PDA

View Full Version : 86 MG Ban


chasep255
January 8, 2011, 06:16 PM
So I was reading about this online and was wondering if and then when any of you think it might get repealed/overturned?

RJay
January 8, 2011, 06:39 PM
Not in your or my lifetime

chasep255
January 8, 2011, 07:29 PM
That's optimistic!

kozak6
January 8, 2011, 08:02 PM
It's realistic.

oldcspsarge
January 8, 2011, 09:41 PM
The day after Pelosi can smile without her face cracking !

Perhaps IF you revised the tax up from $ 200 to $ 500 per machinegun.

Reagan's 1 mistake !

chasep255
January 9, 2011, 10:51 AM
Well he did also support the bradey bill which might have been his second.

testuser
January 9, 2011, 12:00 PM
I'd give it almost a zero chance of being repealed, even a fair number of Republicans are against doing so. (For example, Ron Paul. The subject came up when talking to Newsweek, I think.) Most people assume they're illegal already and most gun owners I meet either don't care about it or don't think the ban should be repealed.

If it were repealed, then I'd think the transfer tax would skyrocket. In 1934 the amount was $200. Adjusted for inflation that's $3,265.72. If your goal is $1000-$2000 machine guns, then I don't you'll ever see that, even if the ban is repealed.

thallub
January 9, 2011, 02:22 PM
I'd give it almost a zero chance of being repealed, even a fair number of Republicans are against doing so.

What Testuser said. It is never going to happen. It could have been done a few years ago but no member of congress cared enough to senak it into some massive spending bill.

davidgpo
January 17, 2011, 01:23 PM
I wonder why a firearm produced in 1985 is legal where the same firearm produced in 1987 is not legal. This needs to be tested in court.
Where's the ACLU?

Technosavant
January 17, 2011, 01:59 PM
I don't see it happening. There's no logical reason for it, but I'm not sure SCOTUS would toss 922o, because even Scalia seemed to use the "in common use" argument in Heller- thanks to the NFA (nothing NFA regulates is commonly used) and the Hughes Amendment, full autos aren't in common use. The angle of the amendment being illegally added on to FOPA as a poison pill and getting tossed by the courts is an interesting one, but I have a feeling the courts would just say "It's been this way for 25 years, it sucks, but we aren't going to do anything about it" rather than potentially open other laws to this kind of scrutiny (where opponents sue over the legality of passage of a law they don't like).

IMO, the only way it will be repealed is legislatively, which means tacking it on to another "must pass" bill, but even that requires some assistance from the party at large- something we won't get. While pro-gun forces have done well on state and local levels, we've largely been shut out on the federal level- the most we can point to as a victory is a lack of action- the sunset of the AWB provision of the 1994 Crime Bill. Carry in national parks might show a bit of motion back to our side federally, but that was an extremely small step.

Self defense gun enthusiasts are still seen by many as the "crazy uncle" of the RKBA community. NFA enthusiasts doubly so. Until that changes, we won't see much movement.

WeedWacker
January 21, 2011, 03:49 AM
even Scalia seemed to use the "in common use" argument in Heller

Didn't he also mention something about protection of firearms in common use with the military as well? Basically ruling that the second was not just about flintlock rifles at the time of the penning of the second. If my recollection is correct, couldn't this be worded in an argument that fully automatic weapons are in common use with the military, and therefore should be permissible with his stated "reasonable regulation" such as maintaining the registry and $200 tax?

1911rocks
January 21, 2011, 05:15 AM
I was a Firearms Dealer from 1978 - 1987. It was a spin off of being a Gunsmith. I was coaxed into a 3 SOT. I agree with the previous poster who commented about the adjusted Transfer Tax. $200.00 in 1935 is not the same as $200.00 in 2011. Hell, you can't take a family of (4) to dinner and a ball game for $200.00. Even if the Transfer Tax was adjusted it still won't happen.
This is a case where we lost something and will never get it back. The NRA gave it away, Reagan didn't see it as a game changer in the Polls. The majority of the Firearms community saw it as a "bone" they could throw because it didn't affect them. "If it's not what I'm into it's not important." It was the 80s, possibly the most self centered social mentality of my lifetime. I saw MAC-10s go from $300.00 + Transfer to $3600.00 overnight!! Did we learn anything, or will "the herd" give up it's own to the Wolves again? Only time will tell. As for me, I don't hunt, but, I will defend hunters rights to my last breath. I pray they will do the same for my SBR/SBS or Suppressor rights.

Skans
January 21, 2011, 09:00 AM
Not in my lifetime.....I doubt it would happen even if Ted Nudgent was President and the Tea Party Republicans controled the house and senate.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the stupid MG ban be ditched! But, as I see it, you are better off trying to invent something "more evil" than a machinegun, like a plasma-beam rifle, and make as many as you can before the Government can act to ban those too.

GeorgeF
January 26, 2011, 10:58 PM
I would gladly sacrifice the value of my MGs to be able to buy a MP5, P90, FAMAS, AUG, M249. Not only that, but also the MASSIVE industry that would start making full auto versions of all those wonderful parts kits we have. AK's, Schnellfeuers, M3's, MP40's, MP44's, Sterlings - all would be available much cheaper than today's transferrables. Wonderful.

