Getting the law changed to pre-86? - Page 2

sgtgrunt · April 16, 2006, 07:30 PM

a REVOLUTION is much needed and i would not be surprised if it happens in my life time.(im 21) i just hope its early enough in my life so i can fight in it. im not anti-government or way out there in any way. im mean i work for the gov. but the constitution needs to be enforced and not just the 2nd amend. all of them. its healthy to have a reolution every few hundred years, were well over due. just my .02$

James K · April 16, 2006, 09:20 PM

Get real, folks. Does anyone in his right mind think that Congress is going to repeal that law in today's environment?

Do you think a senator would want to read this headline:

"Senator Jones Would Allow Terrorists to Buy Machineguns."

No way.

Besides, no one on our side wants any new gun law to have any chance in Congress. The opposition would amend it in ways we wouldn't like. (The first amendment would bring semi-auto rifles and handguns under the NFA, the next would be a 1000% increase in the FFL fees. Registration and transfer taxes on ammunition would be next. Do you really want a $10 tax on each round of ammunition?)

I hate to say this, but I think we are stuck with that law. And as to what the Constitution means, we can argue until hell freezes over, but the Supreme Court, not people on the internet, decide Constitutional questions, and they have a good track record of ducking the issue on this one.

As to a revolution, do you really want to do what the "insurgents" are doing in Iraq? Do you think you have the resources and outside support to start killing cops and soldiers? Where is your army? Blathering away on web sites, that's where. You can put a bayonet between your teeth and lead the revolt. Just don't expect many followers.

Jim

Eghad · April 17, 2006, 01:20 PM

no cajones in DC

GeorgeF · April 17, 2006, 04:43 PM

"Get real, folks. Does anyone in his right mind think that Congress is going to repeal that law in today's environment?"

I think it could happen. Two things work in the NFA favor.

1) The Assault Rifle Ban died and I havent seen any Senators getting grilled on that one.

2) The facts remain that the amount of people killed with a LEGALLY REGISTERED machinegun - is ONE. So why not let more people get them? No terrorist is getting a legally registered MG transferred to them - all those hoops and checks you have to jump through is going to limit that.

I own 10 MG's and I want the ability to buy MORE. My MG's are not investments, they are for shooting. At current prices I cannot afford more. But bring those prices down and I will have some MORE fun.

James K · April 17, 2006, 04:59 PM

We can put on any kind of spin we like, and cite statistics until the cows go to bed, but it ain't going to happen*. When the NRA went along with that provision to get the FOPA through, I spoke with several of their lobbyists and they seem to have honestly thought they could repeal the MG registration ban later.

I just don't see it happening. Nor do I hear any outcry from folks sitting on guns that are now worth $10-50K that would be worth a couple of hundred if the ban were repealed. The people paying that money as investments are not eager for a repeal, either, for obvious reasons. Sure, some have posted here that they would be happy to see the ban removed even if it cost them money. I applaud the thinking, I just don't believe it is very common.

*One of our problems is that we go on a TV talk show and recite dry statistics. The anti-gun gang shows bad guys with machine guns mowing down children; who do you think wins the argument?

Jim

Csspecs · April 17, 2006, 09:51 PM

Use the spin that we want the law to back up to allow people who did not hear about the law until the items they had were illegal to register their rifles to keep them from being sold illegally.

Explain that if we allowed all the pre 86 guns that been forgotten about in, that it would be worth more to register than to sell it to a criminal. Thus making our streets safer.

Hkmp5sd · April 17, 2006, 10:30 PM

What we need to do is use the tactics that created the ban in the first place. After Hillary and Company take command, tack a repeal onto some very popular democratic legislation. Something they will never let drop, you know, like voting rights for illegal aliens, and bingo, the ban is gone.

Csspecs · April 17, 2006, 11:22 PM

Perfect.

Now get the NRA or any other gun lobby group and make it happen.

