Regarding the NFA itself...(I think)

[pickpocket]

and if the law is unfair, overly restrictive, and pretty much a bunch of bull[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]?

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln

i'm not intending to start an argument, but this is how i feel about the matter.

You feel this strongly about not being able to own a fully automatic weapon?

Tell me, Rambo...what would you do with a fully-automatic, non-mounted weapon? Why do you think that the U.S. has gone with single shot carbine ever since Vietnam? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to leverage effective fires with a fully automatic shoulder-fired weapon?

So my question to you is [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] would you do with it that you feel SO strongly about?

[nrgetik]

I would shoot it, at a range, and have a kicka*s time doing it.

And yes, I know -exactly- how difficult it is to leverage effective fires with a fully automatic shoulder-fired weapon.

A local range has 5 or so different types of fully automatic weapons for rental, and I have fired this:

http://www.colt.com/law/smg.asp

And this:

http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/index...artNumber=MP51

At LENGTH. I've also popped off some rounds from a WWII Thompson that one of the guys who works there brought in one day, but not nearly as many as from the other two guns. Needless to say, I'm a pretty good shot Regardless what kind of weapon it is...

Even if I were a terrible shot however, who cares? I can still have a great time shooting it. Since when does one have be dead-on-balls accurate with a firearm to have fun shooting it? I'm not sure where you're from, but that isn't how it works around here.

Do you go home from the range with a sad puppy face if you don't get bullseyes on all of your targets? Boo hoo.

Anyway, it is a terrible fallacy to argue against my passion concerning the subject simply based upon the notion that I don't really NEED a weapon of that sort, if indeed that is what you are doing (I'm pretty sure it is). For instance, you don't really NEED to be posting on this forum, neither do you really NEED to be using the Internet in general, or do you even NEED a computer at all. You probably do LOTS of things you don't NEED to do, and possess LOTS of things you don't NEED to possess (especially if we're talking about the basic Freudian needs here), everybody does. In short, for you to use such logic would make you a colossal hypocrite, because surely there are many things in your life that you particularly like to have or do, even though you don’t really need to have or do them.

Keep it coming, pal; this is so easy, it’s like taking candy from a baby

[afsnco]

Could someone explain the process of acquiring an NFA weapon? I know about subguns.com and the classified ads there. If I saw one I wanted and could afford, what would I need to do? I don't currently have an FFL.

[James K]

You don't need any kind of federal license to buy a full auto firearm. You do need to obtain a Form 4, application to transfer a NFA firearm, and have it signed by your local chief law enforcement officers. This step is sometimes the big one, or the impossible one if the CLEO just won't sign. (You can incorporate as corporations don't need the CLEO signature, but that invites additional scrutiny from BATFE.)

Then you wait for approval. If the transfer is interstate, the gun must be sent to a class 3 dealer in your state or, if you have a C&R license and it is a C&R item, it can be transferred directly to you.

On that 1930's business, the idea was to use the public demand to "do something" about gangster guns in the prohibition era to effectively ban all guns and stifle any possible revolt against Roosevelt's policies. The Roosevelt administration first asked for registration and huge transfer taxes on all guns and ammunition. ($10,000 for a machinegun, $5000 for a handgun, $1000 for a rifle, $500 for a shotgun, plus $10 per round on handgun ammo, $5 on CF rifle ammo, $2 on a shotshell, and $1 on a RF round (.22). All guns and ammunition would have had to be registered, and the administration could refuse registration and confiscate the guns of "unsuitable" people (like Republicans). Congress watered it down to the $200 on machineguns, and a few other weapons, where it is today.

Jim

[afsnco]

Jim Keenan: Thanks very much. I've read the long treatise by James Bardwell on subguns.com, but there's so much info there it's difficult to determine where a "John Q. Public" like me stands. It looks like this is the applicable area of his commentary:
"An individual otherwise able to own any gun under federal law can receive and own any NFA weapon (local law permitting, ATF cannot approve a transfer where federal, state or local law would be violated by the transferee possessing the weapon in question, see 26 U.S.C. sec. 5812(a)(6)) on a Form 4, "Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm". Non-FFL holders may only purchase an NFA weapon from a dealer or individual within their own state. If the weapon is located out of state it must be transferred to a class 3 dealer within the state, before transfer to the non FFL purchaser."
Thanks again for your help.

