what if.... all F/A bans were lifted-no special forms to own

saltydecimator · Post by **saltydecimator** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:38 am

think its possible guys? i am interested in F/A guns but they are just too danged expensive. maybe if the govt. just lifted the ban on the 1968 ruling and said you could buy new stuff. that would keep the market open and decrease prices. i mean keep the 200 stamp and form but let us buy the new hk 416 (non civ. version) and that kriss 45. i dont think we would ever get back to the roaring twenties freedoms because of the population and general wackos, but its clearly an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, all arms. framers didnt say ok, you can have this that and those but not those cuz they are black and scary. so what do you guys think?

SFCat66 · Post by **SFCat66** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:37 am

It's always easier to deal with sweeping changes on a bureacratic level, and in today's climate the individual is repressed for the "greater good".

While the vast majority of Class III owners are responsible, it's the 5% that always end up at the top of the stupidity pyramid that engage in illegal behavior that enact the sweeping restrictions upon the community.

And on a personal note, while I do believe the government cannot infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights, I also believe that it can, and should, regulate those same weapons. I don't find the 4473's, nor the Class III process burdensome, but feel that the system is somewhat out of balance.

I would be willing to pay a higher tax (up to 1K) and submit for further process if I could own a post 86 weapon. I currently work in Fed LE and possess TS and higher clearances. While those grant no special exemption or treatment, if I can't be given consideration to own something "restricted" then who can?

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:09 am

You mean restore the Consitution?

Twinsen · Post by **Twinsen** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:30 am

I'd be happy filling out forms if I could go out and buy a brand-ass new thompson, bar, mac-10, galil, famas, aug, etc etc etc etc.

Davo5o · Post by **Davo5o** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:35 am

I don't even care about buying new, I just want to convert existing.

Wilder · Post by **Wilder** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:38 am

Don't worry about "what if" It want happen!

saltydecimator · Post by **saltydecimator** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:42 pm

ya cat i agree with you. and the next guy and the guy after him too. i think it sorta has to be regulated because of the wackos, but if the wackos really want em they are gonna get em. that being said, just like the issue of gun control, its bound to fail because.....CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW THE RULES! now there is no reason to make class 3 weapons unattainable to common folk who will follow proper procedures etc. i dont understand enough about the actual law to understand the nuances etc but if you look at it it obviously looks as if they trying to eliminate the whole category for civ. use by setting up that date(86).

Post by **silencertalk** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:02 am

Any child could order a Colt Monitor BAR if they had a spare $5,000 lying around (price of a modest house). Which is like $60,000 today. Funny -- you can still buy one for the same equivalent price.

Flyboy · Post by **Flyboy** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:57 pm

Just out of curiosity, SFCat, how do you not consider "regulation" to be an infringement? The two would seem to be antithetical.

In particular, how do you consider any tax--$5, $200, to say nothing of your proposed $1000--to not be an "infringement?" Would, say, a tax on ballot-casting not be an infringement to you, either? Paperwork (permission slip) to own a printing press?

You use that word "infringement;" I do not think it means what you think it means.

Davo5o · Post by **Davo5o** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:53 pm

Flyboy wrote:Just out of curiosity, SFCat, how do you not consider "regulation" to be an infringement? The two would seem to be antithetical.

In particular, how do you consider any tax--$5, $200, to say nothing of your proposed $1000--to not be an "infringement?" Would, say, a tax on ballot-casting not be an infringement to you, either? Paperwork (permission slip) to own a printing press?

You use that word "infringement;" I do not think it means what you think it means.

WORD!

SFCat66 · Post by **SFCat66** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:09 pm

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date: 1513
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon<infringe on our rights

In part, I believe that it depends on an individual's perspective on what one feels is burdensome. If I desire to voluntarily pay a tax for the possession of an item that has been regulated, then I do not feel that is a burden upon me, nor an infrigement upon my second amendment right.

My view is of my personal feelings, coupled with my sense of responsibility. I do not ascribe to an absolutist interpretation of NFA. Congress has been rife with enacting laws and creating agencies to manage and regulate process that the public deems worthy of, yet through inaction, political avoidance or just stupidity, fail to make their intent known. The subsequent agency must then interpret and enact procedures that are fair and balanced for the majority.

In the case of the NFA, the process is not overly burdensome in my opinion, nor is the $200 transfer tax, in light of what the Act was designed to accomplish. Registering my vehicle, buying a house and changing my driver's license were all accomplished with more paperwork.

The Act does not prevent the ownership of such items, just regulates who can, and places authority to regulate and administer the process to ATF (at this point in time).

The rights you speak of, to vote, or to own a press are hardly the same as there are no applicable histories of violence associated with either activity, or a tangible object, except in a totalitarian government that considers such freedoms seditious.

However, others may not feel the same as I, and I respect their opinion and will engage in civilized debate upon many a topic.

johnnywitt · Post by **johnnywitt** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:30 am

SFCat66 wrote:It's always easier to deal with sweeping changes on a bureacratic level, and in today's climate the individual is repressed for the "greater good".

While the vast majority of Class III owners are responsible, it's the 5% that always end up at the top of the stupidity pyramid that engage in illegal behavior that enact the sweeping restrictions upon the community.

And on a personal note, while I do believe the government cannot infringe upon our 2nd Amendment rights, I also believe that it can, and should, regulate those same weapons. I don't find the 4473's, nor the Class III process burdensome, but feel that the system is somewhat out of balance.

