Nullifying NFA/Class 3 laws.

[atlas3025]

I cannot forsee a time when we will be able to scrap the NFA process as much as it is not what the Founding Fathers intended.  How many times when arguing against a semi-auto ban do we have to clarify that they are not full auto.  We can't say that with the NFA.  But the Hughes amendment should be challenged because I believe we COULD get it struck down.

 

I think we CAN get suppressors removed from the list with an aggressive letter writing campaign. They are safety equipment, nothing more.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My friend's proposal to replace the current system while keeping the SPIRIT of the law in place, public safety/PIECE OF MIND for the sheep.

 

"basically I'd have to take an additional course and get proof of it and take that to the court house that issued my CCW. They would issue me a New CCW with the Automatic Weapon endorsement on it. I would HAVE to have this and provide it upon attempting to purchase an automatic weapon. I would also have to keep a copy of my "Training Certification" in the safe where the weapon(s) are to be stored. Other than that there would be a database solely for automatic weapons that would have the info entered for my purchase within 24 hours. If I wanted to sell of transfer it in any way It would have to go through an FFL and the transferee would also have to have the same endorsement in order to receive it from me."

The trouble with that is, you are admitting that you have to prove to someone else something. There's nothing in the

Constitution that requires or allows this. Why should you have to submit to anyone to prove your worth, or ability to

own something, in this case? Sheeps have nothing to do with this, except their emotions, and the people who take

advantage of them. I haven't found a "submission clause" in there.

 

Liberty costs something, but it ain't submission.

[JohnC]

I cannot forsee a time when we will be able to scrap the NFA process as much as it is not what the Founding Fathers intended.  How many times when arguing against a semi-auto ban do we have to clarify that they are not full auto.  We can't say that with the NFA.  But the Hughes amendment should be challenged because I believe we COULD get it struck down.

 

I think we CAN get suppressors removed from the list with an aggressive letter writing campaign. They are safety equipment, nothing more.

 

It needs to be challenged ASAP because we have a 5 to 4 split with SCOTUS. One of those conservative judges retires of passes away and Obama gets to appoint a new one, we're screwed!

[Johnny Rotten]

it would be nice but it aint going to hasppen

if it did it would cost me a lot of money cause the price would go way down

THIS

Nothing like taking stacks of $100 dollar bills to the fire place and watching them burn

[dlm37015]

THIS

Nothing like taking stacks of $100 dollar bills to the fire place and watching them burn

i would get over it

[JohnC]

THIS

Nothing like taking stacks of $100 dollar bills to the fire place and watching them burn

 

But think of the money you'll save on future purchases. :up:

 

Do you really buy NFA items/guns for investments?

[dlm37015]

But think of the money you'll save on future purchases. :up:

 

Do you really buy NFA items/guns for investments?

i have in the past .right now the prices on full stuff is down somewhat . kinda like buying classic cars . i bought several macs in the 70s and 80s that i gave 3-5 hundred dollars for that are trading now for 3-5 thousand one ruger ac556 i bought in 85 for 875 i sold a few years ago to 14,000

[TMF]

Personal monetary interests of folks who would see their NFA items decrease in value at the repeal of an unjust law are secondary to my right to purchase those items without a prohibitive tax. Wait, it isn't just secondary or tertiary, it shouldn't even be a consideration when we discuss this.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I am sure there are a lot of NFA dealers who would oppose the repealing of the Huges Amendment. If they legalized suppressors without NFA tax I would not complain about loosing my $200 I already paid. And if I owned a MG or two or a dozen I would not complain about loosing the $200 for each of them because I would be able to buy more.

 

Removing suppressors from the NFA list would make their cost drop to 1/10th of what they are now. I have been told most suppressors, in places where they can be bought over the counter, are under $50. It would make sense because it is nothing more that a machined peice of metal which can be produced very cheaply.

 

I might give a call sometime this week to the person I know at the ATF to see where we need to start to remove suppressors from the NFA registry. It would alleviate a lot of the backlog at the ATF and decrease wait times for other NFA items.

 

Suppressors intrigue me more than any other NFA item.

 

Dolomite

[Johnny Rotten]

But think of the money you'll save on future purchases. :up:

 

Do you really buy NFA items/guns for investments?

I can only dream.

I buy MG because there fun, alot of fun, do I see them as investments, somewhat, they've increased in vaule faster then my savings account..

Remember I seen your face after a mag dump.....

[DaveTN]

Money will grow on trees before FA is legal for the general public. The price would definitely crash; an M16 doesn’t cost anymore to manufacture than an AR15.

The Tennessee legislature has already removed the ban on suppressors. It’s just that no one is willing to test the law.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I really wish someone would test the law. I wonder if you could get the AG to wite an opinion on what their involvement would be in protecting a citizen of Tennessee for making a suppressor?

 

I would love nothing more than to build a suppressor for every single gun I own.

 

Dolomite

[TMF]

I really wish someone would test the law. I wonder if you could get the AG to wite an opinion on what their involvement would be in protecting a citizen of Tennessee for making a suppressor?

I would love nothing more than to build a suppressor for every single gun I own.

