of exactly where you live, just to get a gun for a bank robbery or whatever??? The NFA, like most registration systems, is very effective in reducing crime with LEGAL weapons. Note that I said LEGAL weapons, since the effect of registration is that CRIMINALS use ILLEGAL weapons for their ILLEGAL work... So they don't get a MG (even a cheap one, like a $150 MAC pre-86), they go buy a regular gun with fake ID, or they buy a regular or machine gun from a black market (straw buyer) dealer... Hence crime with MGs, but not legal ones. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 9:58:59 AM EDT
[#41]
The idea that keeping NFA guns expensive is the only thing that will keep criminals from using them is bogus. How do you explain the lack of registered machine gun use in teh sevenites and eighties, those were the days of dirt cheap MAC10's and M16's being a two hundred dollar tax stamp more expensive than an SP1. A person who goes through the process of getting a tax stamp is not at all likely to use the gun in a crime, a person who is considering using a machine gun in a crime is far more likely to buy one on the black market or convert a semi illegally, it doesn't even take common sense to know that if you use a machine gun in a crime the cops are going to check the NFA registry and see who legally owns one in your area, and be knocking on your door real soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 10:10:02 AM EDT
[#42]
I think they can go away eventually. It's all about incrementalism. IMHO, our immediate concerns should be getting rid of the new MG ban, the sporting purposes clause, and passing national CCW reciprocity and PLCA. I'd also like to do something about states passing extreme anti-gun laws, but that will probably happen on it's own before we get the support to get that done. But once we get all of those things through, I'd like to work on NFA and the Class 3 system. We could start by cutting down the Class 3 fees, setting a reasonable time limit for the background checks, and getting rid of the CLEO signoff. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 11:31:14 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 12:11:36 PM EDT
[#44]
Also we need to look at the tax angle. There are court rulings that taxes that are purely prohibitive, rather than designed to obtain revenue, are illegal. That so few Class III weapons change hands, and the taxes generated hardly justify the government keeping up with it, shows that NFA tax system is simply a scheme to register, track, and prohibit ownership. That was the purpose from the beginning. At the time the NFA was being written it was admitted that they could not simply ban guns, the 2nd Amendment got in the way, but they could tax and regulate to get around the 2nd. As usual, politicians and lawyers playing word games with our rights.
So, if post 86 machine guns cannot be taxed, why does Treasury Department have ANY jurisdiction over them at all? It has to be more than, "cause we said so." We need to turn Kerry's "Hunter's Rights" BS on its head, and insist We the People have Self Defense Rights, and thus, a right to own weapons suited to defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 12:17:50 PM EDT
[#45]
Lightning_P38 asked: "couldn't congress change the FOPA to allow registration of newly built MGs, if they were to makw a minor change in the legilation to "clarify a few murky points" in it. That is basically how they got the ban in, why not use the same tricks to get it taken out?"
No, that is not how they got the mg ban into the '86 FOPA (aka McClure-Volkmer Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986). The bill was voted on, and at the last minute, as the final vote was about to be taken, an amendment no one had heard of was offered WITHOUT READING IT, and without anyone knowing what the hell it was. The speaker called for a voice vote, said the "ayes" have it, and gaveled it in by the Democratic Speaker while Congressmen were still asking, what is THAT all about? It was a very carefully planned Pearl Harbor type sneak attack on our rights. It was DAYS before anyone knew that the machine gun was attached to the FOPA, which was backed by all of the pro-gun groups. That is how it happened. Edited to add: The machine gun ban was NOT added as a compromise to get the bill passed. The 86 FOPA had widespread support. It would have passed anyway. It was added literally in the last seconds and cheated into the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 1:30:07 PM EDT
[#46]
That may actually work against us for a few reasons: 1 - the anti's would just say that "apparently the '34 NFA works then, since only one crime using a registered NFA MG has occurred since then!" 2 - Then they may acutally try to use the above argument as a justification for registering ALL firearms since it apparently "worked" in regards to CIII MG's. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 2:58:56 PM EDT
[#47]
What if we got them to say a DIAS or LL is NOT a machine gun? Isnt that just a decision by the ATF? Couldnt that be done by EO?
ETA: Couldnt that be done just by the head of the DoJ sending down a memo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 3:39:41 PM EDT
[#48]
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 3:55:06 PM EDT
[#49]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2004 4:15:55 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
