Getting the law changed to pre-86?

Csspecs · March 29, 2006, 03:05 AM

What do you think the odds are of getting the Auto and NFA bans revoked?

Could it be done if there was enough money to throw at it? TV ads and the like.

Would a President be able to change it back if he pressured Congress to do it. Or could the law be attacked as violating the constitution (which it does) and be force to go back to pre 86 at least?

Or getting the law revised to include unorganized militia. So that people could buy one after going through all the legal channels. Also to remove the tax scam that in fact violates the constitution.

"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."

It says "ARMS" not hunting articles. If it said "hunting firearms" then I have nothing to say. But it says it right there ARMS this means everything that you see in the army, tanks and all. The National Guard does not count as it is run by the government, and this in NO WAY guarantees freedom.

Also the part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Well the price and taxes on NFA weapons coupled with their relative unavailability makes it so "The People" can not own them. Thus the very concept of the NFA tax stamp violates the constitution. And it is in every way like the "voters tax" imposed on blacks in South Carolina in the decades following the civil war. It was more than the average man earned in a month just to vote. And that has been called a huge violation of the constitution, the NFA tax is the same.

So whats being done now to fix this huge oversights?

Chris Phelps · March 29, 2006, 09:04 AM

I have been thinking about this same exact thing the past few days, and here is what I have come up with.

The tax stamp thing doesnt bother me. What does it the fact that its illegal to purchase FA weapons built after 1986. I would more than happily wait 4 months and cough up $200 for the stamp, if I didnt have to pay $18,000 for the FA firearm first. We should be able to purchase them direct from RRA, Bushmaster, and the like for the $1,000 they sell their current guns for.

If you look around the internet a bit, you will discover about 100 ways to attack this issue. The law, in its intirety, makes no sense at all. The firearms that are available to us can be converted to FA for under $30. Do you think the fact that it's illegal will limit criminals to murdering people and robbing banks with legal semi-autos? Apparently the government does.

One of the many reasons the constitution was written to include the 2nd was as a way for we, the people, to keep the government in check. As it stands right now, that would be a nearly impossible task due to our current military.

Basically, if you make something illegal, only criminals will own one.

I wrote an Email to the president of the NRA asking him if he thought the NFA would be repealed at any point in our future. I am still waiting to hear back from him.

This is definitly a battle we could fight and win... absolutly. The problem is getting people to unite. I dont know too many gun owners that wouldnt absolutly love to have a FA for the range... but the simple fact of the matter is noone wants to be the first to make the effort. This includes me. I'm not going to be the first to take the step and risk ending up on the governments poop list over something like this if I don't believe anyone else will make the effort as well.

JohnBrowning · March 29, 2006, 10:20 AM

At www.nfaoa.org we're working on it. Please help us out and bring your friends.

gunslinger555 · March 29, 2006, 08:38 PM

im not usually the one to walk on capital hill but for something like this i would do it

Chris Phelps · March 29, 2006, 09:25 PM

I just registered at NFAO.com. This is definitly a worthy cause.

pickpocket · March 29, 2006, 09:33 PM

My old man used to say that "laws just keep honest men honest"...

gunslinger555 · March 29, 2006, 09:38 PM

pickpocket, you said in another thread that you carry you live in texas right what about the law that banned concealed carry before ccw was legalised did you feel that the ban on ccw was to keep honestmen honest?

pickpocket · March 29, 2006, 09:48 PM

Yeah...that's the point of my comment. The only people who abide by the law are the ones who aren't going to break them in the first place. Hence "keeping honest men honest".

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Phobos · March 29, 2006, 09:55 PM

I have a feeling that pickpocket is an "under-cover" member of the Brady Campaign, MMM, or something similar.

Honestly, I see no hope for getting the '86 ban and NFA revoked.

The nation has other problems that are a result of ambiguousness in the Constitution. I, possibly stupidly, think the only way of fixing all of this is revolution.

pickpocket · March 29, 2006, 09:59 PM

Wow Phobos...that's a quality second post.

Edit:
In answer to the original question, yes...if there was enough pressure on the House and Senate then you could get it repealed...after all, it was pressure on the House and Senate that got it passed in the first place.

The real question is whether or not that scope of support can be realistically expected and whether or not there's a enough logic in the platform to launch an attack on the NFA in Congress. The President can't do it alone...there are far too many career politicians who are far too frightened of the repercussions of supporting such a repeal. You might get the support of most of the southern Senators, but certainly not all; and you might get a couple of the other Senators, but NONE from the Western states.

