Posted: 2/6/2007 1:45:32 PM EDT
|
Rather than continuously complain about people who don't understand the various bans, especially concerning NFA items, I figured I'd just address it. Now most people are aware of the 1986 machine gun ban, and some are even aware of the FOPA 86 that it is part of. Basically FOPA 86 was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 that sought to address many issues created by the 1968 Gun Control Act. Prior to FOPA 1968 a common ATF sting was to sell guns cheap at gunshows and then solicit purchasers to sell them for more than they just paid. For example ATF sets up a table and sells Gun X for $200. You buy the gun and on your way around the show somebody sees it, likes it and offers you $250. You take it knowing you can get another for $200 and BAM you are arrested for dealing in firearms without a license. FOPA primarily protected the collector who made favorable trades or sales from being prosecuted as an unlicensed dealer. In addition, prior to FOPA 86 ammunition was regulated like firearms, had to be booked in by dealers like firearms and you could never order it and have it shipped to your home like today. And it allowed for things like the importation of surplus military rifles. There were no cheap Romanian AKs, K98s, Moisin 91/30s, etc. back then. But what most people only seem to know is FOPA banned machine guns. But that isn't the entire story. It was a domestic machine gun ban that was added to FOPA 86 at the last minute. The first machine gun ban was actually part of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Basically 1968 banned foreign machine guns and 1986 banned domestic machine guns. So after 1968 you could no longer import ANY foreign made machine gun (with the exception of some war trophy amnesty guns). That means any MP40, Swedish K, MG34, etc. had to be imported and registered prior to the 1968 GCA. After that only domestic machine guns could legally be added to the registry. And this is why you will never see a TRUE transferrable MP5. Every "transferrable" HK MP5 you have ever seen (because none were imported and registered prior to 1968 GCA) is actually a domestic machine gun. All of them began life as a HK94. They were then convered to a "domestic machine gun" via a registered receiver or registered sear conversion. In a registered receiver, the HK94 receiver is modified to MP5 specifications IN the United States thus rendering it a "domestic receiver" and then registered. If it was modified outside the US, even though it began as a HK94 it would be unimportable as it would be a foreign machine gun. But any modification done in the US was legal and could be added to the NFA registry PRIOR to 1986. In a registered sear, the sear is manufactured in the US and becomes a registered machine gun by itself. Many $25 sears were produced and registered prior to the 1986 ban on registered machine guns. This sear would qualify any "host gun" as a registered domestic machine gun. This means you could put a registered sear pack on your HK94 and legally run it fully automatic. The only modification required of the host gun is to swap the 94 bolt carrier with a MP5 bolt carrier or convert the 94 carrier to MP5 specifications. You could also LEGALLY shorten the barrel with a registered sear installed. However if you wanted to remove it and return it to semi auto status it had to be registered as a SBR to remain legal. And many foreign machine gun "types" were produced domestically. The registration of domestic "sten" tubes prior to 1986 was siginificant as so many foreign SMGs were based upon that receiver design. But to have a genuine "maufactured as" foreign machine gun, it generally had to be imported prior to 1968 due to that ban. And it was the "Sporter Clause" of the 1968 GCA that allowed for the ban of foreign machine guns. Basically the "sporter clause" is a tool that allows ATF to determine the suitability of a firearm for "sporting applications." It is also the basis for the 1989 Semi Auto Import Ban. If the ATF doesn't think a given firearm is "particularly suitable for sporting applications" they can ban it's importation by means of the "sporter clause." And it was the "sporter clause" which was cited for justification of the 1986 MG ban as well. If you want to get rid of something, you don't want to get rid of FOPA 86. You want to strike the "sporter clause" from the 1968 GCA. |
Well then, how do we re-open the registry? or do away with it all together? |
The '34 NFA was a tax law, not a gun ban. Even the anti-gun people back then realized what the 2nd ACTUALLY meant. Thier purpose was to discourage gun ownership by taxing them at ridiculous rates since they felt a ban would be unconstitutional. The registry could be re-opened just as it was closed, as a rider to another gun law. Or, as a single line item buried DEEP in a tax reform bill |
