User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 1:31:00 PM EDT
Interesting that Paul Ryan's statement yesterday about wanting to make bumpstocks illegal and the next sentence was machine guns has been "illegal" since 1985. His statement doesn't give me any hope that all machine guns are safe in future legislation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 1:43:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Currently, possession or transfer of machineguns is illegal, except for government entities and registered dealers, manufacturers and importers, other than those grandfathered in by virtue of being registered prior to 1986. They were made illegal except for the grandfathering in 1986. The 1934 NFA just required them to be registered, if not owned by the federal government, and taxed, if not owned by a state or local government entity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 2:09:10 PM EDT
[#2]
So Congress can make the grandfathering in 1985 illegal by just having enough votes?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 2:28:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So Congress can make the grandfathering in 1985 illegal by just having enough votes? Of course, they need the President to sign it or override him. The courts could subsequently disagree. But they could enable/direct men with guns to enforce their will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 2:49:14 PM EDT
[#4]
lol, yes Virginia...
however, there are a bazillion other things they could do without having to worry about court rulings going against them... and just making having one impractical. I think the Swiss for example can own them but not shoot them... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 5:25:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Well if there's any truth to the NFA owners who own MG for investment and were fighting to keep 922o. You can sure as hell bet they will fight to keep their registered investment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 5:42:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Currently, possession or transfer of machineguns is illegal, except for government entities and registered dealers, manufacturers and importers, other than those grandfathered in by virtue of being registered prior to 1986. They were made illegal except for the grandfathering in 1986. The 1934 NFA just required them to be registered, if not owned by the federal government, and taxed, if not owned by a state or local government entity. Those firearms registered and possessed prior to 1986 ARE legal to own and to transfer. What the '87 bill did was to make NEWLY mfgd. guns non transferable to individuals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 5:45:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Snowball’s chance in hell...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 5:46:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are wrong. Or you at best poorly phrased your reply. Those firearms registered and possessed prior to 1986 ARE legal to own and to transfer. What the '87 bill did was to make NEWLY mfgd. guns non transferable to individuals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Currently, possession or transfer of machineguns is illegal, except for government entities and registered dealers, manufacturers and importers, other than those grandfathered in by virtue of being registered prior to 1986. They were made illegal except for the grandfathering in 1986. The 1934 NFA just required them to be registered, if not owned by the federal government, and taxed, if not owned by a state or local government entity. Those firearms registered and possessed prior to 1986 ARE legal to own and to transfer. What the '87 bill did was to make NEWLY mfgd. guns non transferable to individuals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 5:51:49 PM EDT
[#9]
And why shouldn't they? I mean if bump fire stocks are so bad and as Chris Cox said last night on Tucker Carlson "not too many people own these stocks" well hell not to many people own machine guns but there are more machine guns in the hands of people then there are bump stocks in the hands of people,so if the bullet hose that is the slide fire stock is so dangerous then why not machine guns? hell let's ban 'em all, AMIRITE?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 5:55:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well if there's any truth to the NFA owners who own MG for investment and were fighting to keep 922o. You can sure as hell bet they will fight to keep their registered investment. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 11:00:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are wrong. Or you at best poorly phrased your reply. Those firearms registered and possessed prior to 1986 ARE legal to own and to transfer. What the '87 bill did was to make NEWLY mfgd. guns non transferable to individuals. (o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect. BATF broke the law by allowing FFLs to have post-MGs, nowhere in the law is that allowed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 10:32:42 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well if there's any truth to the NFA owners who own MG for investment and were fighting to keep 922o. You can sure as hell bet they will fight to keep their registered investment. If you think that the small group of people owning transferrable MG's have enough political clout to influence legislation, then why have all the attempts they have made for overturn of 922(0), Veterans Amnesties, etc over the past 31 years fail???? Do a little research into the efforts that were made by the people/organizations you accuse before spouting off with that same "investment" nonsense..... In 30 years of owning NFA firearms, I know of exactly 1 person....1....who goes on about his "investments".....and he popped up on internet boards about 3 years ago..... I'd say the biggest fear is a Canadian-style freeze on transfers......then it's no new MG's, and now you can't even buy the "overpriced" MG's that are already out there. It would require new legislation however.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 11:39:38 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.[/i] BATF broke the law by allowing FFLs to have post-MGs, nowhere in the law is that allowed. ETA for clarity in the quote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 1:04:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes, they can ban whatever they can get passed. I personally think all gun laws are unconstitutional, but anymore nobody seems to care about the constitution when it comes to terror acts. People want the government to keep them safe. They don't realize that there can be no guarantee of safety. People need to keep themselves as safe as they can. I'm not saying give up living a real life and live under a rock, just understand that large groups of people make easy targets to the wac jobs out there. People should quit judging the tools used by crazy people and look at the crazy people.
