The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Select-fire

**44 AMP** · October 17, 2009, 01:09 PM

We have essentially two camps, and a middle ground. On one side are those who believe that we should be allowed to own NFA weapons, without restriction, until/unless we personally commit a crime (of violence), sufficient to legally deny us our right to all firearms.

On the other are those who believe that machinguns/assault weapons (et.al) should either be highly restricted or outright prohibited, for public safety. Many of these people feel thins way about all firearms, but many do not.

And the middle ground, people who believe that while the govt has a valid interest in regulating possession of these weapons, restrictions should reasonable and not be overly onerous.

We can spend hours discussing the history and supposed reasoning behind our rights, and behind the existing laws, but this does nothing to deal with the laws as they currently exist. We do this, again in two camps, those who believe rights do not exist until a court says they do, and those who believe that rights exist until a court rules they do not!

Which camp are you in?

Personally, while I find the NFA to be an infringement (IMHO), I am willing to obey the law. What I find to be outright wrong is the 1986 Hughes amendment, closing the registry, and effectively creating and ultimate ban on this class of firearm. I believe that is where we should focus our efforts to repeal this travesty. The track record of legal FA owners is virtually spotless, compared to virtually everything else in the world! One violent crime in 70plus years? And that one committed by a cop? Statistically insignificant. No one in the nation has a historically better record for obeying the laws than those people willing to go through all the regulatory process to obtain a legal FA firearm!

There are two things I would like to see the govt do. Reopen the NFA registry for machineguns (and since I live in a state that prohibits ownership, this has no personal stake for me), its just the right thing to do. And second, refund the process for allowing convicted felons to appeal and have their firearms rights restored.

There are so many things today that are felonies, and will get your firearms rights denied, but are not crimes physically injurious to others. People convicted of those kinds of crimes should have a method available to have their rights restored, after their sentence has been completed. There is no reason (except money, and a degree of public perception) why they are being denied. And there is no reason to believe restoration of the appeals process will result in blanket approval of felons getting guns (legally). The whole point of creating the process was to have a case by case review, and restoration of rights being approved or denied, based on the individual circumstances.

There is no valid reason someone who is guiltly of, say criminal trespass (felony level) at age 19 should still be denied their right to arms decades later, after having reformed and led a crime free life in the meantime. Yet, these kinds of cases exist, along with many others similar in nature. Many States allow restoration of rights, but the Feds do not, even though there is a process in place. By denying funding for the process, they deny the process. Sorry for the hijack.

October 17, 2009, 01:09 PM	#120
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,842	Liberty vs control We have essentially two camps, and a middle ground. On one side are those who believe that we should be allowed to own NFA weapons, without restriction, until/unless we personally commit a crime (of violence), sufficient to legally deny us our right to all firearms. On the other are those who believe that machinguns/assault weapons (et.al) should either be highly restricted or outright prohibited, for public safety. Many of these people feel thins way about all firearms, but many do not. And the middle ground, people who believe that while the govt has a valid interest in regulating possession of these weapons, restrictions should reasonable and not be overly onerous. We can spend hours discussing the history and supposed reasoning behind our rights, and behind the existing laws, but this does nothing to deal with the laws as they currently exist. We do this, again in two camps, those who believe rights do not exist until a court says they do, and those who believe that rights exist until a court rules they do not! Which camp are you in? Personally, while I find the NFA to be an infringement (IMHO), I am willing to obey the law. What I find to be outright wrong is the 1986 Hughes amendment, closing the registry, and effectively creating and ultimate ban on this class of firearm. I believe that is where we should focus our efforts to repeal this travesty. The track record of legal FA owners is virtually spotless, compared to virtually everything else in the world! One violent crime in 70plus years? And that one committed by a cop? Statistically insignificant. No one in the nation has a historically better record for obeying the laws than those people willing to go through all the regulatory process to obtain a legal FA firearm! There are two things I would like to see the govt do. Reopen the NFA registry for machineguns (and since I live in a state that prohibits ownership, this has no personal stake for me), its just the right thing to do. And second, refund the process for allowing convicted felons to appeal and have their firearms rights restored. There are so many things today that are felonies, and will get your firearms rights denied, but are not crimes physically injurious to others. People convicted of those kinds of crimes should have a method available to have their rights restored, after their sentence has been completed. There is no reason (except money, and a degree of public perception) why they are being denied. And there is no reason to believe restoration of the appeals process will result in blanket approval of felons getting guns (legally). The whole point of creating the process was to have a case by case review, and restoration of rights being approved or denied, based on the individual circumstances. There is no valid reason someone who is guiltly of, say criminal trespass (felony level) at age 19 should still be denied their right to arms decades later, after having reformed and led a crime free life in the meantime. Yet, these kinds of cases exist, along with many others similar in nature. Many States allow restoration of rights, but the Feds do not, even though there is a process in place. By denying funding for the process, they deny the process. Sorry for the hijack. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.