[pickpocket]

Keep it coming, pal; this is so easy, it’s like taking candy from a baby

So...you're really just angry that there's a law that makes it difficult for you to do something that you consider fun; so much so that you feel compelled to quote Abraham Lincoln and imply that the government should be overthrown becuase it is overly restrictive?

Whether or not I NEED to post to this forum is an invalid argument, because while I may not NEED to post to this forum, I am most certainly not complaining that there is a law preventing me from doing so...because there's not one, nor am I implying that I NEED to do so, or that the existing laws governing internet usage prevent me from exercising a constitutional right.

Point being that you are ranting against the unfairness of government in restricting your use of fully-automatic weapons for pure entertainment value, whereas posting in this forum is simply partaking in a completely legal and non-regulated event; Apples and oranges.

Do I go home with sad puppy faces if my rounds don't hit the target? No, but on the other side of that I don't consider 'training' to be shooting from the hip and having a rip-roaring time shooting a hundred poorly aimed rounds through my weapon because it's fun to do so... every round that leaves my weapon has a purpose, whether it be to hone target acquisition skills or dynamic shooting skills. If I don't hit the target then that's an indicator that more training is needed. So it appears that you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum here.

I'm not arguing against your passion on the basis that you don't NEED a fully-automatic weapon. I am, however, arguing the logic of your decision to complain about the overly-restrictive government on the basis that the law makes it difficult for you to have fun. If you want to rant against the government's restrictive policies it should be on a more stable platform.

Besides...if all you want to do is shoot it at a local range and have a kick@ss time doing it...why don't you just continue to rent the full-autos that you have already "trained" extensively on?

[nrgetik]

Whether or not I NEED to post to this forum is an invalid argument, because while I may not NEED to post to this forum, I am most certainly not complaining that there is a law preventing me from doing so...because there's not one, nor am I implying that I NEED to do so, or that the existing laws governing internet usage prevent me from exercising a constitutional right.

Point being that you are ranting against the unfairness of government in restricting your use of fully-automatic weapons for pure entertainment value, whereas posting in this forum is simply partaking in a completely legal and non-regulated event; Apples and oranges.

You don't understand what I was refuting. You got it all mixed up. I was saying, IF you are using the logic that I shouldn't complain based upon the fact that I don't necessarily NEED the weapons (which is what your language implied), then it is a fallacy to do so, for the reasons I originally cited; I don't believe I need to go over them again. I wasn't comparing what you were doing with what I was doing, at all.

Reading comprehension > you.

Do I go home with sad puppy faces if my rounds don't hit the target? No, but on the other side of that I don't consider 'training' to be shooting from the hip and having a rip-roaring time shooting a hundred poorly aimed rounds through my weapon because it's fun to do so... every round that leaves my weapon has a purpose, whether it be to hone target acquisition skills or dynamic shooting skills. If I don't hit the target then that's an indicator that more training is needed. So it appears that you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum here.

I don't know what kind of shooter you are, nor am I going to pretend. However, nowhere in my post did I allude or imply in the LEAST that I'm a crazy a*shole and I get my kicks firing fully automatic weapons while not in complete control of the firearm and in any which direction I please.

The way I shoot usually follows this kind of pattern: 3/4 of the time, I'm doing my best and trying to hone my skills. The other 1/4 consists of having fun, within reason (and safety). For instance, "let's put the target all the way down range and see if we can hit it with the most inaccurate firearm we have." Obviously it is more important to you that you do your best on every shot, but I wouldn't necessarily say we're on other ends of the spectrum. Although, I'm extremely glad I'm not like you. Extremely.

I'm not arguing against your passion on the basis that you don't NEED a fully-automatic weapon.

Then what the hell were your first two paragraphs for? Perhaps you can read and comprehend, so is it just that you enjoy wasting your time? Or perhaps you merely need a lesson in semantics? You could have just said this in the beginning of your post and left it at that. I would've believed you, even though it seems to me that this was EXACTLY what you were implying in your other post.

If you want to rant against the government's restrictive policies it should be on a more stable platform.

Since when was this a requirement for me to express my feelings? ESPECIALLY if you're going to consider what I'm doing "ranting"? I mean, it isn't like I'm appealing to the government, here. Last time I checked, this was a friendly forum upon which people can discuss things. I hadn't realized the entire forum revolved around you and you require a stable platform for people to base their opinions off of, otherwise you just try to stomp all over it (HOWEVER UNSUCCESSFULLY, I AM HAVING A BLAST ).