If you remove one tool from a determined person they will find another one to do the job. You don't need a hammer to pound in a nail! If you want to keep someone from pounding in a nail by banning hammers, you are an idiot. Killing is no different. Ban guns and crazy people will use ieds and knives. You can go to Walmart and make something capable of killing many people at one time without even raising any alarms by buying inconspicuous household items. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 11:27:08 PM EDT
[#15]
ITT: People argue with Circuits and Renegade.
Congress can do whatever the hell they want to. They can pass the 28th Amendment tomorrow, repealing the 2nd Amendment. Nothing is ever set in stone. Yes, the transferability of machine guns could be changed in the future. In fact, given enough time, you can be guaranteed it will change. Also, given enough time, the United States will no longer exist. The Roman Empire fell, the Mongolian Empire fell, etc. One day the government will piss off enough people that the American Revolution: Redux happens. Long story short: if you want to buy a machine gun, buy a machine gun. Life is too short to worry about shit changing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2017 3:42:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ITT: People argue with Circuits and Renegade.
Congress can do whatever the hell they want to. They can pass the 28th Amendment tomorrow, repealing the 2nd Amendment. Nothing is ever set in stone. Yes, the transferability of machine guns could be changed in the future. In fact, given enough time, you can be guaranteed it will change. Also, given enough time, the United States will no longer exist. The Roman Empire fell, the Mongolian Empire fell, etc. One day the government will piss off enough people that the American Revolution: Redux happens. Long story short: if you want to buy a machine gun, buy a machine gun. Life is too short to worry about shit changing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2017 11:20:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And considering how much pre '86 NFA full autos now cost... presumably the ownership demographic of them gets wealthier and wealthier over time, and those people are much more likely to have the ear or social connections to Congresscritters than the "regular guy" who can swing the $200 NFA tax, and a $1000 AR that was full auto if Hughes was repealed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well if there's any truth to the NFA owners who own MG for investment and were fighting to keep 922o. You can sure as hell bet they will fight to keep their registered investment. 1) They bought them decades ago back before prices went up or even before the 1986 ban went into effect. 2) They are able to afford MG at todays insane prices because they are already independently wealthy and it gives them somewhere to spend their money. Im new to the hobby, Im by no means rich but am solid middle class and am all about working hard, avoiding debt and invest for my future. I figure some people buy corvettes, sailboats, fine arts, etc... I buy transferable MGS. Blaming owners of transferable MGs for the reason why they are so expensive and why they cant get congress to make them legal is a load of horse s**t. 1) they are expensive because of supply and demand 2) congress wont repeal Hughes or the NFA because 90% of America would throw a fit if they flipped on CNN and saw that evil death ray baby killing MGs were now legal. They already think AR15s are MGs, can you image what people would do if actual real MGs were legalized? As a owner of multiple transferable I wouldn't shed one tear if Hughes was repealed. Would it suck financially? sure, but its such a small portion of my net worth it wouldnt matter. Besides, I would be too busy converting all of my firearms to full auto and on the phone hunting down bucket list guns that i wouildnt have time to be upset about it. The idea that there is hundreds or thousands of ultra wealth investors that have a large portion of their net worth tied up in MGs and have direct political connections to Washington allowing them to pay of congress to keep their MG collection valuable is stupid. The NFA community is tiny and the MG community is a tiny fraction of the NFA community. Just about every MG owner ive met can afford to loose the value of their MG because they either paid next to nothing for it 30 years ago or make a upper middle class or better salary which allows them to toss around large sums of money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:08:40 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ITT: People argue with Circuits and Renegade.
