Select-fire

[Yellowfin]

Remington's acquisition of Advanced Armament may be a big step towards us finally busting the NFA by getting more people aware of suppressor ownership and then by extension the rest of title 2 items. I'd say that since the $200 tax was such a significant economic barrier for so long and the complication and rarity of Class 3 dealers and purchasing procedure being obscure and complicated there was and is a sort of Iron Curtain that walled off the general gun owning public from them. Of course this is no accident as the laws regarding NFA items are purposefully made to be a deterrent. Even in 1986, to deal with the comparatively small number of MG's that made it onto the registry before the closing, $200 was more money than the average person would like to give up if they felt they didn't really have to and again if they knew they could and if they knew how to do it and who to buy from. I'd venture a very large part of why the public is so skeptical and fearful and therefore averse to MG's and suppressors (and likely don't know a thing about SBR's and AOW's other than perhaps it doesn't look like what they have) is that their information is severely limited by lack of experience and positive exposure due to the mechanism of the NFA leading them to believe they are totally illegal and should be because they have been removed from their world.

If Remington and AAC go about this the way the way they seem to indicate they will, the Iron Curtain will come down.

[gyvel]

The machine gun was invented by Hiram Maxim just before WWI, so at best machine guns of any form had 20 years before the NFA to exist

,

LMAO!!

Wow! Where did you get that gem of misinformation??? Hiram Maxim invented a successful toggle operated machine gun ca. 1885. His machine guns were being used to good advantage by the British by the mid 1890's.

John M. Browning successfully patented a gas operated machine gun in the 1890's which was adopted by the U.S. armed forces, and manufactured by Colt as the M1895. It's nickname was the "potato digger." Remember? It was used in the Spanish American War.

By the advent of WWI, there were many successful machine gun designs in use by the various world powers, including Various Maxim designs, Schwarzlose M .07, Benet Mercie (Hotchkiss M1909), Lewis Gun (1911), etc. The Germans introduced the concept of the submachine gun in the form of the Bergmann MP-18 during WWI.

Machine gun use was well-known and firmly established before the 20th century, and well before WWI.

Get your facts straight.

[gyvel]

In response to the OP, I read some years back that, when Congress was debating the GCA's of '34 and '35, many members were of the opinion that full automatic weapons were particularly suited for militia purposes.

Those acts were passed in a hysterical (and typical Democrat's) response to the vastly exaggerated 1920's-1930's Prohibition gangster violence that was sensationalized in the news media. In one sense, Roosevelt being the patrician that he was, it was enacted for much the same reasons that the NYC Sullivan Laws were enacted, i.e. to keep weapons out of the hands of the Italians.

[Yellowfin]

The NFA was rationalized by hysterical response to the gangsters of Prohibition. It is vastly more probable that FDR was anticipating a revolt against federal economic meddling that was prolonging the Depression.

[armsmaster270]

Quote:
The purpose of the Tennessee State Guard is to provide a professional complement of personnel to support the State mission of the Tennessee National Guard, by assisting the Tennessee Army National Guard as a force multiplier, and at the direction of the Adjutant General, to assist civil authorities with disaster relief, humanitarian causes, ceremonial service, religious and medical support for the well being and safety of the citizenry of Tennessee.


Even when the California National Guard was mobilized for the Rodney King Riots their M-16's were converted to semi Auto by the use of a metal block installed to keep the selector from going to full auto position.

[Crosshair]

The NFA was rationalized by hysterical response to the gangsters of Prohibition. It is vastly more probable that FDR was anticipating a revolt against federal economic meddling that was prolonging the Depression.

Look at how many new proposed guns laws are trying to be rationalized by pointing to the crime and violence problem we have with Prohibition 2.0. Of course that crime and violence happens for the same reason that Budweiser distributors don't get into shootouts over territory today, the politicians don't want to admit that.

[ADB]

The NFA was rationalized by hysterical response to the gangsters of Prohibition. It is vastly more probable that FDR was anticipating a revolt against federal economic meddling that was prolonging the Depression.

Dude, seriously: A history book would dispel that "economic meddling" idea right away. The idea that FDR somehow caused the Great Depression (despite it happening 3 years before he got elected) or prolonged it (when he pretty much kept the US alive and running) is a modern fabrication by people who don't like what FDR did with labor laws and generally disapprove of government in the whole.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by ADB

...A history book would dispel that "economic meddling" idea right away. The idea that FDR somehow caused the Great Depression (despite it happening 3 years before he got elected) or prolonged it (when he pretty much kept the US alive and running) is a modern fabrication...

Well Milton Friedman has offered a different perspective, but that really has nothing to do with the NFA.

[tyme]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Some people like to take this part of the reasoning to the ridiculous extreme adding nuclear weapons. After all, they are arms too, right?