Tom Servo
January 26, 2011, 11:43 PM
$200.00 in 1935 is not the same as $200.00
You're absolutely right. 1934-35 was the height (depth?) of the Great Depression, and $200 was a small fortune for the average American. FDR needed money to finance the New Deal, and he figured that anyone who could afford a machine gun could afford to fork over $200. Everyone else would just be out of luck.

So, how do we repeal the Hughes amendment? It will take time, it won't be easy, and we'll have to be very, very delicate the whole way.

We have certain milestones we have to reach before we get there:


We have to get the courts to apply strict scrutiny to regulations of the 2nd Amendment. De facto bans like the current scheme in DC should not be in effect.
We have to give incorporation real teeth. It should be as easy to own a gun in Chicago as it is in Tampa.
Once the most restrictive regulations are out of the way, we go after the less stringent infringements.
We have to make sure certain classes of weapons, such as "assault rifles" and high-capacity magazines, are accepted as being "in common use" and therefore protected.
We have to change the hearts and minds of the average citizen. This involves overcoming the horrible image that the very term "machine gun" conjures for many. Like it or not, the very phrase is still ripe rhetorical fodder for anti-gun spokespeople for the involuntary flinch it invokes in lawmakers.
We need a precedent in which the courts agree that civilians are entitled to the same weapons at home as the ones we use to protect our freedoms abroad.


I figure we're at least four national election cycles out from even considering a serious challenge.

Dr. Strangelove
January 27, 2011, 02:03 AM
It won't happen, not because it's not right, but because there simply aren't enough people, even "gun people" interested in overturning the law.

It's like the crazy DUI laws we have, the laws are corrupt and overly punish folks with the fines, confiscations, towing laws, etc., but it's political suicide to argue against them.

Simply stated, a politician would appear to be a nut to try to push full-auto through Congress.

More important to me is why does the BATF get to summarily pick what is legal and what is not?

Ridge_Runner_5
January 27, 2011, 11:31 PM
http://i.imgur.com/GEBPu.png

TheMacMocek
July 22, 2011, 01:45 AM
Y'all should all join the "Repeal the Hughes Ammendment" page on Facebook.

Willie Lowman
July 22, 2011, 08:12 PM
Oh that's funny right there. ^^^

phagar
July 23, 2011, 08:25 PM
Skans
"Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the stupid MG ban be ditched! But, as I see it, you are better off trying to invent something "more evil" than a machinegun, like a plasma-beam rifle, and make as many as you can before the Government can act to ban those too. "

I am working on that . In construction is a prototype semi or (3) rd burst that is not a machine gun . One round does not fire the next one . It has a long trigger pull (similar to a double action) and as it is pulled all the way through it works as a semi (firing then recharging it trips the sear three separate times) . I used a cam type selector to limit trigger pull to safe,1,2,or 3 rd burst . If the trigger is pulled through slowly it can be stopped at any point before the next round is discharged .

Arizona Tactical Firearms (ATF)
Manufacturer 07/02 Tax Paid .

rdf.hack
July 23, 2011, 08:48 PM
Ted Nugent and the Tea party are corrupt and will do more harm than good having them. We need a president with 90% of Clintons policies, except for gun rights. Lets face it:

You may not want a gun, but others do and have 2A right and are law abiding

You may not want an MG, but others do, have proper training, have a right and go thru the paperwork needed.

You may not be gay, but others are and want to marry

You may not be pregnant with an unwanted child, but countless others are

You may not be a Muslim, but others are and have a 1A right, and never hurt anyone


Bottom Line - You may choose not to exercise any of these rights, but don't take them away from other people.

Father Time
July 24, 2011, 10:49 AM
This isn't the forum for political stuff RedDaemonFox.

As for:

Ted Nugent and the Tea party are corrupt

The Nuge isn't "corrupt" he is just a musician that is very opinionated and outspoken. And he is a huge advocate for peoples firearms rights such as "wanting a gun, and wanting an MG"

He even takes wounded Vets out to his ranch and lets them shoot his MG's and cooks them all the free BBQ they can eat.

I know most liberal's think he's crazy but he's A-Ok in my book.


And BTW the USA isn't the "worst nation" trust me. When you've travel do some other less forutunate countries you'll understand.

rdf.hack
July 24, 2011, 11:30 AM
No matter what Ted Nugents gun rights stance, he would be a disastrous President, because anyone who puts Wall Street before the people is wrong.

And conservatives and liberals alike try to justify certain rights but in reality, this country was founded on personal freedoms and both sides are guilty of revoking the freedoms.

The tea party would have a white supremacy, christian authoritarian nation, so don't say they're our best friend, we need more moderates independent of both parties.

Father Time
July 24, 2011, 11:52 AM
The tea party would have a white supremacy, christian authoritarian nation, so don't say they're our best friend, we need more moderates independent of both parties.

Hold on a second!! Please do NOT put words in my mouth. I never said such a thing.
As for the Tea Party being "white supremacist" all I can do is laugh that is pure BS, leftist propaganda.

You do know that there are minorities in the Tea Party don't you.

(I'm not saying their stance or politics are right or wrong, because thats for each person/voter to decide. I'm just saying they arn't "White Suprimacist")

Mike Irwin
July 24, 2011, 04:12 PM
This went off the tracks, so closed.