Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/25/2004 9:00:29 AM EST
I was reading in another thread (that I thought I better not hijack with this idea) that if the .gov made the current crop of Semi-Auto rifles with pistol grips and high cap mags ie types weapons soon to be liberated from Clintons gun laws, NFA weapons that we would be screwed for sure. I thought that was a very interesting angle that I have really not read anything about before.

Any thoughts on how this angle might be played out and what the ramifications might be if this was to come to be.

I have to admit that I don’t know jack shit about the NFA firearms so I thought it might make for interesting discussion.

Thanks,
Echap
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:01:59 AM EST

What if the .gov made all AR's NFA firearms?


It would spawn 62,196 threads here concerning how many thrusts/squeeze the paperwork would cost.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:02:56 AM EST
If I knew they were going to do that and grandfather existing ones, I'd buy every receiver I could afford. I wish I'd done that in 1986 before they banned further machine gun sales.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:04:25 AM EST
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.

Anything's possible with new laws though...

I doubt it would happen in the current environment even if Kerry got in. In a Nader administration, maybe...
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:07:18 AM EST
If that happened, the govt. would make a lot of us criminals!
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:10:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 9:11:04 AM EST by ar50troll]

Originally Posted By bigthicket:
If that happened, the govt. would make a lot of us criminals!


That's the plan the dumocrats have for us. Be prepared for some scary shit in the next few years. When Hillary runs you can bet her ass she's gonna go for a total ban and a tax on ammo. It amazes me anyone would even vote for the bitch, but watch what happens in the coming years. It's going to get divisive in this country. The Dems are really screwing up the system.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:26:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:

Originally Posted By bigthicket:
If that happened, the govt. would make a lot of us criminals!


That's the plan the dumocrats have for us. Be prepared for some scary shit in the next few years. When Hillary runs you can bet her ass she's gonna go for a total ban and a tax on ammo. It amazes me anyone would even vote for the bitch, but watch what happens in the coming years. It's going to get divisive in this country. The Dems are really screwing up the system.



If Hildebitch ever gets in the White House there will be Civil War. I also think that she would be almost guaranteed to be assassinated. Not trying to violate the board rules here, by any stretch of the imagination, but simply my appraisal of the situation. As much as the feminazis, old beggars, and whimps might love her she would be the most hated President in a long, long time.

Myself, I would probably NFA register most, but not all, of my stuff.


Fuck 'em. We're the ones with the guns.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:28:52 AM EST
Look at what happened when the made Street Sweepers and USAS-12's NFA weapons. I read somewhere that of the known number out there that only 1% were registered.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:29:54 AM EST
I would be a fellon.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:30:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By SMProud:
Look at what happened when the made Street Sweepers and USAS-12's NFA weapons. I read somewhere that of the known number out there that only 1% were registered.



And did it lower gun crime any making these 2 sporting arms NFA?
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:31:02 AM EST
All the internet toughguys here would lift their skirts and take it in the ass because their credit card payments are due, and life without the Hi Def TV would be too much.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:31:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:45:53 AM EST
I'd really have to question why I should (or would) take an M16 and use it to defend the sorry asses of the politicians who took away my right to own a similar weapon to defend myself and my family. It's OK for us to use such a weapon to do their bidding, but it's not OK for us to own one ourselves? Whose rights would we be fighting for? Certainly not our own rights or the rights that our forebearers enjoyed as free men.

I asked the same question in 1986 when the ban on newly manufactured full autos took effect.

It doesn't matter that they have not been banned technically. You can still buy one of the existing ones if you're filthy rich. But since that's not true for the overwhelming number of citizens of this country, the law amounts to a defacto ban, an abridgement of your rights.

This could become a very real future possibility where the responsible minority of people who are willing to step up and contribute to and defend this country are increasingly the group who's rights are steadily being eroded. What happens when these people wise up and realize that what they are fighting to defend has long since been taken away by the government? If this group gives it up who's left? The whiners on the left who only take and never give? The majority of the population with the entitlement mentality? Imagine an armed services made up of draftees from this group of useless parasites. We'll be like a third world country when that happens.