In our current environment, such a movement would never even gain momentum before it was stifled.

Phobos · March 29, 2006, 10:01 PM

Wow pickpocket, that was a quality 239th post... glad to see that you've really spammed this place up

.

Csspecs · March 30, 2006, 12:44 AM

I thought that if the law was unconstitutional it would be removed. This is not a "can we please do this again" its a "Hey the law says we can have this and you took it away anyway, so fix it now".

The facts are that the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed". Well its time for them to fix 72 years of infringement, the constitution says "ARMS" not hunting or sporting arms. It meant cannons (the biggest baddest thing in their day) and ANY other weapon that the army had. I understand some restrictions (no nukes or bio weapons) but the standard weapon for soldiers is a automatic rifle, at least give us that.

gunslinger555 · March 30, 2006, 07:01 AM

Quote:

The real question is whether or not that scope of support can be realistically expected and whether or not there's a enough logic in the platform to launch an attack on the NFA in Congress. The President can't do it alone...there are far too many career politicians who are far too frightened of the repercussions of supporting such a repeal. You might get the support of most of the southern Senators, but certainly not all; and you might get a couple of the other Senators, but NONE from the Western states.

this i would have to agree with its political suicide but

Quote:

In our current environment, such a movement would never even gain momentum before it was stifled.

i disagree if we put enough pressure on them and thair is enough of us the career polititions will want our votes we can do anything with enough ppl.

edit:but if you look at it the nfa isnt our biggest problem http://www.nfaoa.org/phpBB2/viewforu...54c7000f8c8a4f

MicroBalrog · March 30, 2006, 04:14 PM

The NFA can certainly die bit by bit. Repealing 922(o) is certaintly a good way to start.

And yes, I do think the NFAOA can pull it off - with your support of course.

pickpocket · March 30, 2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

I thought that if the law was unconstitutional it would be removed. This is not a "can we please do this again" its a "Hey the law says we can have this and you took it away anyway, so fix it now".

If a law is found unconstitutional then that IS grounds for its repeal. However, the Supreme Court has yet to contradict their findings in U.S. v. Miller that the NFA neither interferes with police authority granted to each State nor conflicts with the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.

Until such time as either Congress is convinced to repeal the Act or the Supreme Court is convinced that the NFA is unconstitutional, it shall remain in effect.

As I posted in another thread: If we concede the need for restrictions at SOME level then WHO gets to decide where that line is drawn? Wouldn't you just be setting the stage for another legal confrontation?

Micro's suggestion of fighting the NFA article by article, bit by bit, is going to be the only way to gain ground. Even then, people must be prepared to NOT win every battle...you have to decide what's really important and what's not..because there WILL be compromise if the day ever comes. So who gets to decide what ground you're willing to give up in order to gain some on another hill?

Hkmp5sd · March 30, 2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

in U.S. v. Miller that the NFA neither interferes with police authority granted to each State nor conflicts with the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.

The argument isn't to repeal the entire NFA, only 922(o). This prohibits the registration of machineguns for civilian use after 1986. I would LOVE to be able to pay the $200 NFA tax on new machineguns, but the government has decided not to accept my payment. THAT is how they are banning guns. We WANT the government to abide by the NFA.

pickpocket · March 30, 2006, 06:12 PM

My response was to this post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Csspecs

...I thought that if the law was unconstitutional it would be removed.

And I agreed with you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickpocket

...Micro's suggestion of fighting the NFA article by article, bit by bit, is going to be the only way to gain ground.

Csspecs · March 30, 2006, 07:37 PM

I got to talking with a good Friend today, anyway what we kept coming up with is that the NRA never helped keep the NFA and the like from happening.

After thinking more about the law it came to me that the NRA wants true machine guns to be used as cover for every other rifle. The fasts are that most semi auto rifles "could" be made into full autos if the need ever came. But if we lose machine guns AND semi auto rifles then we are really screwed.

So to some extent just semi auto rifles cover the need of "arms". However as the trend has been falling back from one piece of cover to the next, I would like to see some ground won back. It is not a need but just a want.

I would love to see the laws brought back a bit, to the point where I can invent/build new types of rifles and just pay the tax.

Also the "sporting purpose" clause is very unjust as target shooting is a SPORT, and seeing and shooting odd/rare guns is a big part of that sport. To ban something on it appearance is also unjust as the 2nd amendment says "arms" not "nice happy looking arms" just "arms".