ANYWAYS, I seem to remember something about this country being founded on a concept...oh yeah, they called it freedom. The American Dream and such. I believe it has something to do with having faith that through hard work, perseverance, and determination, one can achieve a better life for oneself. Did that not include one's choice as far as recreational activities go? That is what this is, is it not? I consider it to be extremely recreational, and I happen to want to own and be able to use a fully automatic firearm for my recreational activities, but the government is very effectively stopping me from doing that. How is this not restrictive?

Besides...if all you want to do is shoot it at a local range and have a kick@ss time doing it...why don't you just continue to rent the full-autos that you have already "trained" extensively on?

I don't know about you, but there's a certain satisfaction I get from owning and maintaining my own things. I take a sense of pride from being able to show someone what I've acquired with my hard-earned dollars, to show them what great shape I keep it in using all of the methods/skills I have learned to service it, and how fun it is to use. Do you not get that feeling? If you don't, then I'll probably never be able to convince you of anything, but that doesn't bother me, because I know I'm right

Plus, it would end up costing me more in the long run, I don't want to limit myself to one range, and a whole slough of other, more "practical" reasons that you are probably more receptive to, being the kind of person that you are.

Going to have another go? I can do this for eternity

[gunslinger555]

pickpocket, when the gov restricts its citizens to point at which you cannot do something or own something that does not hurt anyone else what do you call that? what if you loved to have your 9mm semi but the gov banned it or your colt sa 45lc? you dont NEED those do you, no you can just go to another caliber so then whats the point? thair is a reasn they call it freedom

[nrgetik]

Thank you for putting it so concisely, gunslinger.

[cosmolinelover]

chillout pickpocket, he wasn't tryin to start an argument. And besides, gunslinger is right

[pickpocket]

If you guys say so. I don't think it was _my_ post that sounded arrogant and self-important, but ok.

Complain away, gentlemen. It's not as though the law came out last week.

[nrgetik]

Thanks for the go-ahead.

And you were implying that I was arrogant? Perhaps you should reevaluate things here.

[gunslinger555]

pickpocket,who's post sounded arrogant and self-important?

It's not as though the law came out last week.

whats that supposed to mean?

So...you're really just angry that there's a law that makes it difficult for you to do something that you consider fun; so much so that you feel compelled to quote Abraham Lincoln and imply that the government should be overthrown becuase it is overly restrictive?

so pickpocket what kind of guns do you own what if the gov banned them and told you that you can own them any more? let me guess youll turn them in hu just because its law does not mean its right.

[JohnBrowning]

"You want a full-auto, join the military and become a machine gunner. "

That idea somewhat reminds me of of Hitlers statement that German civilians who wanted to use firearms should join the SS.

[tBlake08]

EDIT: He did not reccomend that the goverment should be overthrown, but that we have the right to fight unfair laws.

[pickpocket]

He doesn't already own his weapons and the gov't passed a law saying he couldn't own it any more... he's trying his hardest to find a LOOPHOLE in the pre-existing law so that he can get around it and purchase new ones. Two different things, the latter being a bit more irresponsible and inappropriate.

No, the law didn't come out last week, so crying about "how restrictive the government is and boohoo they won't allow me to own something I think is fun" is a bit pointless. That's what it's supposed to mean.

Hitler quoters are my favorite...you guys can usually find something that Hitler said somewhere to support almost anything from pro-life to Bill O'Reilly. What exactly was your one-liner supposed to mean? Must be my mistake that the smiley at the end of my comment didn't accurately convey the humor behind it.

There is almost nothing about gun control that I agree with...however, the restrictions on fully-automatic weapons is one that I do support. Why? Because they don't really serve a purpose. The fact that something is FUN is not a basis for legalizing it. If you have them, fine...but to watch people whine and cry about not being able to go buy new ones and that our "oppressive" government doesn't let us really "be free"...come on.

If you really want to experience "not being free" then try living in a few other choice areas of the world and maybe your opinion about not being "free" will change somewhat.

For you people who feel compelled to assume a sort of intellectual superiority and talk DOWN to others (i.e. I'm smarter than you and I'm going to beat you over the head with it) and those who feel it necessary to post pictures of weapons they've fired and thump their chest about it... grow up.

Really..you should take things a bit more seriously (sarcasm)...after all, it IS the internet.