Without rights, there's nothing worth fighting for...except one's own security.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:47:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
All the internet toughguys here would lift their skirts and take it in the ass because their credit card payments are due, and life without the Hi Def TV would be too much.



What do you propose to do, Ben?
My guess is some of us are willing, but no one wants to go it alone.
Just curious what you propose. IOW, tell me what I want to hear!
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:48:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
All the internet toughguys here would lift their skirts and take it in the ass because their credit card payments are due, and life without the Hi Def TV would be too much.



+1
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:49:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By killingmachine123:
I would be a fellon.



But would you be gellin
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:49:19 AM EST
Put them in the storage tube in cosmoline and wait for the signal.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:51:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By killingmachine123:
I would be a fellon.



Are you gellin?
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:52:58 AM EST
If they made ar's nfa, then the maker of the fab 10 would become a billionaire. secondly I don't think that would happen unless they made all semi's nfa. Maybe they would just make hi cap mags nfa
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:59:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By captainpooby:

Originally Posted By killingmachine123:
I would be a fellon.



Are you gellin?



Like a mellon.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:06:46 AM EST
i do beleive that was my idea from the "rush to convert" thread
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:12:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).



The streetsweepers is not a good analogy; the law which empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to re-classify them was already on the books. If you read the statutory definition of a DD you'll see that shotguns with a bore over .5" in diameter can be DD's if the Secretary of the Treasury does not deem them to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:17:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By echap:
I was reading in another thread (that I thought I better not hijack with this idea) that if the .gov made the current crop of Semi-Auto rifles with pistol grips and high cap mags ie types weapons soon to be liberated from Clintons gun laws, NFA weapons that we would be screwed for sure. I thought that was a very interesting angle that I have really not read anything about before.

Any thoughts on how this angle might be played out and what the ramifications might be if this was to come to be.

I have to admit that I don’t know jack shit about the NFA firearms so I thought it might make for interesting discussion.

Thanks,
Echap

So much REAL shit going on, and you're sweating an impossibility like this?? Mental masturbation.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:18:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).



The streetsweepers is not a good analogy; the law which empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to re-classify them was already on the books. If you read the statutory definition of a DD you'll see that shotguns with a bore over .5" in diameter can be DD's if the Secretary of the Treasury does not deem them to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.


I think a re-interpretation of the law could also occur, a la 1989 import ban. The point being, it could all go up in smoke with the stroke of a pen.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:20:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).



The streetsweepers is not a good analogy; the law which empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to re-classify them was already on the books. If you read the statutory definition of a DD you'll see that shotguns with a bore over .5" in diameter can be DD's if the Secretary of the Treasury does not deem them to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.



Correct, and if I remember correctly, they were non CLEO and tax waved for the current owner.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:28:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 10:30:35 AM EST by shaggy]

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).



The streetsweepers is not a good analogy; the law which empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to re-classify them was already on the books. If you read the statutory definition of a DD you'll see that shotguns with a bore over .5" in diameter can be DD's if the Secretary of the Treasury does not deem them to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.


I think a re-interpretation of the law could also occur, a la 1989 import ban. The point being, it could all go up in smoke with the stroke of a pen.



Well, it all depends on who is weilding the pen, doesn't it?

If its Congress, then yes, the creation of a new category of NFA weapons and the resultant regulation of so-called "assault weapons" as NFA weapons could indeed happen. But that seems like a remote posibility at best (at least at the current time). If the antis can't get Congress to simply extend the current ban, a far more restrictive ban probably isn't going to get far. That kind of reclassification of non-NFA guns into NFA weapons simply can't happen to most guns by just EO or an administrative stroke of the pen.

Of course, if the current ban is reissued or extended, the BATF, under order by a president Kerry (God, my blood curdles at the thought of that...) could go a LOT further in enforcing it that was seen under either klinton or Bush.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:31:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).



The streetsweepers is not a good analogy; the law which empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to re-classify them was already on the books. If you read the statutory definition of a DD you'll see that shotguns with a bore over .5" in diameter can be DD's if the Secretary of the Treasury does not deem them to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.



