Machine Gun Owners - Would You Support The Repeal Of The Hughes Amendment?

[Skans]

Machine gun owners would lose money if the Hughes Amendment is repealed. I know because I am a machine gun owner.

I, for one, would wholeheartedly support the repeal of the Hughes Amendment. I could care less about the big "paper-loss" on my registered machine gun.

[FrankenMauser]

Every owner that I personally know, except one, would absolutely love to see the amendment repealed.
They want more toys, and being more affordable would be even better. (More money for more toys and/or ammo!)

The one exception is a guy that falls into the class we all wonder about: "Investors".
He owns half a dozen MGs/SMGs, and all but one were "investments". He is sitting on them for future profit, not the joy of shooting them.

[rmh3481]

Did you see where the atf reclassified 4000 pre 86 dealer samples as transferrable? Police weapons. This is going to make someone a bunch. Regardless, I would accept the repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

[Paul B.]

I would, just on general principle. The law is unconstitutional.
Paul B.

[44 AMP]

Don't stop with the Hughes amendment, repeal the entire NFA 34!

Take the people and the money from enforcing the "paper crimes" and use them to track down, catch and put in prison those people who actually HARM others instead.

Shouldn't we, as an evolved, modern society be past clinging to the medieval concept that things are, or can be evil?

[georgehwbush]

i'm with paul, it is an unconstitutional law and needs repealed.

"any infringement, is an infringement."

[44 AMP]

The fringe is the outer edge of something. A forest, a flag, whatever. The Founders felt that if they prohibited "treading on the fringe" then the core center would be untrampled.

The NFA 34, even as just a tax and not a criminal matter (and today it is both) isn't an infringement, its a full bootprint in the center of our rights.

The Miller case is one of those times when the Supreme Court failed to protect our rights.

Read the actual details of what happened, you'll see...

[Swifty Morgan]

I am against the Hughes Amendment because there are many Americans who have a real need for machine guns, and they should not have to pay $20,000 each for old firearms that should retail for 5% of that figure.

As for me, I think it would be fun to have a nice machine gun (i.e. not any form of AR), but I doubt I will ever need one, and I sure don't want to pay for the ammunition.

[heyjoe]

Originally Posted by Swifty Morgan

I am against the Hughes Amendment because there are many Americans who have a real need for machine guns, and they should not have to pay $20,000 each for old firearms that should retail for 5% of that figure.

As for me, I think it would be fun to have a nice machine gun (i.e. not any form of AR), but I doubt I will ever need one, and I sure don't want to pay for the ammunition.

I am against the Hughes Amendment also. Just curious what are the real needs of many americans for machine guns? not that we should need a need

[44 AMP]

there are many Americans who have a real need for machine guns,

sure, and those Americans are in situations where the govt provides them (Military service).

It's not about NEED, not even remotely.

Bringing the word "need" into the conversation is what the "ban it" crowd does, and harms your argument.

Anytime anyone decides for me what I do and do not need, they are imposing their will, and their choices on me, or trying to.

And making their choice and opinions the law is even worse. As is the concept that its ok to ban or restrict, by law, anything, when THEY decide we don't need it.

Nobody needs a machine gun, but we want and desire them, and even have uses for them. Its not about NEEDS, its about RIGHTS and FREEDOM.

[Swifty Morgan]

It should be obvious that there are Americans who need machine guns. Guards spring to mind right away. And if you're serious about the founders wanting us to be able to resist tyranny, then the need becomes even more obvious. And how can you form a militia if the populace has second-rate rifles?

There are business owners in Detroit who use AR-15's to get to their vehicles to move their cash deposits to banks.

Then there were the roof Koreans.

[44 AMP]

It should be obvious that there are Americans who need machine guns.

It seems you missed my point. And, your examples are confusing "use" with "need".

Since it is patently obvious that we have survived with restrictions amounting to an effective general ban for 90 years, the "We NEED them" argument is a tough sell.

SHOULD we be able to have them? I believe so, absolutely. Do we have a right to have them? I believe so, like Tench Coxe, I believe that the sword and every terrible weapon of the solider is the birthright of every American citizen.

[Swifty Morgan]

I identified your point precisely and answered your question.

"Survival" is not the goal. People survive in Somalia, but they still need things they don't have.

This is a pedantic argument and a waste of time.

[Skans]

Originally Posted by FrankenMauser

Every owner that I personally know, except one, would absolutely love to see the amendment repealed.
They want more toys, and being more affordable would be even better. (More money for more toys and/or ammo!)

The one exception is a guy that falls into the class we all wonder about: "Investors".
He owns half a dozen MGs/SMGs, and all but one were "investments". He is sitting on them for future profit, not the joy of shooting them.