The broadest libertarian view of that argument would have to be, yes, the government does not have the authority to prohibit you from owning them. This agreement automatically creates horror amongst even the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters, after all, your talkin NUKES!

But it ought to be the way things are, if we were a truly free society. The govt doesn't need (and shouldn't have) a law that says you are prohibited from owning a nuke. If you could build one, using "special nuclear material" that you dug up in your back yard, you should have the legal right to own it.

The federal government is SUPPOSED to be constitutionally restricted in its powers. There is no explicit constitutional power to restrict manufacture or ownership of nuclear weapons. So although I don't think private nuke ownership is necessarily a good idea, I agree with strict libertarians that it's a weak argument to say that the national defense power grants the fed.gov the power to restrict nuke ownership. That's the kind of slippery-slope expansionist reading of the constitution that allows the fed.gov to insinuate itself into education through the general welfare clause. Again, not something that necessarily has to be categorically evil, but I think these are all things that should be debated on the merits, and if people really want increased gov power in those areas, a constitutional amendment is in order.

I think as soon as WWII ended, there should have been a constitutional amendment proposed to deal with this question -- the if and how of restricting ownership of NBC weapons.

I don't think it is obvious that the status quo would remain the same if nuclear weapons were legal to privately own. That is, we don't currently have any idiots blowing up their most-hated cities with personally-owned nukes. I think a few people would probably avail themselves of the opportunity to own nukes. It's tough to say whether they would be smart, or whether that change in policy would have real and tragic consequences.

I think it is rational to worry about the consequences of private nuke ownership, and unless we become a space-faring species, I think the negative consequences of nuke legalization MIGHT outweigh the benefits of reduced government interference in private business. Not every rich or powerful person who might want to acquire a nuke is perfectly sane. Look at Ahmadinejad.

[maestro pistolero]

A very good argument could be made that even a government doesn't have a right to have a weapon that could kill millions of people in a single stroke.

[ADB]

I think it is rational to worry about the consequences of private nuke ownership, and unless we become a space-faring species, I think the negative consequences of nuke legalization MIGHT outweigh the benefits of reduced government interference in private business. Not every rich or powerful person who might want to acquire a nuke is perfectly sane. Look at Ahmadinejad.

Please tell me that you're grossly understating the situation for comic effect.

[maestro pistolero]

This has really ventured into the absurd. Please no more comments about privately held nukes. There have been a lot of valid, informed viewpoints brought forth, and this isn't one them. One more nuke post and I'll ask antipitas to pull the plug on this one.


Thanks.
OP

[Crosshair]

Dude, seriously: A history book would dispel that "economic meddling" idea right away. The idea that FDR somehow caused the Great Depression (despite it happening 3 years before he got elected) or prolonged it (when he pretty much kept the US alive and running) is a modern fabrication by people who don't like what FDR did with labor laws and generally disapprove of government in the whole.

Hoover got the Depression started. Hoover was no freemarket person despite what the government textbooks say. All FDR did was continue the failed policies of Hoover, only bigger, much like Obama is doing today with continuing Bush's failed policies.

[ADB]

Hoover got the Depression started. Hoover was no freemarket person despite what the government textbooks say. All FDR did was continue the failed policies of Hoover, only bigger, much like Obama is doing today with continuing Bush's failed policies.

Again... history book. Hoover and FDR were pretty much diametric opposites as far as government policy went.

Anyway, back on topic, personally I think that the question that I haven't noticed anyone ask here is, would current NFA weapons really be "common" if they weren't as heavily regulated? I'm not so sure.

I'm sure they're fun to shoot, but full auto fire really isn't useful for much other than fun and war. And with those rates of fire, it's an awfully expensive way of having fun. Beyond that, nobody's going hunting with a machine gun, and nobody's going to be doing home defense with it. So even assuming that the NFA wasn't as much of a barrier, how many people are going to pay however much of a premium is placed on a full-auto weapon over a semi-auto only version?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the NFA registry opened up again simply to make sure people have the choice, but I think that the assumption of full auto as being something that a lot more people would go for if it were available needs to be reexamined.

[divemedic]

But select fire gives you a choice. How many AR15's and M4gery rifles are sold each year? Given the popularity of those rifles, it is likely that select fire would be more widespread.

I reject the "common use" argument as the equivalent of the "Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme. After all, when a new weapon is invented, it is by definition not in common use. Should we ever see the invention of the "plasma rifle in 40 watt range" it will be unobtainable, because it will not be in common use on the day it is invented, thus not protected by the COTUS. That to me is as absurd as saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to blogs, because they were not in common use in 1986.

[Crosshair]

STOP talking about the Depression - I hated Economics 101.

[maestro pistolero]

Even in warfare, automatic fire has limited but specific uses such as area denial. There is a reason that the average soldier has, at most, 3 round burst.

So even assuming that the NFA wasn't as much of a barrier, how many people are going to pay however much of a premium is placed on a full-auto weapon over a semi-auto only version?

