Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/25/2002 3:33:00 PM EDT
the same government that won't allow you to have a collapsible stock or flash hider on your post ban AR, will allow you to have a silencer or full auto? is it just about the money a easy way to make cash?

I guess I just don't understand why some features on a gun are illegal while other things aren't.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 3:39:50 PM EDT
Don't you live in CALIFORNIA

You have your own government to worry about.





Link Posted: 7/25/2002 3:45:39 PM EDT
They were grandfathered in. Or you have to be a dealer to get newer ones. Not like you can go to the store and pick up an M16.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 3:53:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 3:54:02 PM EDT by DarkHelmet]

Originally Posted By thee12nv:
They were grandfathered in. Or you have to be a dealer to get newer ones. Not like you can go to the store and pick up an M16.



Yup.. only with Machine Guns you have a 1986 cutoff for ownership with no "post-ban version" for civilians instead of a 1994 cut off.

And with the cost being so prohibitive ($200 tax on top of expensive firearm cost) the average Joe down the street can't afford one so the BATF isn't too worried about it.

And because most of the "Anti's" haven't figured out that civilian ownership of machineguns/silencers is even legal so they haven't raised a stink. So SHHHHHHH!!!!!.... shut up already will ya'!
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 4:27:59 PM EDT
There are currently only enough legal Full Auto Weapons to give to only ONE per THOUSAND citizens!!

Not very much to worry about.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 4:31:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 4:35:07 PM EDT
Personally I can't see why the government has any say in it myself. The 2nd Ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms." I doesn't say "The right to kepp and bear the arms we think you should be allowed by us to have." Ergo if I wanted to own a 155mm Howitzer, I should be able purchase one, not that I really want one, I just don't have the means to tote one around.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 4:50:05 PM EDT
Incremental legislation. They pass the first part and then later say it doesn't go far enough, or there are "loopholes" they need to close. If they tried to do it all at once, they would never get it done. Might cause a real uprising.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 4:56:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 4:57:27 PM EDT by Hmanjr]
Same reason we still have privately owned off-road recreational vehicles, privately owned motorcycles, privately owned vehicles, privately owned property, privately owned bank accounts, privately owned retirement accounts... They've not taken them away yet.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 5:37:44 PM EDT
Frankly, there is precisely one reason. It is another ammendment to the constitution, the forth, which protects against unreasonable seizure of property.

Had the government banned weapons prior to the cutoff date, they would have had to compensate the current owners; just grabbing the guns would have violated the forth amendment. Had they just restricted them to the people who already owned them (keep what you have but you can't get rid of it), that too would have violated the forth amendment, because it would have rendered the property worthless (you couldn't sell it).

So they grandfathered the existing Class 3 weapons.

The second amendment does not guarantee the rights of the people to ANY weapon they choose. Hence, you can't (as someone suggested) own a tank, cannon, or atomic bomb. Such bans don't violate the second amendment. (or so goes the legal theory).
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 5:55:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 6:00:31 PM EDT by GodBlessTexas]

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
the same government that won't allow you to have a collapsible stock or flash hider on your post ban AR, will allow you to have a silencer or full auto? is it just about the money a easy way to make cash?



With a full set of finger prints (if you don't go as a corporation), beuracratic hassle by your local CLEO, beuracratic hassle at the BATF, and the likelyhood that you'll go to prison even if they do approve your paperwork because the NFA database is estimated to be around only 50% correct and up to date. That's in addition to the $200 tax, which in the 30's was a tidy sum. Lord only knows why they haven't raised the tax.

And in actuality, the NFA is about money. That's why it's run through the Treasury Dept. And the SCOTUS has ruled that the government can put a tax on anything it wants under the guise of making revenue. See specifically Sonzinsky v. United States, where Sonzinksy was peddling NFA weapons without paying the SOT to the BATF. There are other cases, but I can't find the specific ones I want.



I guess I just don't understand why some features on a gun are illegal while other things aren't.



Lawmakers thought making those features illegal would make manufacturing offensive firearms impossible. They didn't think that companies would actually manufacture what was once known as the AR-15, as the AR-15 designation is strictly banned by the 1994 AW ban, in a "neutered" configuration since those features were considered intergral to the weapon. The anti-gun pukes certainly didn't think they were going to end up with "post-ban" weapons. They still can't call anything made after 9/14/94 an AR-15. At least not anything they can sell to us lowly citizens.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 6:49:26 PM EDT
You have to rememeber there was a different mind-set towards firearms in 1934 when the National Firearms Act was passed. Back then, the anti's knew there was no way to outlaw an entire type of firearm. So they decided to tax them out of existiance. $200 in 1934 was very big money. Nowadays, what's $200 compared to $10,000? An inconvient dribble.