Limeyfellow · April 23, 2006, 02:49 PM

Jim Keenan has things pretty much figured out. Theres not much chance at all of the laws being dropped. It would be political suicide for anyone to put forward that ammendment as theres just that much support for it and the police and a large amounts of the armed forces, secret service and so on would throw a fit. They just don't want a repeat of the mess in the 20s and 30s.

still 2 many choices · April 23, 2006, 07:03 PM

The problem is that somewhere between prohibition and now, it became possible to ammend the Constitution withoug an ammendment

! It took an ammendment to ban things back in the day(slavery, alcohol,womens suffrage), now it can be done to a fundamental right without so much as a whimper from the SCOTUS

...

gunslinger555 · April 23, 2006, 07:26 PM

cuz they realised that they can enslave us more easy by not doing it through ammendments.

theinvisibleheart · April 25, 2006, 02:27 AM

people can be changed!

>>>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.
<<<

I'm a living proof of that. I used to think that abortion was woman's right until I started to study constitutional history, and then I changed my mind. I used to think that public school didn't do a good job because of lack of money and private schools took away all the good students until I started studying the issue.

It all starts with effort and desire for change.

--John

MicroBalrog · May 8, 2006, 07:00 PM

The Bradys put a lot of time and money to persuade people to believe the AWB was about letting Uzis and AK47s into the street. Did that work? No.

What they are going to to do? Whine "They are REAL machineguns this time! Really!"

Csspecs · May 8, 2006, 09:31 PM

People don't care. I lost my interest in autos when I found out how much paper work is involved in moving one from one state to another.

theinvisibleheart · May 8, 2006, 10:10 PM

we demand our government to change the law and stop infringing on our rights!?

--John

Bigfatts · May 8, 2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

You're never going to convince the bliss-ninnies that they should allow you to have something they don't want you to have.

The sad part is that it's true. From dealing with people who are either anti-gun or even neutral, what I have seen is that when you mention the word "rifle" people tend to think of a redneck in the woods waitin' for a deer to run by. When you say "Machinegun" "Assault Rifle" or the dreaded "Automatic Weapon," people think of Columbine, drive-by shootings, gangs, bank robberies, terrorists etc. Not to mention that the non-gun owning majority of the population have seen too many bad guys in movies with AK's shooting at the good guys to be unbiased. I think it would be political suicide for a politician to back such a movement when you factor in the Brady and whoever campaigns flashing as Jim said:

Quote:

bad guys with machine guns mowing down children

For every politician that would back it, there are too many others that would oppose it to get good publicity by keeping the "really evil black baby killing mind warping machine guns" out of people's hands. Because history tends to show that MOST politicians could care less about your rights as long as they look good, have power and make money. This is just what I think on the matter. I could be and hope I am wrong.

biglabsrule · May 9, 2006, 10:53 AM

sgtgrunt, ive often been told and heard of people like you, nothing against you if you dont fall into this catagory just sounds like you might,
people always trash on the govt say how corupt and backwards it is but yet they work for it, support it, keep it going...
ask a school teacher if they work for the govt. theyll always say no, yet they do, everyone wants to act like they hate the govt and do nothing to support it but by working for them they infact are the govt, personaly i would never work for them, never be a teacher, post office worker or any position for them, im not going to rise up but think its backwards enough that i dont want to be part of it... my .o2

MicroBalrog · May 13, 2006, 09:55 AM

"Great men don't move to the center. Great men move the center."

**44 AMP** · May 24, 2006, 05:55 PM

Let me start by saying I love automatic weapons. I was trained on their use and repair by the military, so I know a little bit about the machinery.

However, there are just not enough people and money to effect the repeal of the NFA. The fact is that the people who like and want machineguns are a very small minority of the shooting community. They were in '34, and the numbers are even smaller today.

People have been trained since the '20s that machine guns are used by criminals. News reports, and all manner of popular fiction repeat this point endlessly. NOBODY except a small number of enthusiasts associates machineguns with anything other than crime or war. Reality doesn't matter. The majority of people are incapable or unwilling to accept it. They "know what they know", and what they know is what they see in the movies and on TV. Until we can change that I see little hope.

If we had some billionaire to finance the effort (like the anti-gun Sorros), we MIGHT have a chance. Eventually. Today, sadly it is nothing more than a dream.

About the tax, the ONLY good thing is that the NFA tax has never been adjusted for inflation. The tax was $200 in 1934. A lot of money then. Not nearly so much today. Would you be so ok with the tax if it was $10,000?

