NFA Weapons Requirment, Why?


chuck0255

New member
It is a mystery to me why a law passed in 1935 has never been seriously challenged on constitutional grounds. I think is what needs to be done is a call out to the entire community to bring us back to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment with a class action suit consisting of private gun owners, gun shops and all hunting, shooting and firearms manufactures. If enough support could be gathered I could see this law either being revoked or at least rewritten to eliminated or greatly reduce the transfer tax. Think if all NFA items could transfer as AOW or a normal background check instead of the separate classes we have now. Also it could be used to get new automatic weapons into the market making prices drop to a level more people could enjoy the fun of it.
 

eXGee11

New member
Good luck with that. Liberal left has a hard enough time with the guns we can have now let alone giving us more.
 

Booga

New member
I'd be careful with re-evaluation of that law. They might decide the tax is "behind the times" and just raise it.
 

jg1967

New member
Just curious, what is your rationale for wanting to own full autos? Just because or anything specific? Not meaning to flame you here but they are not very practical for most applications.
 

chuck0255

New member
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.
 

G50AE

Banned
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.
 

chuck0255

New member
I like the idea of those reforms with one addition. Allow new full auto weapons to enter the market even if you keep the 200 dollar transfer tax. It would bring the price for them down to affordable levels and allow many of the older and wearing out guns to be retired to historical conversation pieces.
 

Doc Mustang

New member
I like the idea of those reforms with one addition. Allow new full auto weapons to enter the market even if you keep the 200 dollar transfer tax. It would bring the price for them down to affordable levels and allow many of the older and wearing out guns to be retired to historical conversation pieces.
I agree with you in principle. However, any attempt to open the books on full auto will meet opposition from several fronts. First would be all of the anti-gun folk. You think they have issues with "assault rifles" wait until the term REALLY encompasses fully automatic weapons.
Second we would face opposition from owners of Class III weapons. The moment a law is passed to re-open the books on machine guns the value of their weopons will drop. If I owned an M-2 or an M-60, and saw its value plummet to 1/10 of its previous value, I would be very upset.

Some Class III dealers would likely oppose the law as well. Currently the market for Full Auto is relatively unknown. It is obvious from the current prices that there is some significant pent up demand, but how much? Would sales volume increase sufficiently to make up for the loss of revenue? Some would be willing to gamble yes, others likely not so much. Class III dealers with significant stocks of pre-'86 machine guns would stand to lose a good deal of capital as well.

Additionally, you would face significant legislative hurtles. No lawmaker wants to take the risk of opening the books on machine guns. Restricting them is easy. The victims of restriction are largely invisible. The moment some dumb bastard shoots up a school, church, convent, or shopping mall with a belt fed weapon, any lawmaker who signed off on a bill easing restrictions would face a difficult re-election cycle. We want lawmakers in office who would be likely to vote for this type of bill, but actually passing it could be a disaster that has the potential set back firearms rights. 2A fundamentalists may not like this line of reasoning but it is a political necessity.

Finally, without some significant back up from the courts prohibiting the legistature from passing further restrictions as a result of some potential future incident with automatic weapons, a repeal on restrictions would make no sense and could be very counter productive. The most gun freindly members of the supreme court, Scalia and Thomas are both on record as stating that restrictions on machine guns are a type of "reasonable" gun law that they would support. Until the environment in the courts change, easing these restrictions could be a disaster for gun rights.

Again I would like to emphasize that I do not like the pollitical reality that surronds this issue. I strongly support 2A rights and believe that it truly is the God given right of every person to be able to defend themselves by the best means available including automatic weapons. I believe the responsibility for criminal acts lies with the criminal and not the tool. I also believe that the govenment over steps its authority when it does such things. The firearms laws in this country are, for the most part , an infringement on the plain reading of the Constitution and those who passed them violated their oaths to support the same. However, I also understand that my views are likely to be in the minority and I must act as such.
 

G50AE

Banned
I like the idea of those reforms with one addition. Allow new full auto weapons to enter the market even if you keep the 200 dollar transfer tax. It would bring the price for them down to affordable levels and allow many of the older and wearing out guns to be retired to historical conversation pieces.
I hear you, but I do not see that as currently workable. Even getting reform #1 I posted about above would be a signifigant victory, and I think that it would be the most doable at this time.
 
Doc Mustang, I really think yours is the most concise and accurate assessment of this issue. The political side of 2A is really the issue, the courts are kind of on the back burner. After all, Congress could pass a law repealing all of the 1935 law and the courts couldn't do crap about that. But, like you said, the political backlash from even a single FAW incident would be disastrous for all who voted for it. Not only that, but it would almost certainly invoke a knee-jerk reaction that could pave the way for much worse than the 1935 restrictions and NFA amendments; we'd probably be looking at an all-out ban and confiscation of FAWs. 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.
 

G50AE

Banned
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.
 

bhrama

New member
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.
 

Purple

New member
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.
 
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.
 

Turkules77

New member
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.
 

chuck0255

New member
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.
 

TekGreg

New member
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.
 

Turkules77

New member
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.
 

jg1967

New member
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.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,115
Messages
621,595
Members
74,100
Latest member
JDDS1215
Top