NFA Weapons Requirment, Why? - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: NFA Weapons Requirment, Why?

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Manning View Post
    I think some of those revisions mentioned by G50AE would probably be as far as anyone will go in the foreseeable future; but not likely anytime real soon. And, as he/she mentioned, baby steps are important.
    Yeah, on this issue (NFA) and other issues at the federal level even small victories are important. Remember that even with an anti-gun president, he tries to hide it and does not typically act on it but he is at the core anti-gun, we have gotten reforms to national park and AMTRACK rules. Yes these were both small reforms, but they were positive and are victories.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    At best I see about 3 or 4 NFA reforms being possible at this time.
    1- Getting rid of the local LE sign off to obtain an NFA item, in favor of a NICS check. Remember that at the time NFA was writen we did not have anything close to NICS.
    2- Reducing the shotgun barrel length requirement to 14". This is a commanly used length from LE agentcies and personal protective teams. This change would reduce the paperwork load for both LE agentcies and for the ATF as well.
    3- Reclassifying Sound supressors as AOW, thus reducing the transfer tax to $5 instead of $200.
    4- Changing the definition of handgun to allow for a .600 Linebaugh or 28ga. revolver. Currently both are defined as a destructive device due to a bore diameter over 1/2 inch.

    These reforms are I admit rather minor, but incrementalism can be an effective strategy. Getting one of these reforms passed would be a victory IMHO.
    I think these may be a good first step. I think #4 would probably be the easiest with maybe #1 being doable too. 2,3 would be much harder - I think the anti's and media would have a field day if they noticed what was going on.

    GUN RIGHTS EXTREMISTS WANT SAWED OFF SHOTGUNS AND SILENCERS!!!!!!!!

    They may not notice an amendment that raises the legal rifled bore size a tenth of a inch.

  4. #13
    Great dialogue here! NFA rules are deeply engrained in politics, as well as anti gun emotions; and any attempt at changing them will be met head-on with arguments from both fronts - thus greatly diminishing any chance at a positive outcome. As much fun as FAW are, you would be hard pressed to find any legitimate reason to argue that would allow private citizen ownership in states that now do not allow them, pr SBS, SBR, etc. - like Washington. I like the idea of the baby steps that 'G50AE' outlined and think that small incremental changes would be more proactive than taking one giant leap at total change.

  5. #14
    As someone who is in the process of getting her class III license ( I already have a delaer license), Ienjoyed reading this thread. I would like to see us go back to before the 1935 ruling. But I don't see this happening anytime soon.

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck0255 View Post
    The real question is why you wouldn’t want to own them. They are an absolute blast to shoot. I don’t need a reason to want one other then the 2nd entities you to own them. And to give a general answer to all the questions think about this. IF the CCW laws were never challenged how many states would have right to carry today. Washington State where I live is about as liberal as you can get but we just loosened the laws here on using silencers. Either you work toward restoring your rights or you passively wait for them to take more.
    Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think automatic weapons were around in 1791.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Turkules77 View Post
    Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think automatic weapons were around in 1791.
    Well by that line of thinking there were not any double barrels, revolvers or semi-auto around either. In fact not even percussion weapons were around yet. The 2nd applies to any currently use military weapon which would include machine guns and suppressors. A common misconception is it was about hunting and that is untrue. It was plainly about being able to defeat the government in a civil war. There is no justifiable reason to restrict class three weapons at this point from any law abiding citizen. In fact I would say the need of civilians to own such weapons is going up each year.

  8. #17
    The only way something like this would get changed is the same way it got put into place - in a backhanded sort of way not having to do with the original issue. The original tax was implemented as a test to see if the American people would accept a "Tax Stamp" type of regulation and the bank robbers using FAW and grenades were an easy target. The next "Tax Stamp" nailed all marijuana growers, hemp growers (which back then was used to make paper, rope and clothes) and took away canabis from the A.M.A. before they realized "marijuana" was the common name for it!

    The only way a major change in the law could be pursued is if we implemented something similar to Switzerland. Every male must serve in the military, and upon discharge, keeps his FAW (Assault Rifle) as a member of the reserve to be called up as needed. After a decade, there would be so many FAW's in homes that the public would be numb to them and the law would seem archaic and useless. This would have the added benefit of making those in the family that "don't like" guns either get used to them or get training. Kids would be educated in school as a necessity to them being in almost every household. It would turn the tide towards at least a gun-tolerant society.
    Edmund Burke: “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” – 1784 speech. Taken from Founding Fathers Notes. "The unarmed man is not just defenseless -- he is also contemptible." Machiavelli

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Turkules77 View Post
    Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think automatic weapons were around in 1791.
    Neither were most of the guns we use today. The founders actually envisioned that and kept the term general as "arms".

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by chuck0255 View Post
    Well by that line of thinking there were not any double barrels, revolvers or semi-auto around either. In fact not even percussion weapons were around yet. The 2nd applies to any currently use military weapon which would include machine guns and suppressors. A common misconception is it was about hunting and that is untrue. It was plainly about being able to defeat the government in a civil war. There is no justifiable reason to restrict class three weapons at this point from any law abiding citizen. In fact I would say the need of civilians to own such weapons is going up each year.
    Exactly, but at some point a line has to be drawn. The military uses Grenade Launchers, Uranium Tank Piercing Rounds, Nuclear bombs etc.. I just don't think the public needs to have these types of weapons. Now don't get me wrong, I have fired Autos before and loved it, when I have the chance to purchase one, I plan on it. But I can see being somewhat restrictive in who gets them. I am not for more government, but I do understand the need for the government to draw the line somewhere when it comes to weapons that can cause some serious destruction.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Turkules77 View Post
    Exactly, but at some point a line has to be drawn. The military uses Grenade Launchers, Uranium Tank Piercing Rounds, Nuclear bombs etc.. I just don't think the public needs to have these types of weapons. Now don't get me wrong, I have fired Autos before and loved it, when I have the chance to purchase one, I plan on it. But I can see being somewhat restrictive in who gets them. I am not for more government, but I do understand the need for the government to draw the line somewhere when it comes to weapons that can cause some serious destruction.
    Does it have to be drawn? We used to judge the action of people instead of spending enormous ressources on having bureaucrats fiddle with restrictions on who can have what where and when that ultimately get ignored by the bad guys anyway.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast