PDA

View Full Version : Criminal use of ANY NFA weapons?!


too many choices!?
February 23, 2005, 01:19 PM
The weight of the evidence should show kindly in the light of truth :) ! Millions of registered suppressors, mg, sbr's, sbs's and aow's and not 1% is used in crime is my guess......How can the nfa registry be doing its job of keeping weapons out of criminals hands, if the evidence shows it only effects the law abiding :confused: ?! If it is legal in a state to build a firearm you can register to make any NFA weapon but a MG......What is so special about a MG that they are effectively banned from public manufacture? Is it somehow not a firearm? Is it some how different from a shotgun that launches multiple projectiles with a single trigger pull? If the liberals could have really banned autos, then people like Shaggy(and many others on the board) would not possess legally owned full auto as none would have been "grandfathered". Which in and of itself is a stupid idea! Two guns made an hour apart( on a certain day in '86) and only one can be owned by the public although they are identical? I wouldn't even mind paying the 200 dollar tax( call it an act of good faith) but to somehow single out a type of firearm for no reason other than the liberals can't see a use for it is UN-American :( ........ I am sure every one of us gun nuts could find an awesome use for a select fire 10/22 if we were able to have one :D ! Imagine going out and plinkling semi auto for cheap; and then going out and burning a couple 50 rounders full auto and not even denting the firearms budget for that month :cool:

Shaggy: in the past I believe you said you would not mind taking a loss on your collection if you could have the registry open again......I would love your input on this idea.......Freedom should not be limited to the wealthy

The registry either needs to be opened up to ALL NFA weapons or it needs to be shut down as an illegal abuse of the public trust.....How can this not be seen :eek:

shaggy
February 23, 2005, 01:39 PM
I'd love to see the ban die, but you have to understand this is not about whether the law is effective in accomplishing a reduction in crime, its about politics. Facts don't mean diddly to the anti-gun politicians pushing their anti-gun agenda. What matters to them is getting re-elected and placating their core voting blocks. They don't care if no NFA weapons have ever been used in a crime, they care about being able to use cheap scare tactics to freighten soccer moms into voting for them based on an irrational and emotional fear of something happening to their kids. Its also about political payback to groups (like the NRA) that have been effective in hurting anti-gun politicians in the past. When the NRA supports a republican candidate, the dems feel like they have to go after the NRA as payback, and to weaken the NRA for the next time. Its a constant game of tit-for-tat in the political arena. The republicans are really no better, but at least they generally vote for our interests rather than against us - they are still political animals and will ultimately do what in their best interest (not yours, not mine). Just don't forget that.

Bottom line is that its just politics. Check your logic at the door and don't try to analyze it rationally.

Johnny Guest
February 23, 2005, 04:05 PM
too many choices!?, I am certainly convinced by your well stated, logically presented points. I daresay almost anyone interested enough to check onto the TFL Full Auto forum is likewise influenced.

Have you shared any of this with your elected representatives, in your state capitol or in D.C.? I believe all of us would do well to confer with the NRA, GOA, JFPFO, and our state shooting associations to cooperate in advancing the cause of ALL firearms rights, responsible use, and ownership. Many of us already do so.

Most of those on this forum had already reached similar conclusions. Thank you for restating the matter.

Best regards,
Johnny

Lowjack
February 24, 2005, 04:22 AM
What is so special about a MG that they are effectively banned from public manufacture? Is it somehow not a firearm? Is it some how different from a shotgun that launches multiple projectiles with a single trigger pull?
I believe guns like ak47's and other fully automatic weapons simply terrify anyone on the wrong end of the MG's barrel.
Listen to this 4 minute clip of the n.hollywood shootout.
http://harrymarnell.com/media/shootsample.MP3

Funny thing is the guns those two were using were completely illegal and with the ever increasing price of legal class III weapons, robbing a bank is about the quickest (and for some the only) way to get enough money to afford these over priced guns. :confused: Go figure.

too many choices!?
February 24, 2005, 02:38 PM
Lowjack......You are making my point for me! The guns in the "North Hollywood Shoot Out", were already illegal :eek: ! Not registered....If these two guys had gotten away with this crime, how would the NFA registry have been able to solve it?.......It would not, because the weapons in question were not in the registry to begin with :eek: ! So what is the point of the registry if not to simply be a "good faith" gesture between the government and it's citizens wishing to own this type of firearm?.....Again I would be very interested to see the number of crimes solved due to the NFA registry which has been kept since 1934(after 71 years there should be some evidence to justify this law)....I would also like to see the number of FELONY convictions under this law that were of people with no criminal past :( (making honost citizens felons for possession; a victimless crime)......As we all know, the Possession of an item has Never CAUSED a crime.....

Last thing, how in the heck do you get a suppressor classified as a firearm? What is that all about :eek: !

P.S. The return of a stolen NFA weapon does not count as a crime solved pertaining to the NFA registry(a murder solved or something would qualify).....Which appears(to me atleast)to be the only crime that could be solved by the registry(stolen weapon that is) :confused: ...

wardog295
March 12, 2005, 03:22 PM
the reasoning for the nfa date back to prohibition, due to the crimes commited by bootleggers. how ever the law does help keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. but the real issue most politicans will not tackle is the black market for these weapons. and as long as the real issue is not tackle law abiding citizens will be punished for the acts of criminals.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

too many choices!?
March 19, 2005, 09:56 PM
Please explain to me how the NFA keeps weapons like suppressors(not even a weapon), aow,machine guns, and sbs/sbr OUT of criminal's hands :confused: ? Unless that was sarcasm I don't get it....Felons can't(read as: aren't supposed to) have weapons already, so how does this keep these weapons from criminals again?....Seems kinda bass aackwards to keep a list of honost citizens just in case, for no apparent reason? What it(NFA) does however, is keep these weapons in a "taboo" class making it easier for felons and the like to get if they want them :eek: Laws of supply and demand can not be escaped......But then again the government will say we want this list simply to "return" your toy if stolen....

Don't believe me? See how drug laws make it so much harder for people to get high :rolleyes:

wardog299
July 25, 2005, 09:45 PM
sorry d=for delay in answering you, cant remember my password, and switched email providers. any way i was not suggesting that the law works. i am just stating the reasoning put forth by politicans. however i dont mind the wait, ihate the freeze on mgs. secondly do you think if not for the nfa registry our favorite toys would be legal in todays society? :confused:

James K
August 30, 2005, 12:12 PM
I think it was Sen. Lautenberg (D- NJ) who said, "I don't give a damn about crime or criminals, I just want to ban guns."

Jim

OJ
August 30, 2005, 12:57 PM
I suspect I am in the minority on this forum who was not only alive but was affected by the NFA in 1934. The law as passed based on the belief that the Thompson submachine gun was the favorite weapon of the bootleggers during prohibition - never mind the law was passed a year after prihibition was repealed.

Not only that but, as beaurocrats are prone to do, the BATF added multiple other guns on the "restricted" list that they thought were equal threats to society. One such was the H&R Handy Gun - a .410 pistol with 12" barrel. How a single shot .410 pistol chambered only for a 2 1/2" shell and an effective range of not much more than 20 yards was a threat to anyone anywhere is a mystery to me. However, at the ripe old age of eight years, I had to register mine and had to list a reason for owning such a horrible weapon. It is of interest that T/C sells a .410 pistol today that is legal because the barrel is rifled - I guess the BATF somehow thinks that makes it less of a weapon - it shoots .45 cartridges also.`

I stated I was a "gun collector" and thus became an offical collector. I hadn't thought of it as a weapon but more of a varmint population control tool - such as prairie dogs, jack rabbits, and an occasional pheasant I was lucky enough to sneak up on. My "collection" consisted of my .22 rifle I got fot my 6th birthday in 1932, the .410 pistol, a .410 double barrel shotgun, and a Winchester 94 in 32 Winchester Special. I'm really more of an "accumulator" since my safe holds no special type of gun - just those I've accumulated one of every 1 1/2 to 2 years since then.

It is of interest that, despite declaring the H&R Handy Gun to be a "Curio & Relic", the BATF, in all its wisdom refuses to release that gun from the "restricted" list. Actually, it is more than restricted since, if you own one today and it is not registered, there is no legal way to register it and the fine for owning such unregistered "weapon" is $10,000!!

Such is the thinking of our government from a strong arm bureau that originally functioned as a tax collecting agency. They have even further expanded their area of control - now the BATFE - for "Explosives". I think the wag was right to state we are lucky to not have more government than we have!

:rolleyes: :barf: :mad:

Crosshair
August 30, 2005, 06:10 PM
If you don't coun't ILLEGAL NFA weapons, I think the only time was that cop with the MAC-10 in 380ACP IIRC.

Dave Haven
August 30, 2005, 10:00 PM
And he killed a drug dealer with it. Does that even count? ;)

Crosshair
August 31, 2005, 11:08 AM
I thought he killed his wife???

3 weelin geezer
August 31, 2005, 11:46 AM
Nope. It was a drug dealer allright. Gotta love occifer tenpenny.

Handy
September 1, 2005, 04:53 PM
Not to throw too much of a shadow over the topic, but there is a political downside to bringing up the NFA thing.


As mentioned, registered MGs have never been used in a crime. TMC makes a point about that in favor of getting rid of NFA registrations. BUT, it would be very easy for an Anti to take the above statement and observe that the most heavily controlled and registered weapons are unlikely to be used for crime.

Result: A logical argument for universal registration of ALL firearms.