As far as those who blame the NRA for "supporting" the NFA in 34, please remember that in those days the NRA was not the political entity that it is today. Basically the NFA went into effect before any serious opposition could be mounted. People in those days didn't realize what was going on, nor what the consequences would be. After all, it was just another "tax" law.

As far as the '86 freeze, yes, one can say the NRA let us down. In fairness, they went for what was seen as the greatest good for the greatest number. More people would be helped by the Firearms Owner Protection Act, than suffer from the machinegun registration freeze. Sad for the full auto crowd, but it is a done deal, for 20 years now.

Could we get the '86 freeze lifted? Possibly. If it was approached the right way. I think the right way would be the way they did it to us. Quietly. Sneakily. Add it on to something that MUST be passed, at the LAST MINUTE, with a voice only vote. And don't tell the press. After all, it is only an administrative rule change, right?

And, yes, the NFA (and all its additions) is unconstitutional. In our opinion. Until, however, the Supreme Courts states that, it is the law of the land. And considering the Supreme Court today, I don't want them to make a ruling on ANY 2nd Amendment issue, because I believe we will lose more than we can gain. Just look at the recent ruling on emminent domain. Unless/until we get a court where we can be confidant of a ruling in our favor, I don't think it is worth the risk.

I realize this is the "better the devil we know..." view, but while the legal requirements/restrictions are onerous (and insulting to free citizens), they are better than a complete prohibition.

I do not mean to imply that we should stop trying to change things for the better, just that to expect complete sucess in today's political climate is overly optimistic.

MicroBalrog · May 28, 2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

If we had some billionaire to finance the effort (like the anti-gun Sorros)

There's plenty pro-gun, conservative billionaires.

Think Richard Mellon Scaife.

Or Rupert Murdoch.

leadcounsel · May 28, 2006, 10:48 AM

I don't think a campaign ad would work, and I think it would be political suicide for any politician.

The complacentcy of the "the people" see no need for it now and it would never be "voted" in. For the masses to vote for something, there has to be a perceived need. Most of us here don't talk guns with our neighbors because we tire of the justification conversation. Now imagine being a politician and trying to justify to your contributors that we have a need for fully auto weapons for every Tom, Dick, and Harry...

The best way to address the situation is for it to be tried before the US or a state Supreme Court. There would have to be a ripe case or controversy before the court and the court would have to rule that the law violates the US Constitution. For a ripe case or controversy, it would require that a person be arrested in possession of banned weapons and then take that to trial, lose on an appealable issue, then go through the channels until he ultimately gets to the Supreme Court AND they'd would have to grant review.

Not really worth the risk for that unlucky person because he would likely lose and go to jail for the better part of his life and then be forgotten.

Barring this scenario, the next best scenario for getting fully auto weapons is for the citizens to be called upon to fight either our own government, and then disregarding the law or demanding it to be changed, for some atrocity OR a foreign invader, like Mexico.

Bender711 · May 28, 2006, 01:47 PM

The only way that I feel would ever get any laws changed (In regard to full auto ) in an exceptable amount of time (E.G. less than an eterinty) would be a revloutoin, or an invasion of America. Neither of which I see happening soon.

Heist · May 28, 2006, 05:22 PM

Murdoch a conservative? The one palling around with Hillary? Really.

Quote:

Nor do I hear any outcry from folks sitting on guns that are now worth $10-50K that would be worth a couple of hundred if the ban were repealed. The people paying that money as investments are not eager for a repeal, either, for obvious reasons. Sure, some have posted here that they would be happy to see the ban removed even if it cost them money. I applaud the thinking, I just don't believe it is very common.

I agree. The silence on this issue, especially from the NFA owners who buy and sell as investments, and from the dealers who profit from buying and reselling them at higher and higher prices is positively deafening. I think I'll look up an older post I once saw where a man was comparing his ClassIII collection to his corvette and how he liked it the way it was- a sort of status symbol that only special 'worthy' people could get. :barf:

still 2 many choices · May 28, 2006, 06:35 PM

If the NFA was repealed, specifically the ban on ownership of new production, I believe the actually exempted weapons would still hold a value worth more simply because of this knowledge...Kinda like a Thompson or Garand that actually was issued and used during the war, would be worth more than a new production one because of the ,"nostalgia factor"...