If my response about "what would you DO with a full-auto" hurt your feelings, then please accept my apologies. Didn't realize this was a sensitive area.
My point was that full-autos are generally impractical...so why put all that effort into getting around the law just to own one? For fun? Ok, then that's fine...but it certainly doesn't warrant the over-bloated response from you insulting not only my intelligence and reading comprehension but various other things.
If you're going to insult someone, you should be sure of where they're coming from and where they've been first.

[pickpocket]

TBlake -
Ok, that I can accept. That wasn't how I interpreted his post, but I'm open to being corrected.

[JohnBrowning]

Pickpocket,

I think you are a bit overly worried about offending people. I was joking about the Hitler thing, just as you were joking about the join the military thing. It is after all the internet, and my theory is that its unnesasary to worry about hurting someones feelings on the web, because if someone is so sensitive that they are offended by your statements, (or mine, which are often much worse), they really shouldn't be on this site.

[afsnco]

pickpocket:

As the Supremes affirmed in the Miller case, the whole point to the Second Amendment is that the citizenry have the right to military-type guns. The military have/use fully automatic weapons, therefore the citizenry should have a right to fully automatic weapons, according to the Miller court.

[pickpocket]

U.S. v. Miller is one of the most mis-cited Second Amendment cases there is, and is usually cited as proof of the Supreme Court's hostility towards individual rights within the framework of the Second Amendment, not in support of it.

U.S. v. Miller upheld the following and nothing more:

1. The NFA is NOT a usurpation of police power reserved to the states
2. In the absence of evidence that a particular weapon has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, ownership of such a weapon is not protected by the Second Amendment.
3. A short-barrelled shotgun (less than 18") is not part of any ordinary military equipment nor would its use contribute to the common defense.
4. The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied within the framework of rendering effective the militia.

One of the findings from the Miller court was that the 'idea' of a Militia included all males physicall capable of acting in the common defense, not whether or not one was actively engaged in doing so. This is important because the same court also found that these capable men - when called for service - were required to show up with weapons of their own and of the kind in common use at the time.

The end result is that the Supreme Courts decision in U.S. v. Miller was based more on an absence of evidence than on any real inquiry into the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Your statement that the citizenry have the right to own military-type weapons is technically incorrect. The official wording was that the Second Amendment protected only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia...which is the whole point of contention, now isn't it?

The only real ground here for the ownership of automatic weapons is that the military currently uses fully-automatic weapons. However, there are only two shoulder-fired automatic weapons currently in use by the military and those are the MP5 (used by special forces) and the FN M249 SAW, which is a belt-fed weapon. The people who use these weapons are extensively trained, since the MP5 requires hundreds of hours of training for effective (not recreational) use; and there is a whole science behind machine gun employment. If the position is that we should be allowed to use those weapons in order to maintain an effective militia then my belief is that the requirements should be the same as those who recieve their training in the military or law enforcement. But from gunslinger's sig up there it seems he thinks that the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard...and they already have access to those weapons.

The whole point of the Miller case wasn't that people should have access to "milititary type guns"...it was that if a weapon can't be shown to contribute to the rendering of an effective militia then it is not protected by the Second Amendment.

[afsnco]

pickpocket:

As near as I can tell, we're almost in agreement.

The unorganized militia is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 years old. That's United States Code stuff, and is probably the basis for the draft, and the basis for the Supremes' definition of militia. The militia is clearly NOT the National Guard, which wasn't created until the 20th century. During WWII the unorganized militia in the form of older guys and younger guys was called up and instructed to bring their own arms in performing checkpoint duty near the coast.

Since, in Miller, the Supremes recognized the right of the militia to have military arms, and didn't call them the National Guard, which then existed, it's obvious they're referring to the unorganized militia, which is the people described above.

Interestingly, Miller could've probably gotten the sawed off shotgun charge dismissed if he'd have shown up for the Supreme Court hearing. All he had to do was prove a military use for such a weapon, which could've easily been done using trench warfare for example. IIRC Miller didn't make the hearing because he was in jail somewhere, and unrepresented.

Our entire Constitution is comprised of checks and balances because our Founders believed that power can easily corrupt a man. I'm convinced that they intended for the 2nd Amendment to be the ultimate check and balance, ensuring that the people may never be disarmed via governmental tyranny. This was clearly enunciated by people like Madison, who talked of the value of all Americans being armed in Federalist #46.