It is nice to see so many of us would support the repeal of the Hughes Amendment, even if we took a big loss on one of our prized possessions. What's right is right. Besides, I never bought my AC556 as an investment. I thought it would be fun to shoot, and it is!

Oh, and while we are at it, maybe we can abolish the '89 import ban too!!

[turkeestalker]

Not yet, but these things could happen in the not so distant future. Should the President elect actually make it to swearing in and through a four year term, how many SCOTUS appointments will happen during that time? One, maybe two, maybe even three?
Somewhat off topic, but think about it.

[44 AMP]

There are a lot of gun control laws that, operating under the current SCOTUS rules scrutiny and historical precedent ought to be ruled void as they are unconstitutional.

However, this cannot happen UNTIL each one becomes a court case, and gets ruled on. There have already been several state level laws banning/restricting semi autos and magazine size that have been struck down by various courts. Every one is, of course, being appealed by the state, and so until that process is worked through in its entirety we don't have solid ground just yet.

When those cases do get settled, (and it may take a SCOTUS ruling) then we will have something "dependable" at least until the various legislatures write some new laws, or the ATF "redefines" its regs.

[tangolima]

Although I support repealing the law, I don't see it will happen within my life time. There are many other restrictions that are more relevant to way we currently live. I would rather putting the limited resources on those first.

I have friends who participated in recent combats overseas. Enemies who fired aimed semi auto in quick successions got more of their attention than full auto. I practice doing that whenever I have a chance. Money is undoubtedly an obstacle. It burns through ammo quickly. Full-auto is even faster with more shots missing the targets, I think.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Paul B.]

Quite a few years back I had a chance to buy a Thompson submachine gun with a bunch of extras like a violin case,50 round drum plus sever 20 and 30 round magazine. The gun had PROPERTY OF JOLIET STATE PRISON badly gouged deeply into the receiver. Price was $1,400 for the whole package plus the $200 tax for the feds. I gave it a lot of thought and didn't buy it because of the gouging on the receiver and that darn thing was a lot heavier than I expected. Then the Hughes act got passed and a few years after that I saw that same Thompson with all the extras for sale at a gun show for $26,000 plus the $200 for the feds. I wonder what it's worth now? The LGS also had a legal M16 for $800 plus the gratuity for the feds, but I didn't like the M16 when in the Air Force and still don't like it.
Paul B.

[tangolima]

1986 to now is 38 years. $1,400 to $26,000 is 8% per year. Pretty good investment but also within reach with other conventional investments. This is similar to investing on collectables. It will be quite some doing to sell.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[44 AMP]

Friend of mine once got an M1 Thompson semi auto. Registered SBR because of the barrel length. When he got tired of it, it only took the govt 10 months to approve its sale to the guy who wanted to buy it.

This was not an actual machine gun, as his state of residence has a state law prohibiting machine guns, but does allow SBRs. Still it is an NFA covered item.

What other "investments" have that kind of restrictions on purchase and sale?

Art? Precious metals?? Stocks & bonds? don't think so, but since those are not something I've researched, I don't know for certain.

My point here is that while the nominal value of a machine gun (or any other investment) may increase, you or I as the owner don't get anything from that, until we sell them. A $1500 SMG that is now "worth" $20,000 is only going to get you that money if you can sell it, and along with finding a buyer willing to pay that much, you also need govt approval, and that also takes time. Sometimes only a little time, sometimes a lot more time.

What other investments are under that level of restriction??

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Friend of mine once got an M1 Thompson semi auto. Registered SBR because of the barrel length. When he got tired of it, it only took the govt 10 months to approve its sale to the guy who wanted to buy it.



This was not an actual machine gun, as his state of residence has a state law prohibiting machine guns, but does allow SBRs. Still it is an NFA covered item.



What other "investments" have that kind of restrictions on purchase and sale?



Art? Precious metals?? Stocks & bonds? don't think so, but since those are not something I've researched, I don't know for certain.



My point here is that while the nominal value of a machine gun (or any other investment) may increase, you or I as the owner don't get anything from that, until we sell them. A $1500 SMG that is now "worth" $20,000 is only going to get you that money if you can sell it, and along with finding a buyer willing to pay that much, you also need govt approval, and that also takes time. Sometimes only a little time, sometimes a lot more time.



What other investments are under that level of restriction??

I didn't mean legal restrictions, but rather the very narrow clientele base of collectibles. There are probably not too many buyers willing to buy at the price you want, even the asking price matches market price.

Other investments, like mutual funds, I can buy and sell at market anytime the market is open.

Legal restrictions make investment on machine even less attractive to me, even if I live in a free state. Semi auto Tommy is just not right, like a neutered pitbull.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Skans]

I was going to say, $26,000 for that particular Thompson SMG isn't a bad price at all! If I were going to purchase another MG, it would most likely be something of the Thompson variety.