Congress can do whatever the hell they want to. They can pass the 28th Amendment tomorrow, repealing the 2nd Amendment. Nothing is ever set in stone. Yes, the transferability of machine guns could be changed in the future. In fact, given enough time, you can be guaranteed it will change. Also, given enough time, the United States will no longer exist. The Roman Empire fell, the Mongolian Empire fell, etc. One day the government will piss off enough people that the American Revolution: Redux happens. Long story short: if you want to buy a machine gun, buy a machine gun. Life is too short to worry about shit changing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:12:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 2nd being one of the original Bill of Rights would require a lot more than Congress to repeal. 
My post wasn't a crash course in junior high government. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:24:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really!?!?
My post wasn't a crash course in junior high government. 
God bless TX |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:28:29 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure it works like that. See also 18th and 21st amendment. an amendment is constitutional whether you want it to be or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:29:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 2nd being one of the original Bill of Rights would require a lot more than Congress to repeal. there is no order of precedence for the constitution. the bill of rights is not inherently more constitutional than follow on amendments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:35:42 PM EDT
[#23]
Article V of the Constitution explains how to amend the Constitution
And if amendments were numbered in the order they were proposed, 1&2 would be 2&3 and 27 would be 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:35:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Somewhat off topic but what was the average price for say an m16 a1 or mp5 back before 1986?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:38:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Heller v DC majority opinion already explicitly states you can ban full auto. So SCOTUS has ruled.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:40:03 PM EDT
[#26]
factory Colts M16 went for $400, about same as semi.
Somewill be along to post Shotgun News ads |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:41:59 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heller v DC majority opinion already explicitly states you can ban full auto. So SCOTUS has ruled. Only the issue actually before court is binding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:42:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
factory Colts M16 went for $400, about same as semi. Somewill be along to post Shotgun News ads I would have guessed they were more like 5k back then. Damn, that sucks. Wish I was alive back then to purchase one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:45:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was dicta and is irrelevant. Kinda like fire in a crowded theater was irrelevant. Only the issue actually before court is binding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 3:49:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless, what is constitutional is up to the whims of 5 judges. And they have already ruled. You know how it would go. So 2-7. Sadly I do not the not think we could get 5 to protect semis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 4:01:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regardless, what is constitutional is up to the whims of 5 judges. And they have already ruled. You know how it would go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That was dicta and is irrelevant. Kinda like fire in a crowded theater was irrelevant. Only the issue actually before court is binding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 4:31:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes it does. See also 18th and 21st amendment. an amendment is constitutional whether you want it to be or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not sure it works like that. See also 18th and 21st amendment. an amendment is constitutional whether you want it to be or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 4:49:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Congress cannot simply "pass an amendment". It takes a 2/3 vote in both the senate and house, and doesn't become part of the constitution until ratified by 3/4 of the states (currently 38 would be required). Yes, once it's part of the constitution, it's inherently constitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 5:23:46 PM EDT
[#34]
For the guy asking about prices, I paid a little over $600 for my first M16, the last one I purchased I paid a bit over $9,000 for, I could sell any of them in the $20's to $30's now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 5:26:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was addressing his implication that amendments 1-10 cannot be changed by follow on amendments. not whether or not congress can do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 7:28:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was addressing his implication that amendments 1-10 cannot be changed by follow on amendments. not whether or not congress can do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 7:35:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't imply they couldn't be changed, but as the first 10, there is going to be a lot more discussion, than there would be on rest of the amendments to the Constitution and there always has been. There are provisions to change all of them, is there will to change them, time will tell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 7:45:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Currently, possession or transfer