I still think that writing any compliant should use all the civil rights story's. The people the people that the government has called hero's would be a good start(there are bad civil rights people who you really don't want to bring up when asking for something). Just make sure you go into all the touching details, the more emotion an argument has the more likely it will pass in this day and age.

pickpocket · March 30, 2006, 08:31 PM

Emotion is not going to win this one, besides, that's a leftist tactic...it's not going to work for the gun-toting crowd. The way to battle this one is within purely Constitutional and logical grounds...by the letter of the law. You're never going to convince the bliss-ninnies that they should allow you to have something they don't want you to have. What you have to do is show them how it has no legal basis and that they are indeed infringing upon the very civil rights that they so vehemently proclaim to protect (when it suits their purpose).

Ignorant as I am - I'm surprised there's not more talk about this given the Republican conservative majority in the Senate. After all - they let the assault-weapons ban sunset, so there's a glimmer of hope, right!?!?

Hkmp5sd · March 30, 2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

anyway what we kept coming up with is that the NRA never helped keep the NFA and the like from happening.

As for the 922(o) and the NRA, they did help it become law. After it was attached to the 1986 FOPA, Reagan offered to veto the entire package and the NRA told him to go ahead and sign it. They decided the good parts outweighed the bad.

Quote:

After all - they let the assault-weapons ban sunset, so there's a glimmer of hope!

They didn't "let" the AW ban sunset. There was no way to stop it. The only thing they "did" was not introduce a replacement ban. Unfortunately, there isn't much difference between the current and the previous administration when it comes to gun rights.

pickpocket · March 30, 2006, 08:34 PM

Quote:

...After thinking more about the law it came to me that the NRA wants true machine guns to be used as cover for every other rifle. The fasts are that most semi auto rifles "could" be made into full autos if the need ever came. But if we lose machine guns AND semi auto rifles then we are really screwed...

Interesting theory. I've thought for a long time that the gun-lobby crowd gave up full-autos as the sacrificial lamb.

Quote:

They didn't "let" the AW ban sunset. There was no way to stop it. The only thing they "did" was not introduce a replacement ban.

Semantics.. We're saying the same thing. They allowed the Act to sunset without introducing new legislation to replace it..which is pretty much like saying "we won't have the support needed to pass it again". Had they thought they could pull it off the Senate has the ability to revisit the expiration date - much like the PATRIOT ACT.

Csspecs · March 30, 2006, 08:52 PM

Another thing is that I doubt that any person that has a machine gun wants to see people be able to buy new ones. They are selling for around 12k so if you already have a few why would you want to see them go back down in price?

There are many autos already made. Almost to the point that anyone that wanted one could have one. But there are many people that own many autos, thus they control the cost buy not selling them at low prices.

Hkmp5sd · March 31, 2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Another thing is that I doubt that any person that has a machine gun wants to see people be able to buy new ones.

I have three machineguns, two of which currently go for $15,000 each. I'd LOVE for them to lose value because 922(o) is gone. I want new machineguns.

MicroBalrog · April 1, 2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

There are many autos already made. Almost to the point that anyone that wanted one could have one.

There's approximately 250,000 pre-86 machineguns. Do you seriously think that's really 'almostto the point'?

MDW Guns · April 9, 2006, 06:21 PM

The 86 law is wrong and does not do anything for public safety. However, I don't think it will be dropped.
There are too many people who get big eyes when you tell them that you have a machine gun and they ask you what do you want that for.
At the same time they would love to have a Porsche, while the speed limit is what??

March 29, 2006, 03:05 AM	#1
Csspecs Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Posts: 1,111	Getting the law changed to pre-86? What do you think the odds are of getting the Auto and NFA bans revoked? Could it be done if there was enough money to throw at it? TV ads and the like. Would a President be able to change it back if he pressured Congress to do it. Or could the law be attacked as violating the constitution (which it does) and be force to go back to pre 86 at least? Or getting the law revised to include unorganized militia. So that people could buy one after going through all the legal channels. Also to remove the tax scam that in fact violates the constitution. "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." It says "ARMS" not hunting articles. If it said "hunting firearms" then I have nothing to say. But it says it right there ARMS this means everything that you see in the army, tanks and all. The National Guard does not count as it is run by the government, and this in NO WAY guarantees freedom. Also the part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Well the price and taxes on NFA weapons coupled with their relative unavailability makes it so "The People" can not own them. Thus the very concept of the NFA tax stamp violates the constitution. And it is in every way like the "voters tax" imposed on blacks in South Carolina in the decades following the civil war. It was more than the average man earned in a month just to vote. And that has been called a huge violation of the constitution, the NFA tax is the same. So whats being done now to fix this huge oversights?