I would be willing to pay a higher tax (up to 1K) and submit for further process if I could own a post 86 weapon. I currently work in Fed LE and possess TS and higher clearances. While those grant no special exemption or treatment, if I can't be given consideration to own something "restricted" then who can?

So, what are you trying to say- that YOUR Constitutional rights are more important than just a 'regular' person like myself and many other NFA enthusiasts on this board.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:29 am

The 1934 Act does infringe, i can't buy a FA Glock 18 no matter what.

How does that not infringe.

The rest of tha act at best I could agree with you on.

Silencer, SBS, SBRs, but MG..........no way.

and I say at best becasue i believe ZERO gun control.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:36 pm

No FA G18 is the fault of 922(o), not NFA '34.

mtk · Post by **mtk** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:45 pm

ctdonath wrote:No FA G18 is the fault of 922(o), not NFA '34.

A Poll Tax is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.

There is no way you can have the above conclusion and not consider the NFA an infringement on your second amendment rights.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:53 pm

SFCat66 wrote:Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date: 1513
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon<infringe on our rights

Dude, please tell where you found a 1776 dictionary!

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:54 pm

ctdonath wrote:No FA G18 is the fault of 922(o), not NFA '34.

Neither.

It is GCA68.

SFCat66 · Post by **SFCat66** » Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:40 pm

One of the central issues to many of these positions is that of what exactly does the term "Arms" in the phrase;

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Depending on what one believe's in the extent of interpretation of the Constituition, or the extension of those interpretations, "Arms" could mean many things.

I choose to believe that the 1789 context of the Bill of Rights is such that the definition of "Arms" is any firearm that could be readily obtained by a typical houshold, used for hunting, sport and defense. These firearms were also defined by the technology of the day.

Firearms today have the luxury of being specific in intent in many cases of NFA items, and therein lies the conflict. While I can argue many points for the non military applications of NFA items, the core point is that the technology for the machine gun was born out of late 19th century warfare and designed for military applications.

Subsequent use of that technology off the battlefield led to the existant regulations of those firearms and items.

I also interpret the Constitution and it's Amendments to be flexible and forward looking in it's aim to preserve the institutions it was drafted to protect in the first place.

How does my VOLUNTARY willingness to pay a higher tax in order to posess currently prohibited firearms imply that I consider my rights to be more important than just a 'regular' person or the many other NFA enthusiasts on this board.

And the definition is from the current Webster's dictionary.

zach h · Post by **zach h** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:01 am

the framers of the bill of rights wanted the people to have the most modern guns if they so wanted. no papers , no taxes , no questions. they could have easily put non -mill weapons only or sporting guns , instead they put "arms " that I take as a pretty broad catergory. from matchlocks and cannon to MG's and whatnot.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:59 am

Neither. It is GCA68.

How so? NFA'34 taxed MGs at $200/transfer; 922(o) prohibits civvie possession of a post-'86 one.

ctdonath · Post by **ctdonath** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:10 am

I choose to believe that the 1789 context of the Bill of Rights is such that the definition of "Arms" is any firearm that could be readily obtained by a typical houshold, used for hunting, sport and defense. These firearms were also defined by the technology of the day.

Groan. The 2nd Amendment says NOTHING to limit the scope of "arms"; nay, it even says "shall not be infringed" and was written by guys who had cannons decorating their lawns, knew people who owned battleships, and had just finished fighting off the superpower of the time. At least one Founding Father observed that "arms" were "every terrible implement of the soldier" (not just what he kept at home). This "typical household arms of the day" BS is BS.

The detachable-magazine machinegun was effectively invented in 1717 (the "Puckle Gun").

Specialization of certain rifles for war, as distinct from "sporting purpose", to a large degree comes from infringements specifically designed to create such a dichotomy. If not for NFA et al, we would think little of having machineguns et al - just as we make little difference between "hunting rifles" and "sniper rifles" save nitpicky interest in what the military standardizes on.

SFCat66 · Post by **SFCat66** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:17 am

I agree, but absent any specific wording, interpretation of intent is all that is left.

I do not imply that the term "Arms" itself is limiting, only that I choose to believe a conservative intepretation of the word.

My interpretation of the Constituition is based on the belief that it was written for two venues, one framing the emergent government, and one for citizens of the new nation.

And the interpretation of "shall not be infringed" is a wholly seperate argument that can encopass many elements of other amendments, especially the 14th.

I opine that my interpretation is that government can regulate firearms to a certain degree, but that the regulation should not be burdensome.

And to extend the argument, do those interpretations mean that we as citizens can own and employ our own nuclear weapons as they are "every terrible implement of the soldier".

My belief is that most people in the NFA community would prefer an easier and less costly route, but there should be some balance to ensure the improper use of those items is kept to a feasable and realistic minimum.

renegade · Post by **renegade** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:33 am

ctdonath wrote:
Neither. It is GCA68.
How so? NFA'34 taxed MGs at $200/transfer; 922(o) prohibits civvie possession of a post-'86 one.

Glock 18 is foreign made. Foreign made MGs were banned from importation via GCA68.

Twinsen · Post by **Twinsen** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:47 am

I want to pass a gun law that states nobody can call a full automatic or burst fire weapon a "machine gun" on basis that it gets really annoying hearing any type of gun called that.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:45 pm

mtk wrote:
ctdonath wrote:No FA G18 is the fault of 922(o), not NFA '34.
A Poll Tax is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.

There is no way you can have the above conclusion and not consider the NFA an infringement on your second amendment rights.

+1million

The fact anyone on a gun board is ok with any gun control make me wanna vomit......