Dolomite

If I had 10K to blow and didn't need a clean record, I'd do it. Gonna be hard to find someone willing to take the hit.

[1gewehr]

I own MGs and would be perfectly willing to see the Hughes Amendment go away.  I own them because I enjoy them. 

 

Arguing about the differences between semi-autos and machine guns is playing right into the hands of gun controllers.  Either the Second Amendment protects private ownership of firearms or it doesn't.  If it does, then MGs are just as protected as any other type of firearm.  Period.

 

It's like arguing that the First Amendment protection of Free Speech doesn't apply to email because you can send a thousand emails with one push of a mouse button.  Either Free Speech is protected, regardless of the form, or it is not.  Speed and technology are irrelevant.

 

Machine guns were entirely unregulated until 1934.  Thousands of automatic weapons ranging from submachine guns to heavy machine guns were brought back from WWI by US troops.  None of the horrible scenarios envisioned by anti-gun people existed then.  Even the few instances of shootouts between bandits and cops were no real danger to the public.  Almost all of the machine guns used by bandits during the 1930's were stolen from police and military armories.  The law has not stopped criminals from getting machine guns.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

THIS

Nothing like taking stacks of $100 dollar bills to the fire place and watching them burn

With this attitude, you just sold a right away for the rest of the citizenry who make up this country for the amount of inflation artificially created by your government. That's exactly what I expected. Might as well go on and give up the rest of your guns.

You also seem to forget that the fed is making/printing those hundred dollar bills as fast as you can burn them. An investment is a poor excuse to exchange for a right.

 

There is a principle involved in the argument. It is called the 2nd Amendment. Read it some time. Has

nothing to do with dollars or fun. I think it's more to do with tyranny. Whether or not it ever changes is

for another day, but it is the principle that matters, not your wallet.

Edited March 19, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Spots]

I really wish someone would test the law. I wonder if you could get the AG to wite an opinion on what their involvement would be in protecting a citizen of Tennessee for making a suppressor?
 
I would love nothing more than to build a suppressor for every single gun I own.
 
Dolomite

If I could get a letter as stated above, Id be willing to test it. I don't have $1k's in guns to lose, my assets (cars, etc) are paid off and in my wifes name, and my land lord couldn't care less as long as I don't steal anything or hurt anyone, or his house.

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If I could get a letter as stated above, Id be willing to test it. I don't have $1k's in guns to lose, my assets (cars, etc) are paid off and in my wifes name, and my land lord couldn't care less as long as I don't steal anything or hurt anyone, or his house.

Sent from the backwoods of Nowhere

The game was stacked against us by regarding the law as requiring it to be tested by an individual, rather than

any such law be regarded as to it's constitutionality before the law is ever passed. It was Congress and a President

who believed in a living breathing document who caused the problem in the first place. We should be proactive by

many challenging a law's validity, rather than making one a sacrificial lamb being led to slaughter. It's admirable

that you would be willing to step up, but until a mass of people step up, you would be only that sacrificial lamb.

 

I know that there are probably thousands who feel the same as you and I, but us thousands need to be willing to

challenge the laws like this, medicare, social security, welfare and many others. We are in a spider's web of things

that keep us in our place until that happens. That will take resolve.

[Johnny Rotten]

With this attitude, you just sold a right away for the rest of the citizenry who make up this country for the amount of inflation artificially created by your government. That's exactly what I expected. Might as well go on and give up the rest of your guns.

You also seem to forget that the fed is making/printing those hundred dollar bills as fast as you can burn them. An investment is a poor excuse to exchange for a right.

 

There is a principle involved in the argument. It is called the 2nd Amendment. Read it some time. Has

nothing to do with dollars or fun. I think it's more to do with tyranny. Whether or not it ever changes is

for another day, but it is the principle that matters, not your wallet.

Nice,

Just checked this is the C3 forum, the Poltical forum is further down the page.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And your point is...?

 

Principle means nothing here? Only in another forum? uh huh.

Edited March 19, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[JohnC]

And your point is...?

 

Principle means nothing here? Only in another forum? uh huh.

 

JR is a cool guy. I assure you he is not for infringing on folks 2A rights. :up:

[dlm37015]

i would gladly lose all the money i have tied up in machine guns

if i could go buy a tank with a working

main gun

[Dolomite_supafly]

I would gladly give up the money I have and will have to be able to buy a brand new Colt M16/M4 for $1,200.

Dolomite

[RED333]

Full Auto is fun, but a waste of money and ammo.

Now 3 shot burst in a diff story, ya all know we are just dreaming, RIGHT?

[TMF]

Full Auto is fun, but a waste of money and ammo.
Now 3 shot burst in a diff story, ya all know we are just dreaming, RIGHT?

Not for the FA .22 I'd like to have. I had several in Iraq... FA and suppressed. More fun than you can have with any gun on the range.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I shot a suppressed MP5 a lot overseas. I would not turn one away even if the rounds cost $1 each to shoot.

 

I would really like to have a 10/22 with a Norrell pack in it. Unfortunately $10K is a bit more than I can justify for what would amount to a toy.