If that still isn't good enough, make a distinction between weapons that were,"exempted/grandfathered", by making a class of non-transferable NFA(transferable only upon death, or to a federal/state agency)....

Just my 0.02 cents

johnsonrlp · May 28, 2006, 11:10 PM

So even with a "republican" "president", a Republican Congress, and a mostly Republican nominated Supreme Court, It still wouldn't happen.

Ever notice how stupid people always talk louder than their inteligent counterparts?

April 17, 2006, 01:20 PM	#28
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	no cajones in DC __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member

April 23, 2006, 07:03 PM	#35
still 2 many choices Senior Member Join Date: April 17, 2006 Posts: 100	I always have to say this... The problem is that somewhere between prohibition and now, it became possible to ammend the Constitution withoug an ammendment ! It took an ammendment to ban things back in the day(slavery, alcohol,womens suffrage), now it can be done to a fundamental right without so much as a whimper from the SCOTUS ...

April 23, 2006, 07:26 PM	#36
gunslinger555 Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2006 Location: Lima, ohio Posts: 580	cuz they realised that they can enslave us more easy by not doing it through ammendments. __________________ (")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face!

April 25, 2006, 02:27 AM	#37
theinvisibleheart Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 2005 Location: virtual internet world with a Daisy Red Ryder, LOL Posts: 683	this is a great idea and people can be changed! >>>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. <<< I'm a living proof of that. I used to think that abortion was woman's right until I started to study constitutional history, and then I changed my mind. I used to think that public school didn't do a good job because of lack of money and private schools took away all the good students until I started studying the issue. It all starts with effort and desire for change. --John

May 8, 2006, 07:00 PM	#38
MicroBalrog Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2002 Posts: 1,165	The Bradys put a lot of time and money to persuade people to believe the AWB was about letting Uzis and AK47s into the street. Did that work? No. What they are going to to do? Whine "They are REAL machineguns this time! Really!" __________________ NFAOA Repeal 922(o)!

April 16, 2006, 07:30 PM	#26
sgtgrunt Member Join Date: March 7, 2006 Posts: 70	a REVOLUTION is much needed and i would not be surprised if it happens in my life time.(im 21) i just hope its early enough in my life so i can fight in it. im not anti-government or way out there in any way. im mean i work for the gov. but the constitution needs to be enforced and not just the 2nd amend. all of them. its healthy to have a reolution every few hundred years, were well over due. just my .02$

April 16, 2006, 09:20 PM	#27
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Get real, folks. Does anyone in his right mind think that Congress is going to repeal that law in today's environment? Do you think a senator would want to read this headline: "Senator Jones Would Allow Terrorists to Buy Machineguns." No way. Besides, no one on our side wants any new gun law to have any chance in Congress. The opposition would amend it in ways we wouldn't like. (The first amendment would bring semi-auto rifles and handguns under the NFA, the next would be a 1000% increase in the FFL fees. Registration and transfer taxes on ammunition would be next. Do you really want a $10 tax on each round of ammunition?) I hate to say this, but I think we are stuck with that law. And as to what the Constitution means, we can argue until hell freezes over, but the Supreme Court, not people on the internet, decide Constitutional questions, and they have a good track record of ducking the issue on this one. As to a revolution, do you really want to do what the "insurgents" are doing in Iraq? Do you think you have the resources and outside support to start killing cops and soldiers? Where is your army? Blathering away on web sites, that's where. You can put a bayonet between your teeth and lead the revolt. Just don't expect many followers. Jim

April 17, 2006, 04:43 PM	#29
GeorgeF Senior Member Join Date: August 23, 2004 Posts: 572	"Get real, folks. Does anyone in his right mind think that Congress is going to repeal that law in today's environment?" I think it could happen. Two things work in the NFA favor. 1) The Assault Rifle Ban died and I havent seen any Senators getting grilled on that one. 2) The facts remain that the amount of people killed with a LEGALLY REGISTERED machinegun - is ONE. So why not let more people get them? No terrorist is getting a legally registered MG transferred to them - all those hoops and checks you have to jump through is going to limit that. I own 10 MG's and I want the ability to buy MORE. My MG's are not investments, they are for shooting. At current prices I cannot afford more. But bring those prices down and I will have some MORE fun.