Flash forward to 1986. Now the mindset towards firearms has changed enough that you can get away with an unconstitutional law banning certain types. Those already in the system were grandfathered in because it was cheaper than collecting them and paying market value. And they didn't show up in crime stats anyway, so therefor they weren't a safety/crime problem and would eventually wear out from use. Let attrition do your dirty work.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 7:30:09 PM EDT
They do it because they can do any damn thing they want ! Or so THEY THINK ! We will have our RIGHTS deminished in this country untill we get rid of those FUCKING LIBERALS! DON'T YOU GUYS GET IT YET ? GET OUT & VOTE & I'LL VOTE OUT McCAINE .
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 8:55:42 PM EDT

The second amendment does not guarantee the rights of the people to ANY weapon they choose. Hence, you can't (as someone suggested) own a tank, cannon, or atomic bomb. Such bans don't violate the second amendment. (or so goes the legal theory).


Actually, a retired businessman in Buffalo here owned several tanks, an APC or two and some other military hardware. I read an article about it in the paper a couple weeks ago.

For years, he was telling the army that he was putting together a military history museum, and the Army donated several decommissioned tanks from WW2 and what not. He had a warehouse full of the stuff, and the best part was that they were still operational.

The news article relayed some funny anecdotes and quoted some pissed-off neighboors that he was driving his buddies to the bar and picking them up in his Armored Personnel Carrier. Finally, the military wised up and said, "So where's this museum? We've been giving you tanks and APCs and shit for 15 years and there's still no museum!" So then the Army types came in and repossessed all his vehicles and what not. They were also rather upset because the Army also picked up the tab to transport the military hardware to the warehouse in the first place. It was one of the funniest articles that I've ever read, especially the part where the locals were complaining about him driving his friends to the bar in an APC.

I'd like to see those DUI roadblock goons try to stop an APC for a "seatbelt check."
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:14:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 9:15:27 PM EDT by twogun]
WAKE UP YOU GUYS. It is about people control. They goverment wants to control us. Taxes, gun restrictions, national healthcare, social security, it is all about control. They want to control us. The working and middle class law abiding tax payers. They can care less about illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and violent felons. It is time to vote the tyrrants out of office. Our vote does count. Bush won by 3 electrol college votes. The assault weapons ban passed because of 13 house votes. VOTE!!!!!! Wright letters to your politicians. I Wrote a letter to a state assemblyman, and because of my letter, a bill was introduced into the NJ state assembly. I also e-mailed three letters to the NJ state AG, and helped get a stricter gun control ruling stopped. The system does work. Use it to your benifit before the right to vote is taken away.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 10:11:00 PM EDT
In my humble opinion the only reason all NFA firearm have not gone the same route as Machineguns and have been banned from new manufacture and or a complete ban on ownership is simple.

The masses don't know that civilians can own them.

If you educated the public at large that I could essentially mail order a brand new full-auto "silenced" Uzi (i.e Vector+mossad) and pay for it with a credit card there would no longer be such a thing as a Transferrable machingun.

Most peoples jaw drop to the floor when I tell them that I own a machingun, and they about fall over when I show them a Vector Uzi ad out of shotgun news.
These people are not tree-huggin hippies but firearm owners themselves. They cannot beleive their eyes. About the only thing that cools them off is the pricetag.

This goes over even more for suppressors and SBS "sawed-off shotguns". Which for the most part anybody can make on a Form 1 brand new for minimal cost.
99.9999% percent of the public at large thinks that these are already completely illegal, therefore is no outcry to ban them.

Basically sort of a loophole for the gun owning community due to the publics ignorance on the subject.

Link Posted: 7/25/2002 10:22:42 PM EDT
one other thing about 86 it was tacked on at the last minute to a otherwise excellent bill.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 1:17:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By David:
Personally I can't see why the government has any say in it myself. The 2nd Ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms." I doesn't say "The right to kepp and bear the arms we think you should be allowed by us to have." Ergo if I wanted to own a 155mm Howitzer, I should be able purchase one, not that I really want one, I just don't have the means to tote one around.


What are you, some kind of a cultist nut? Think of the children man, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Top Top