of machineguns is illegal, except for government entities and registered dealers, manufacturers and importers, other than those grandfathered in by virtue of being registered prior to 1986. They were made illegal except for the grandfathering in 1986. The 1934 NFA just required them to be registered, if not owned by the federal government, and taxed, if not owned by a state or local government entity. Minus the detail of 'Affirmative Defense'. "Machine guns are also treated differently. In 1986, as part of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA), Congress prohibited individuals from owning machine guns, and made it an affirmative defense that the machine gun was registered before the act took effect (which was 5/19/86). See 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(o) for the law. Thus as an individual you can only legally own a machine gun that was registered before that date. Any registered after that date can only be owned by SOT's, law enforcement, and government entities. A SOT may not keep these machine guns after surrendering his SOT. In order to transfer one of these machine guns, the SOT must have a request from an agency able to own one for a demonstration. Or an order from one of those agencies to buy one. A class 2 SOT can make machine guns for research and development purposes, or for sale to dealers as samples, or for sale to government entities. These are commonly called post-86 machine guns. " |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 9:53:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
objection, conjecture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 10:38:57 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can see you have never been in front of Congress before have you? but I would say the evisceration of the 4th amendment didn't have a lot of debate with the NSA monitoring and recording all emails. So.................point in my favor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 11:28:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
can't say that I have. but I would say the evisceration of the 4th amendment didn't have a lot of debate with the NSA monitoring and recording all emails. So.................point in my favor? The last time I reminded a Congressman, he was out of order and he didn't understand or know what the Constitution stated, I was found in Contempt and they tried to strip my rank, which fortunately, I had some really good friends in good places that saved my ass! The longest 6 years of my life was serving in the Pentagon, I am so glad I can tell them to fuck off these days without any ramifications. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2017 2:26:02 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alito has already ruled to strike down the MG ban when he was appeals judge. Thomas would likely join. Gordy has is unknown. The rest would be no. So 2-7. Sadly I do not the not think we could get 5 to protect semis. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5836794757734912440&q=us+v.+rybar+103+f3d+273&hl=en&as_sdt=6,43&as_vis=1 Here is part of his dissent: This [922(o)] would not preclude adequate regulation of the private possession of machine guns. Needless to say, the Commerce Clause does not prevent the states from regulating machine gun possession, as all of the jurisdictions within our circuit have done. See Del.Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1444 (1995); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2C:39-5a (West 1995); 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 908 (1996); V.I.Code Ann. tit. 14, § 2253 (1994). Moreover, the statute challenged here would satisfy the demands of the Commerce Clause if Congress simply added a jurisdictional element — a common feature of federal laws in this field and one that has not posed any noticeable problems for federal law enforcement. In addition, as I explain below, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) might be sustainable in its current form if Congress made findings that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns has a substantial effect on interstate commerce or if Congress or the Executive assembled empirical evidence documenting such a link. Alito did not address any Second Amendment issues. At the present time, I'd bet Thomas would be the only vote for the Supreme Court to even hear a machine gun ban. Whether 5 would vote to protect semi-autos is an open question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2017 9:02:42 PM EDT
[#43]
Why do we continue to allow threads like this?
"Can the legislative body that passed NFA '34, GCA 68, the AWB '94, and every other federal gun law create a new gun law?!?!?!?" Fucking yes, you dolt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2017 9:28:25 PM EDT
[#44]
fuck the political class
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2017 9:28:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somewhat off topic but what was the average price for say an m16 a1 or mp5 back before 1986? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2017 4:20:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somewhat off topic but what was the average price for say an m16 a1 or mp5 back before 1986? Prices also did not take off immediately after 922(o). It took many years to get here. In 1994, eight years after the ban became law, I bought my Colt M16A1 -- as new, no box -- for $2k. The same dealer had a new-in-straw Polytec AK for $2k, a C&R STEn for $800 and a minty Maremont M60 for $3.5k. He was dropping his FFL/SOT and offered them all to me as a package deal for $7.5k. And I laughed at him -- I didn't have that sort of Big Money. Or look at it this way: I paid for the Colt M16A1 in part by selling two well-worn Colt SP1s -- I bought 'em for $400 total, sold 'em for $1.2k total. So in 1994, a minty Colt M16A1 was worth about three used Colt SP1's. Hope that helps with the perspective. |
|
|
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.