Correct, and if I remember correctly, they were non CLEO and tax waved for the current owner.



Yup. As I recall it was no tax, no prints, no CLEO signoff. Just send in your F1 and it was automatically approved.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:50:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:10:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
i do beleive that was my idea from the "rush to convert" thread



Yea, that is where I seen your idea and wanted to expand on it here.

Hope you did not mind


Echap
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:19:20 AM EST

Yea, that is where I seen your idea and wanted to expand on it here.

Hope you did not mind



I am going to sue you for all your guns
Just kidding, I am glad someone actually listened to my idea!
Hope it never happens though.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:19:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).



The streetsweepers is not a good analogy; the law which empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to re-classify them was already on the books. If you read the statutory definition of a DD you'll see that shotguns with a bore over .5" in diameter can be DD's if the Secretary of the Treasury does not deem them to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes.



WHEN Did they come up with this "Sporting Purposes" bullshit?????

What year, what person decided which firearms were "suitable for sporting purposes"?

Has the "suitable for sporting purposes" ever been challenged? Everybody just accepts it and continues life since they aren't affected. THIS is what will sneak up and bite, as "suitable for sporting purposes" can be nibbled away down to a break open 12ga shotgun, period.




Would require a SCROTUS decision in our favor. Not likely.
Not too many of us lining up to get arrested to test the law. It is expensive and risky.
Wish someone would though.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:22:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By killingmachine123:
I would be a fellon.

Me too, but with only one "L".

Felon.

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:26:43 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:27:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:

WHEN Did they come up with this "Sporting Purposes" bullshit?????

<snip>



Gun Control Act of 1968.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:35:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 11:36:03 AM EST by Quarterbore]
Don't shoot.... but that really wouldn't kill the ARs, AKs, FALs, etc.... Perhaps a new NFA category of "AW" with a $5 tranfer like AOWs... It would be a major PITA however...

I just don't think Uncle Sam is ready for the millions of new Form 1s they would get...

Oh yea, I would register mine just like we do with a legal MG as they are much more fun to have and use when you can take them to the range and shoot them without fear of 10-years in jail and 100K in fines! As said before, just imagine if back in 1980-1986 we knew what was going to happen...

Now, there are far more ARs, AKs, FALs, etc, etc, etc then there are transferable MGs but some of the less common guns could become quite collectable especially if further manufacturing was banned at some point in the future...
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:37:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By shaggy:
Well, it all depends on who is weilding the pen, doesn't it?


Yeah, but who would've thought Daddy Bush would've signed an import ban? Fifteen years later and I'm still thinking, WTF???



Originally Posted By shaggy:
Of course, if the current ban is reissued or extended, the BATF, under order by a president Kerry (God, my blood curdles at the thought of that...)


Call him John.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:38:20 AM EST
...and no, the sporting purpose bit has not been challenged. For that matter, the 1939 SCROTUS decision in US v Miller specifically notes that military style weapons are protected by the second.
Now my guess is that if SCROTUS ruled in our favor they would also rule that the .gov can control what comes into the country from abroad which is a factor in the '89 executive order which elects to enforce the '68 GCA.
As for requiring a tax stamp for specified weapons SCROTUS already ruled in its favor in the '39 decision on the NFA. However, they deemed that a short barreled shotgun was not a militia style weapon so there is room to work there as clearly they are, and so is a machinegun, etc.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:40:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
Don't shoot.... but that really wouldn't kill the ARs, AKs, FALs, etc.... Perhaps a new NFA category of "AW" with a $5 tranfer like AOWs... It would be a major PITA however...

I just don't think Uncle Sam is ready for the millions of new Form 1s they would get...

Oh yea, I would register mine just like we do with a legal MG as they are much more fun to have and use when you can take them to the range and shoot them without fear of 10-years in jail and 100K in fines! As said before, just imagine if back in 1980-1986 we knew what was going to happen...

Now, there are far more ARs, AKs, FALs, etc, etc, etc then there are transferable MGs but some of the less common guns could become quite collectable especially if further manufacturing was banned at some point in the future...