I also think that "well-regulated" in the 2nd Amendment context had a different meaning back then. It meant disciplined, drilled, and armed with military weapons. For several decades after our founding, all able-bodied men would meet on the village green for target practice and drill. We've fallen out of that habit, but that still doesn't change the fact that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment more appropriately should read "A population trained to effectively carry arms, being necessary to the security of a free state..." The meat of the Amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Just because we don't meet on the village green anymore doesn't mean we can't effectively train ourselves. I already know how to march, being retired military, but I want to keep my shooting skills honed.

My final point is that hundreds, if not thousands of Americans currently have Class III/NFA full auto weapons. They didn't receive any special training. They trained themselves, and there's not been any knee-deep bloodshed in the streets by any of them. The only difference is that they can afford the $15,000+ for a full auto M16, and the only reason those weapons are so expensive is because the government has artificially limited the number of these weapons to a dwindling supply.

[gunslinger555]

If you really want to experience "not being free" then try living in a few other choice areas of the world and maybe your opinion about not being "free" will change somewhat.

i agree some places are more free than others we are one of the countries that are more free than others what im saying is i along with other americans want more freedom the gov does not have the right to tell me what i can or cant own if its not hurting anyone

But from gunslinger's sig up there it seems he thinks that the Second Amendment refers to the National Guard...and they already have access to those weapons.

have you ever heard of sarcasm? read it again and you will realise its making fun of ppl. who say that "the second amendment is only for the national guard"

so crying about "how restrictive the government is and boohoo they won't allow me to own something I think is fun" is a bit pointless.

you say its pointless why because you think it wont do anything because we dont have a say? and you imply that we are free?

A short-barrelled shotgun (less than 18") is not part of any ordinary military equipment nor would its use contribute to the common defense.

http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh17-e.htm
just because the suprime court sead it doesent make it true
look at the "Auxiliary weapon" something i would want if i was in a combat zone

The only real ground here for the ownership of automatic weapons is that the military currently uses fully-automatic weapons. However, there are only two shoulder-fired automatic weapons currently in use by the military and those are the MP5 (used by special forces) and the FN M249 SAW, which is a belt-fed weapon.

uhh i think you for got the m-16 its 3 shot burst and used by the us military

There is almost nothing about gun control that I agree with...however, the restrictions on fully-automatic weapons is one that I do support. Why? Because they don't really serve a purpose. The fact that something is FUN is not a basis for legalizing it. If you have them, fine...but to watch people whine and cry about not being able to go buy new ones and that our "oppressive" government doesn't let us really "be free"...come on.

well if they dont serve any purpose then why put hevy restrictions an them in the first place? what im trying to say is the nfa is pointless. what criminals does it stop?

[pickpocket]

Yes, you and I are mostly in agreement.
The NFA doesn't prohibit the ownership of these weapons, it simply restricts the ability to purchase weapons covered by the Act. If you want to purchase one of these weapons, all you need is to submit the necessary paperwork and pay the $200 tax. The government understandibly wants to keep track of where these weapons are going, at least as much as they are able.

One thing to consider is that the restrictions DO make it more difficult to get your hands on a full-auto weapon, whether your intentions be innocent or not. And I'm fairly happy that the odds against me having to use my carry weapon against someone with a full-auto are pretty slim.

You're right, I think the Second Amendment was indeed meant as the ultimate check or balance. A well armed society is a polite society, after all.

[gunslinger555]

One thing to consider is that the restrictions DO make it more difficult to get your hands on a full-auto weapon, whether your intentions be innocent or not. And I'm fairly happy that the odds against me having to use my carry weapon against someone with a full-auto are pretty slim.

if they whant it bad enough then they will get it. criminals usually dont want to go to gun shops to buy thair wepons they go to thair buddys trunk.

[afsnco]

But that "simply restricts the ability to purchase weapons covered by the act" is the rub. This artificial restriction causes the laws of supply and demand to kick in because of a dwindling supply of weapons. Hence $15000 for an M16, THE current military weapon. The $200 tax is nothing. If that was the only issue, there would be no issue.

And it's possible that you may have to face a full auto weapon at some point. Criminals don't bother with the $200 tax. On the other hand, I don't think there's ever been a single Class III/NFA who's ever used a full auto in a crime.

Do you see my point? Criminals have them. The police have them. The military has them. Law abiding citizens generally can't, because of artificially inflated cost.