What premium? Except for NFA, select fire weapons would be no more expensive than semi-auto. Some parts are different, but not more expensive.

[Crosshair]

What premium? Except for NFA, select fire weapons would be no more expensive than semi-auto. Some parts are different, but not more expensive.

Actually, some select fire guns would be cheaper, like open bolt subguns. Much easier and simpler to make than semi-auto only guns.

[ADB]

Big Hint - if we say that a topic is off base - drop it.

GM


If the NFA registry were opened up tomorrow, and the paperwork streamlined, I guarantee you full-auto or select fire weapons would still be more expensive simply because they have more features. Besides which, the people who can afford to fire them on full auto more than a couple times for fun are the people for whom the extra cost doesn't matter as much. In other words, they'd be priced as a luxury item for a more upscale type of shooter than the average guy who's buying an AR-15.

For an analogy, let's look at mobile phones. The mid-range "smartphone" that I own didn't likely cost anything more to manufacture than some of the "dumb" conventional phones that you see at Radio Shack, but it's priced higher because it's expected to attract a different demographic, and therefore they can squeeze more money out of the buyers.

[Crosshair]

For an analogy, let's look at mobile phones. The mid-range "smartphone" that I own didn't likely cost anything more to manufacture than some of the "dumb" conventional phones that you see at Radio Shack, but it's priced higher because it's expected to attract a different demographic, and therefore they can squeeze more money out of the buyers.

My SOT has mentioned that back in the early 80's before the registry closed, select fire M-16's tended to cost only a couple hundred dollars more than an AR-15. You could get an AR-15 for $700 and an M-16 for $900-1,000.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by divemedic

I reject the "common use" argument as the equivalent of the "Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme.

Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees. However, I think it is a useful way to draw the bright line. Seems pretty clear to me that "in common use" means in common use for civilian purposes of self defense, sport and hunting. FA is not in that mix and never really was. The fact that there were only 118,000 legally registered out of hundreds of millions of other guns in 1986 when the tax and cost to own were not prohibitive shows that to be true. So, SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use by civilians. The circular argument was handled by Gura in that clip and the NFA still stands.

Originally Posted by Crosshair

that back in the early 80's before the registry closed,select fire M-16's tended to cost only a couple hundred dollars more than an AR-15. You could get an AR-15 for $700 and an M-16 for $900-1,000.

And look how few people legally owned them. More proof they were never in common use.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Even in warfare, automatic fire has limited but specific uses such as area denial.

Fire suppression is the other (anti-aircraft perhaps) and that is why I believe they (FA) are unsuitable for civilian self defense.

[Crosshair]

And look how few people legally owned them. More proof they were never in common use.

In the early 1980's the $200 NFA tax was the equivalent of over $400 today, dampening some interest in them. Information on acquiring and owning them was not as readily available as it is today. Recently I've seen an upswing in NFA ownership due to the gov debasing of our money whittling away at the NFA tax.

Saying full auto were never in common use in the 1980's is like saying that PCs weren't in common use in the 1980's. There simply wasn't much interest in them by most of the population at the time.

[tyme]

Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees. However, I think it is a useful way to draw the bright line. Seems pretty clear to me that "in common use" means in common use for civilian purposes of self defense, sport and hunting. FA is not in that mix and never really was.

How can you know that FA would not be in the mix if the NFA didn't exist? You're drawing conclusions based on circular reasoning.

Suppose Congress had imposed a $2000 tax on computers in 1980, and today few people had them. Would you then support the notion that the 1st amendment doesn't protect blogs or websites today because computers wouldn't be in common use?

And look how few people legally owned [select-fire M16s]. More proof they were never in common use.

Most people obviously thought that select-fire wasn't worth the extra few hundred dollars. However, that does not prove that select-fire would be unpopular if it were unregulated. Even for people who spend a lot on guns, $200 is enough for many good C&R firearms. Why would anyone spend that extra $200 and wade through the paperwork unless they're genuine gun nuts who have lots of land or somewhere they can actually use full auto?

[maestro pistolero]

The common use test is overrated as binding. We know it is one measure that the Heller court brought out in dicta, and we also know it is subject to be undermined by the circular logic rationale. At best, it needs clarification.

As time goes on, new weapons will inevitably come into use, and may be in uncommon use for some time as they gain in usefulness and popularity.

As commonly understood, the circular logic inherent in the common use test could be used to preemptively end the introduction of new, modern self defense technology into the mainstream. Over time, this would be the future equivalent of freezing the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment to swords, daggers, and muskets.

[divemedic]

So can we apply the common use test to the rest of the BOR?

Only common religions are protected, only popular speech is protected, your home can be searched for uncommon items without warrant.

Sorry, "common use" is a fiction that was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. If the people want to add "common use" to the COTUS, amend it, but having the court amend the constitution through a declaration is not the way it is supposed to work.