April 17, 2006, 04:59 PM	#30
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	We can put on any kind of spin we like, and cite statistics until the cows go to bed, but it ain't going to happen. When the NRA went along with that provision to get the FOPA through, I spoke with several of their lobbyists and they seem to have honestly thought they could repeal the MG registration ban later. I just don't see it happening. Nor do I hear any outcry from folks sitting on guns that are now worth $10-50K that would be worth a couple of hundred if the ban were repealed. The people paying that money as investments are not eager for a repeal, either, for obvious reasons. Sure, some have posted here that they would be happy to see the ban removed even if it cost them money. I applaud the thinking, I just don't believe it is very common. One of our problems is that we go on a TV talk show and recite dry statistics. The anti-gun gang shows bad guys with machine guns mowing down children; who do you think wins the argument? Jim

April 17, 2006, 09:51 PM	#31
Csspecs Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Posts: 1,111	Use the spin that we want the law to back up to allow people who did not hear about the law until the items they had were illegal to register their rifles to keep them from being sold illegally. Explain that if we allowed all the pre 86 guns that been forgotten about in, that it would be worth more to register than to sell it to a criminal. Thus making our streets safer.

April 17, 2006, 10:30 PM	#32
Hkmp5sd Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: Winter Haven, Florida Posts: 4,303	What we need to do is use the tactics that created the ban in the first place. After Hillary and Company take command, tack a repeal onto some very popular democratic legislation. Something they will never let drop, you know, like voting rights for illegal aliens, and bingo, the ban is gone.

April 17, 2006, 11:22 PM	#33
Csspecs Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Posts: 1,111	Perfect. Now get the NRA or any other gun lobby group and make it happen.

April 23, 2006, 02:49 PM	#34
Limeyfellow Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2005 Posts: 1,380	Jim Keenan has things pretty much figured out. Theres not much chance at all of the laws being dropped. It would be political suicide for anyone to put forward that ammendment as theres just that much support for it and the police and a large amounts of the armed forces, secret service and so on would throw a fit. They just don't want a repeat of the mess in the 20s and 30s.

May 8, 2006, 09:31 PM	#39
Csspecs Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2005 Posts: 1,111	People don't care. I lost my interest in autos when I found out how much paper work is involved in moving one from one state to another.

May 8, 2006, 10:10 PM	#40
theinvisibleheart Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 2005 Location: virtual internet world with a Daisy Red Ryder, LOL Posts: 683	in that case, isn't it time we demand our government to change the law and stop infringing on our rights!? --John

May 9, 2006, 10:53 AM	#42
biglabsrule Senior Member Join Date: February 24, 2006 Location: Adirondack Park, upstate NY north of Utica Posts: 385	sgtgrunt, ive often been told and heard of people like you, nothing against you if you dont fall into this catagory just sounds like you might, people always trash on the govt say how corupt and backwards it is but yet they work for it, support it, keep it going... ask a school teacher if they work for the govt. theyll always say no, yet they do, everyone wants to act like they hate the govt and do nothing to support it but by working for them they infact are the govt, personaly i would never work for them, never be a teacher, post office worker or any position for them, im not going to rise up but think its backwards enough that i dont want to be part of it... my .o2 __________________ got me a little lady, the gun buying has come to an end, sigh

May 13, 2006, 09:55 AM	#43
MicroBalrog Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2002 Posts: 1,165	"Great men don't move to the center. Great men move the center." __________________ NFAOA Repeal 922(o)!