Another issue is that if they require registration, those of us who don't might as well convert them to select fire. I'm not sure they really want to open that can of worms.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:06:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Just_Some_Guy:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Without a new law, they couldn't do it, even by a Kerry EO.


Why wouldn't "they?" It was done with Streetsweepers. If AR-type rifles were declared NFA, it wouldn't have a large impact on present owners. If you were trying to buy or sell one, it would be a bigger pain in the ass than needed (along with the additional expense of a tax stamp).

Theres no existing law were they could interpet tgo make a ar15 a NFA weapon.

Streetswpeers,stiker 12's and USAS 12's on the other hand did as the definiton of a DD is having a bore over .50 caliber except those determined to be of "sporting purpose"
yeah its all BS but it would take a new law to make ar's on the NFA.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:38:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By brasspile:

WHEN Did they come up with this "Sporting Purposes" bullshit?????

<snip>



Gun Control Act of 1968.



Brass -

Here's the relevant text of the federal statute which defines a Destructive Device (I've omitted the first part whch is irrelevant to the shotgun issue):

26 USC 5845 (f) Destructive device

The term ''destructive device'' means

(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and

(3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term ''destructive device'' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:18:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:

Yea, that is where I seen your idea and wanted to expand on it here.

Hope you did not mind



I am going to sue you for all your guns
Just kidding, I am glad someone actually listened to my idea!
Hope it never happens though.



Guns, I don't have any guns. I lost it last year during a freak fishing trip. It was a horrible event, We where shooting our AR's, and then I dropped the dam thing to the bottom of Lake Michigan, about 40 Miles offshore of Grand Haven Michigan. The water was only 383' deep so you may be able to find it. I had the GPS coordinates, but my GPS battery went dead and erased all my saved waypoints. Bummer, and I almost had my PADI certification too!

Echap
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:39:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:21:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:37:31 AM EST
Brass,

You're starting to see the picture. If a particular gun meets the definition of a destructive device (bore over 0.5", etc.) it can be a DD unless the Secretary of the Treasury makes the determination its a shotgun with a "sporting purpose" (under section #2) or some other device not likely to be used as a weapon (under section #3). The Sec. of the Treas. basically determines what qualifies for the exemption.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:42:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:47:38 AM EST
All I know is if they do, you will regret posting pictures of your "Arsenal" on the last few "show me your gun threads.

CH
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 9:54:16 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:01:32 AM EST
The "sporting purposes" bit might be something useful for us to exploit in the future. The courts generally frown on arbitrary and vague legal pronouncements such as these. Nor am I convinced that the various branches of gov't can cede their power to another. Would be a violation of the Constitution, IMO. Better legal minds here can chime in on their opinion, of course.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:10:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:15:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By shaggy:
Brass,

You're starting to see the picture. If a particular gun meets the definition of a destructive device (bore over 0.5", etc.) it can be a DD unless the Secretary of the Treasury makes the determination its a shotgun with a "sporting purpose" (under section #2) or some other device not likely to be used as a weapon (under section #3). The Sec. of the Treas. basically determines what qualifies for the exemption.



So theoretically, they could amend section #2 with a smaller bore diameter, say, 1/4", then decide which rifles over .25 cal are "not suitable for sporting purposes"?



Yup, but it would take an act of Congress to change the law to say .25 cal (for example).
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:19:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
The "sporting purposes" bit might be something useful for us to exploit in the future. The courts generally frown on arbitrary and vague legal pronouncements such as these. Nor am I convinced that the various branches of gov't can cede their power to another. Would be a violation of the Constitution, IMO. Better legal minds here can chime in on their opinion, of course.



This has me thinking now.

HYPOTHETICALLY
Kerry gets elected.
He appoints HIS Favorite justices to the Supreme Court
Another ban of sorts is passed, or the constitionality of an existing law (import ban, 86 MG ban, etc.)
It makes it to the Supreme Court to be decided....






And thats a very real possibility considering the next president will likely get to appoint 2-3 SCOTUS justices. The next president may get the power to tilt the direction of the SCOTUS for decades.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top