The tax stamp should be paid at the gun store just like sales tax and firearm excise taxes are. You already submit to an adequate background check with NICS anyway. Put down your 200 bucks and walk away with your SBR, Suppressor etc. I think 68 sporting clause repealed. Then moving to get NFA done at the time of sale/instant BG check. Then move to get 86 MG ban repealed-in theory 68 striking sporter clasue would do this, in practice I kinda doubt it. |
Can you source this? As far as I know this is still the case today. |
Actually, it probably would. They touted out the "non sporting applications" BS as the basis for the domestic ban. Furthermore, without the "sporting clause" foreign MGs would be importable again. The 86 domestic ban woudl be completely undermined. There simply wouldn't be any basis for it. |
The key phase is "engaged in business for profit." While it is true ATF sometimes has a short memory and would like to once again declare that anyone who sells a firearm for more than they paid to be an "unlicensed dealer" if they aren't doing it as a "business for profit" they are protected by FOPA 86. Before FOPA 86 virtually everyone in the EE would be at risk of arrest which is why "kitchen table" FFLs were so common in the early 80s. Everyone became a FFL just to cover their ass. So basically if you sell or trade a gun in a way that reflects it's increased collector values (ie: a good trade) you are protected. But if you are a guy setting up tables at gunshows and moving guns online primarily as a source of income, you are at risk. |
No qualifiers needed at all. It should be simply struck. Bradys would simply suggest "lawful applications" meant LE use. |
Yes, that is the root of the evil in the various gun acts. The idea that "mere civilians" should only be allowed to own firearms for "sporting purposes" and nothing else is a Nazi era concept that needs to be stricken. It is obvious from the writings of the Founding Fathers and other commentators of that era that the Second Amendment was not about "sporting purposes", but about having arms suitable for resisting an overbearing government or other enemies of freedom. |
Theoretically, yes. They could be imported again with no "sporting clause" on the books but we run into the problem again of not being to register (pay tax per the 34 nfa) them if the law (86 fopa) is still not accepting taxes for new MG's. That is what the registry closure rider in the '86 FOPA did. It essentially says that taxes (therefore, registrations) required by the '34 NFA for new MG's will no longer be accepted after May 19, 1986. The best way I see to re-open the registry is for a pro-gun congressman to secretly bury a line item re-accepting the $200 making tax on page 2,187 of a 6,000 page tax reform bill. Remember, most congresscritters don't actually read the bills they vote on and even Feinstein and Kennedy might even be suckered to vote for it. |
The Hughes Amendment was enacted through subterfuge and is most easily nullified in the same manner. Who can talk to a friendly Congressman? |
What about adding "lawful civilian"? Takes out the LE and military only crap the brady bunch could pull and affirms thats is a rite of the people almost then. |
With the "sporter caluse" removed, the legaility of the closed registry could be directly challenged without the need for a new bill. |
On what grounds could it be "directly challenged" and where? Supreme Court? Like I said before, the Hughes amendment to the '86 FOPA closed new additions to the tax registry originally created by the '34 NFA. It had nothing to do with the '68 GCA. Even if the "sporting clause" in the '68 GCA were repealed, imported MG's would still be illegal. Because the '34 NFA requires registration of it which is impossible to do per the '86 FOPA registration closure. Hence, you would still be guilty of possesion of an unregistered MG. But, at least they couldn't prosecute you for "illegal importation" of a MG anymore. Sorry, but that's not much consolation. |
What was his/her full name? Am I safe to assume that Hughes is/was a Democrat? |
If you got rid of the Harrison Act we would still had laws regarding possession on the books, but those laws would be invalidated because they were based upon the Harrison Act. Think of it this way. If you got rid of the 1934 NFA what would that mean for the Hughes Amnedment? Technically there would still be a law that states the NFA registry is closed for domestic MGs. But without the NFA, it would be invalidated. In a very real sense, without the "sporter clause" the basis for closing the registry is also undermined. |