March 29, 2006, 09:04 AM	#2
Chris Phelps Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2005 Location: South China, Maine Posts: 814	I have been thinking about this same exact thing the past few days, and here is what I have come up with. The tax stamp thing doesnt bother me. What does it the fact that its illegal to purchase FA weapons built after 1986. I would more than happily wait 4 months and cough up $200 for the stamp, if I didnt have to pay $18,000 for the FA firearm first. We should be able to purchase them direct from RRA, Bushmaster, and the like for the $1,000 they sell their current guns for. If you look around the internet a bit, you will discover about 100 ways to attack this issue. The law, in its intirety, makes no sense at all. The firearms that are available to us can be converted to FA for under $30. Do you think the fact that it's illegal will limit criminals to murdering people and robbing banks with legal semi-autos? Apparently the government does. One of the many reasons the constitution was written to include the 2nd was as a way for we, the people, to keep the government in check. As it stands right now, that would be a nearly impossible task due to our current military. Basically, if you make something illegal, only criminals will own one. I wrote an Email to the president of the NRA asking him if he thought the NFA would be repealed at any point in our future. I am still waiting to hear back from him. This is definitly a battle we could fight and win... absolutly. The problem is getting people to unite. I dont know too many gun owners that wouldnt absolutly love to have a FA for the range... but the simple fact of the matter is noone wants to be the first to make the effort. This includes me. I'm not going to be the first to take the step and risk ending up on the governments poop list over something like this if I don't believe anyone else will make the effort as well. __________________ Bushmaster Superlight AR-15 5.56mm / Custom 24" Heavy BBL Varmint AR-15 5.56mm / Ruger M77 .257 Roberts / Ruger MKI 22LR Pistol / EAA Witness 9mm Pistol / Daisy 2202 22LR / Remington Viper 522 22LR / Stevens 200 .223 / Savage 10FP 24" .308 / Mauser 98 Sporter 30-06

March 29, 2006, 08:38 PM	#4
gunslinger555 Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2006 Location: Lima, ohio Posts: 580	im not usually the one to walk on capital hill but for something like this i would do it __________________ (")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face!

March 29, 2006, 09:25 PM	#5
Chris Phelps Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2005 Location: South China, Maine Posts: 814	I just registered at NFAO.com. This is definitly a worthy cause. __________________ Bushmaster Superlight AR-15 5.56mm / Custom 24" Heavy BBL Varmint AR-15 5.56mm / Ruger M77 .257 Roberts / Ruger MKI 22LR Pistol / EAA Witness 9mm Pistol / Daisy 2202 22LR / Remington Viper 522 22LR / Stevens 200 .223 / Savage 10FP 24" .308 / Mauser 98 Sporter 30-06

March 29, 2006, 09:33 PM	#6
pickpocket Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 570	My old man used to say that "laws just keep honest men honest"... __________________ Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān"

March 29, 2006, 10:20 AM	#3
JohnBrowning Senior Member Join Date: May 20, 2005 Posts: 140	At www.nfaoa.org we're working on it. Please help us out and bring your friends.

March 29, 2006, 09:38 PM	#7
gunslinger555 Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2006 Location: Lima, ohio Posts: 580	pickpocket, you said in another thread that you carry you live in texas right what about the law that banned concealed carry before ccw was legalised did you feel that the ban on ccw was to keep honestmen honest? __________________ (")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face!

March 29, 2006, 09:48 PM	#8
pickpocket Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 570	Yeah...that's the point of my comment. The only people who abide by the law are the ones who aren't going to break them in the first place. Hence "keeping honest men honest". Sorry if that wasn't clear. __________________ Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān"

March 29, 2006, 09:55 PM	#9
Phobos Junior Member Join Date: March 29, 2006 Posts: 3	I have a feeling that pickpocket is an "under-cover" member of the Brady Campaign, MMM, or something similar. Honestly, I see no hope for getting the '86 ban and NFA revoked. The nation has other problems that are a result of ambiguousness in the Constitution. I, possibly stupidly, think the only way of fixing all of this is revolution.