I'm just saying that this is a point that has to be approached with caution. You guys look at it as proof that the registry was unnecessary, but it would be easy to turn it around as proof that registration works.

too many choices!?
October 4, 2005, 11:19 AM
What a dumb question....Of course you guys missed me :D .

Handy, point taken, but this is not Constitutional ,and therefore, I will fight it tooth and nail :) . I was a young man when in '86 some beauracrat decided for me (and a lot of underage people)that we had no right to own a type of firearm that I am clearly entitled to by reason of not being one of the prohibited persons(ie illegal immigrant, felon, or person under indictment). The law is clear in one respect. Any person that is not a prohibited person on the 4473 is able to purchase ANY firearm, including NFA weapons and items as long as your state allows NFA ownership. By what logic am I not a prohibited person on the 4473, AND my state allows NFA weapon ownership, but would still be prohibited by law from engaging in an act that is legal otherwise(the purchase of a firearm) :confused: :mad: !

shaggy
October 4, 2005, 11:33 AM
Do you know where the list of "prohibited persons" comes from?

Congress. The same body that gave us 922(o) and based upon the same Constitutional authority; the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. You ask:

By what logic am I not a prohibited person on the 4473, AND my state allows NFA weapon ownership, but would still be prohibited by law from engaging in an act that is legal otherwise(the purchase of a firearm)


You are not prohibited from purchasing an NFA weapon, you are only limited as to what NFA weapons you are eligible to purchase (registered & manufactured prior to the May 19, 1986 cutoff created by 922(o)). Even if you reside in a state that prohibits possesion of NFA weapons, you could own one, but not take possession of it.

boofus
October 4, 2005, 12:00 PM
The 1986 MG ban is a perfect example for the NRA's mantra that registration will eventually lead to a complete ban.

The hypocrites on the left say all they really want is 'common sense' like registration and licensing. They get that with the 1934 NFA and what do they do? In 1986 they ban registration creating a de facto MG ban.

It PROVES the leftists are out to ban all guns and they won't stop at registration or licensing. Just like in Australia and UK.

Too bad the NRA won't play up that fact with the elmer fudd hunters of this country that continue to vote for democraps.

JR47
October 4, 2005, 12:51 PM
The single use of an NFA weapon in a homicide occurred several years ago in Michigan. A police officer used his Department Issued M16 to kill his Lieutenant. Following the antis logic, we should ban the ownership of Class 3 weapons by the Police.

There are two threads going here. One is about the original 1934 NFA, the second about the 1986 Gunowners Protection Act. The NFA produced the tax stamp, and mandatory background check to own a Class 3 weapon.

The 1986 GPA locked the NFA list, preventing the registration of any additional Class 3 weapons into the list.

The 1934 NFA is pretty much an unattainable law to modify. The 1986 provisions that prevent the registration of new weapons, on the other hand, is vulnerable to measured pressure on Congress. :)

too many choices!?
October 4, 2005, 03:33 PM
The state of affairs in this country concerning firearms and drugs, are so hopelessly tied together that it would be too large a blow to the regulatory scheme of Federal power to attempt to remove the NFA(or CSA, both of wich over-reach Federal authority and abbrogate State's rights). So this point I concede, however, I do think that opening the registry is doable with the political winds changing as they are. I still don't see how Congress can demand an act in order for you to legally do something, and then not allow compliance with the law(especially when it is paying a tax :eek: )... If they can do this with firearms and some drugs, it is only a matter of time until some beauracratic jackass on a power trip, does this to something the soccer mom's want, and then they will be up in arms. I swear some people are just blind, stupid, just don't give a damn, or a combination of the three :( .

PS-I thought the idea of the,"Sin Tax", died out with the repeal of prohibition. Question, since Uncle Sam doesn't want(won't accept) tax money on these firearms, does that not invalidate that portion of the NFA :confused:? I mean if the IRS doesn't accept a person's taxes, how can they later try to arrest you for tax evasion(or whatever it is)???????????????????????????????????

MicroBalrog
October 5, 2005, 09:26 AM
And this, ladies and gents, is why the NFA Owners' Association is out there. Have you all already signed up?

(See my signature for details).

JR47
October 5, 2005, 09:35 AM
Why yes, yes I have. I'm a plankowner. :)

SIGSHR
October 6, 2005, 04:47 PM
In Ocean County, New Jersey, a few years ago a cop went on a killing
spree with a departement issued submachine gun, killed 5 people. The story
barely got local coverage, I doubt if it got any national coverage, led to no
thundering editorials in the liberal press about "gun control" and the need to get the "weapons of war off the streets".
In his retirement speech in 1995, New Jersey's former senator Bill Bradley said of his fellow Democrats, after attacking the Republicans for their less government-free market approach, that "The Democrats think the government is the answer to everything and they prefer the bureaucrat they can control to the consumer they don't understand."
Can you say "Double Standard"?