May 24, 2006, 05:55 PM	#44
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,817	dream Let me start by saying I love automatic weapons. I was trained on their use and repair by the military, so I know a little bit about the machinery. However, there are just not enough people and money to effect the repeal of the NFA. The fact is that the people who like and want machineguns are a very small minority of the shooting community. They were in '34, and the numbers are even smaller today. People have been trained since the '20s that machine guns are used by criminals. News reports, and all manner of popular fiction repeat this point endlessly. NOBODY except a small number of enthusiasts associates machineguns with anything other than crime or war. Reality doesn't matter. The majority of people are incapable or unwilling to accept it. They "know what they know", and what they know is what they see in the movies and on TV. Until we can change that I see little hope. If we had some billionaire to finance the effort (like the anti-gun Sorros), we MIGHT have a chance. Eventually. Today, sadly it is nothing more than a dream. About the tax, the ONLY good thing is that the NFA tax has never been adjusted for inflation. The tax was $200 in 1934. A lot of money then. Not nearly so much today. Would you be so ok with the tax if it was $10,000? As far as those who blame the NRA for "supporting" the NFA in 34, please remember that in those days the NRA was not the political entity that it is today. Basically the NFA went into effect before any serious opposition could be mounted. People in those days didn't realize what was going on, nor what the consequences would be. After all, it was just another "tax" law. As far as the '86 freeze, yes, one can say the NRA let us down. In fairness, they went for what was seen as the greatest good for the greatest number. More people would be helped by the Firearms Owner Protection Act, than suffer from the machinegun registration freeze. Sad for the full auto crowd, but it is a done deal, for 20 years now. Could we get the '86 freeze lifted? Possibly. If it was approached the right way. I think the right way would be the way they did it to us. Quietly. Sneakily. Add it on to something that MUST be passed, at the LAST MINUTE, with a voice only vote. And don't tell the press. After all, it is only an administrative rule change, right? And, yes, the NFA (and all its additions) is unconstitutional. In our opinion. Until, however, the Supreme Courts states that, it is the law of the land. And considering the Supreme Court today, I don't want them to make a ruling on ANY 2nd Amendment issue, because I believe we will lose more than we can gain. Just look at the recent ruling on emminent domain. Unless/until we get a court where we can be confidant of a ruling in our favor, I don't think it is worth the risk. I realize this is the "better the devil we know..." view, but while the legal requirements/restrictions are onerous (and insulting to free citizens), they are better than a complete prohibition. I do not mean to imply that we should stop trying to change things for the better, just that to expect complete sucess in today's political climate is overly optimistic.

May 28, 2006, 10:48 AM	#46
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	I don't think a campaign ad would work, and I think it would be political suicide for any politician. The complacentcy of the "the people" see no need for it now and it would never be "voted" in. For the masses to vote for something, there has to be a perceived need. Most of us here don't talk guns with our neighbors because we tire of the justification conversation. Now imagine being a politician and trying to justify to your contributors that we have a need for fully auto weapons for every Tom, Dick, and Harry... The best way to address the situation is for it to be tried before the US or a state Supreme Court. There would have to be a ripe case or controversy before the court and the court would have to rule that the law violates the US Constitution. For a ripe case or controversy, it would require that a person be arrested in possession of banned weapons and then take that to trial, lose on an appealable issue, then go through the channels until he ultimately gets to the Supreme Court AND they'd would have to grant review. Not really worth the risk for that unlucky person because he would likely lose and go to jail for the better part of his life and then be forgotten. Barring this scenario, the next best scenario for getting fully auto weapons is for the citizens to be called upon to fight either our own government, and then disregarding the law or demanding it to be changed, for some atrocity OR a foreign invader, like Mexico.

May 28, 2006, 01:47 PM	#47
Bender711 Senior Member Join Date: September 20, 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 340	The only way that I feel would ever get any laws changed (In regard to full auto ) in an exceptable amount of time (E.G. less than an eterinty) would be a revloutoin, or an invasion of America. Neither of which I see happening soon. __________________ From a Mod "Seeing as how "butt Smurf" is not profanity in the usual sense and humorously creative, I'll leave this up for now"

May 28, 2006, 06:35 PM	#49
still 2 many choices Senior Member Join Date: April 17, 2006 Posts: 100	Flawed logic, If the NFA was repealed, specifically the ban on ownership of new production, I believe the actually exempted weapons would still hold a value worth more simply because of this knowledge...Kinda like a Thompson or Garand that actually was issued and used during the war, would be worth more than a new production one because of the ,"nostalgia factor"... If that still isn't good enough, make a distinction between weapons that were,"exempted/grandfathered", by making a class of non-transferable NFA(transferable only upon death, or to a federal/state agency).... Just my 0.02 cents

May 28, 2006, 11:10 PM	#50
johnsonrlp Senior Member Join Date: April 27, 2005 Location: Ft Hood area, originally CA Posts: 268	So even with a "republican" "president", a Republican Congress, and a mostly Republican nominated Supreme Court, It still wouldn't happen. Ever notice how stupid people always talk louder than their inteligent counterparts?