March 29, 2006, 09:59 PM	#10
pickpocket Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 570	Wow Phobos...that's a quality second post. Edit: In answer to the original question, yes...if there was enough pressure on the House and Senate then you could get it repealed...after all, it was pressure on the House and Senate that got it passed in the first place. The real question is whether or not that scope of support can be realistically expected and whether or not there's a enough logic in the platform to launch an attack on the NFA in Congress. The President can't do it alone...there are far too many career politicians who are far too frightened of the repercussions of supporting such a repeal. You might get the support of most of the southern Senators, but certainly not all; and you might get a couple of the other Senators, but NONE from the Western states. In our current environment, such a movement would never even gain momentum before it was stifled. __________________ Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān"

March 29, 2006, 10:01 PM	#11
Phobos Junior Member Join Date: March 29, 2006 Posts: 3	Wow pickpocket, that was a quality 239th post... glad to see that you've really spammed this place up .

March 30, 2006, 12:44 AM	#12
Csspecs Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Posts: 1,111	I thought that if the law was unconstitutional it would be removed. This is not a "can we please do this again" its a "Hey the law says we can have this and you took it away anyway, so fix it now". The facts are that the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed". Well its time for them to fix 72 years of infringement, the constitution says "ARMS" not hunting or sporting arms. It meant cannons (the biggest baddest thing in their day) and ANY other weapon that the army had. I understand some restrictions (no nukes or bio weapons) but the standard weapon for soldiers is a automatic rifle, at least give us that.

March 30, 2006, 04:14 PM	#14
MicroBalrog Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2002 Posts: 1,165	The NFA can certainly die bit by bit. Repealing 922(o) is certaintly a good way to start. And yes, I do think the NFAOA can pull it off - with your support of course. __________________ NFAOA Repeal 922(o)!

March 30, 2006, 07:37 PM	#18
Csspecs Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Posts: 1,111	I got to talking with a good Friend today, anyway what we kept coming up with is that the NRA never helped keep the NFA and the like from happening. After thinking more about the law it came to me that the NRA wants true machine guns to be used as cover for every other rifle. The fasts are that most semi auto rifles "could" be made into full autos if the need ever came. But if we lose machine guns AND semi auto rifles then we are really screwed. So to some extent just semi auto rifles cover the need of "arms". However as the trend has been falling back from one piece of cover to the next, I would like to see some ground won back. It is not a need but just a want. I would love to see the laws brought back a bit, to the point where I can invent/build new types of rifles and just pay the tax. Also the "sporting purpose" clause is very unjust as target shooting is a SPORT, and seeing and shooting odd/rare guns is a big part of that sport. To ban something on it appearance is also unjust as the 2nd amendment says "arms" not "nice happy looking arms" just "arms". I still think that writing any compliant should use all the civil rights story's. The people the people that the government has called hero's would be a good start(there are bad civil rights people who you really don't want to bring up when asking for something). Just make sure you go into all the touching details, the more emotion an argument has the more likely it will pass in this day and age.

March 30, 2006, 08:31 PM	#19
pickpocket Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 570	Emotion is not going to win this one, besides, that's a leftist tactic...it's not going to work for the gun-toting crowd. The way to battle this one is within purely Constitutional and logical grounds...by the letter of the law. You're never going to convince the bliss-ninnies that they should allow you to have something they don't want you to have. What you have to do is show them how it has no legal basis and that they are indeed infringing upon the very civil rights that they so vehemently proclaim to protect (when it suits their purpose). Ignorant as I am - I'm surprised there's not more talk about this given the Republican conservative majority in the Senate. After all - they let the assault-weapons ban sunset, so there's a glimmer of hope, right!?!? __________________ Semper Fi- David Williams "Sabah al khair -- ismee Dave, ahnee al Shayṭān"

March 30, 2006, 08:52 PM	#22
Csspecs Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Posts: 1,111	Another thing is that I doubt that any person that has a machine gun wants to see people be able to buy new ones. They are selling for around 12k so if you already have a few why would you want to see them go back down in price? There are many autos already made. Almost to the point that anyone that wanted one could have one. But there are many people that own many autos, thus they control the cost buy not selling them at low prices.

April 9, 2006, 06:21 PM	#25
MDW Guns Member Join Date: January 31, 2006 Location: Maine USA Posts: 86	The 86 law is wrong and does not do anything for public safety. However, I don't think it will be dropped. There are too many people who get big eyes when you tell them that you have a machine gun and they ask you what do you want that for. At the same time they would love to have a Porsche, while the speed limit is what?? __________________ ARMED MEN ARE CITIZENS UNARMED MEN ARE SUBJECTS NRA, FWR 2711 Check www.mdwguns.com for great deals!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search