Thoughts on full auto and the Hughes amendment

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by jgcoastie

While I agree that the tactics noted above by Webleymkv would likely be somewhat successful, I would much rather have the political right employ the horse-trading to have Constitutional Carry recognized/implemented as law.

I don't know that the Hughes amendment represents a big enough bargaining chip to get constitutional carry, particularly when RKBA has, at best, luke warm support in the Senate and White House. If forced to give up either the Hughes Amendment or Constitutional Carry, I think the anti's would be more likely to give up the Hughes Amendment because it has been a pretty useless piece of legislation from the get go.

Remember, the only real purpose to the Hughes Amendment was as a poison pill, and even in that role it has failed. Were the Hughes Amendment repealed, the only people who would be able to get a FA weapon that can't now are those who can't afford one (and it would probably take a while for the prices to come down). All of the other requirements of the NFA including the tax stamp, LEO signoff, and registration would remain in place.

As to using the same tactics I suggested earlier for getting Constitutional Carry, I think it would have to be attached to a bill that the Democrats want very, very badly and such a bill would probably be offensive enough to Republicans that it wouldn't be able to clear the House. The only recent thing that I can think of that the Democrats want badly enough to let Constitutional Carry slip through is healthcare, and that ship has already sailed for the purposes we're describing. I think that Constitutional Carry is probably an issue best reserved for a time when we have solid RKBA support in both chambers of congress at the very least, and support in the White House would be better.

Originally posted by chasepreuninger

Why not add the repeal in a pro-gun bill such as constitutional carry. That way the bradys along with everyone else will focus on the bigger part and ignore the small part dealing with FAs.

Because it's easier to kill an entire bill than it is to remove one part and leave the rest intact. That's why we have the Hughes Amendment in the first place and also why the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act failed the first time around (renewal of the AWB was added as a poison pill).

Originally posted by csmsss

I think this is an area where you want to proceed carefully - not because I agree with the laws in their current construct, but because, like it or not, public perception is a factor that cannot be dismissed. Any effort to loosen/repeal existing laws must be preceded and accompanied by concentrated public education campaigns to reduce all of the public misconceptions about FA firearms and those who own and enjoy them.

We have about eighty years of concerted Hollywood and public media disinformation shaping the public's perception (actually, concentrating the public's irrational fear) of automatic firearms, and if you simply start repealing existing legislation without creating a framework in public perception, the result could very well be counterproductive. Let's pave the road before we drive on it, or something like that.

If we were going after the meat of the NFA (something I'd like to see eventually), then I would agree with you. However, I think repeal of the Hughes Amendment could probably fly under the radar and the general public would probably never know the difference (I doubt that the vast majority of people even know about the Hughes Amendment at all).

As I mentioned earlier, the most substantial thing the Hughes Amendment has done is to drive up the price of legal FA weapons. Pre-86 machine guns aren't really all that different from post-86 machine guns and given the already substantial hoops that the NFA forces one to jump through, I doubt that machine gun sales will skyrocket if the Hughes Amendment is replaced.

[csmsss]

That's a good point, Webley - My post was really directed at the notion of repealing all NFA legislation in one fell swoop. Repealing the Hughes amendment in and of itself is much more limited in scope.

[jgcoastie]

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

I don't know that the Hughes amendment represents a big enough bargaining chip to get constitutional carry, particularly when RKBA has, at best, luke warm support in the Senate and White House. If forced to give up either the Hughes Amendment or Constitutional Carry, I think the anti's would be more likely to give up the Hughes Amendment because it has been a pretty useless piece of legislation from the get go.

Actually, what I tried to say (I apparently didn't get my point across) was that instead of using the Health Care bill as a bargaining chip to repeal the Hughes Amendment, we should try to use the repeal of the Health Care bill to pass Constitutional Carry.

There, fixed it:

Originally Posted by jgcoastie

While I agree that the tactics noted above by Webleymkv would likely be somewhat successful, I would much rather have the political right employ the horse-trading to have Constitutional Carry recognized/implemented as law instead of repealing the Hughes Amendment.

[kozak6]

I think the big question is do any politicians actually care enough to do this?

No, as it would be political suicide. In all fairness, reopening the MG registry is rather extreme. It's enough of a fight to hold onto what we have, let alone to push back the front on a federal scale.

This would also shine a spotlight on NFA law, and I'm not sure we really want that at this time. Public outcry would be enormous, and it is a fairly extreme issue. It could possibly just be immediately repealed again depending on the political climate. Or, if it wasn't, there's still plenty of room for things to go poorly. For example, the tax stamps are relatively cheap today due to inflation. If the MG registry was reopened, but the $200 stamps were corrected for inflation to about $3100, how far ahead did we really get?

I don't think a "quid pro quo" approach could work anytime in the near future. The political environment isn't right for it. Both parties are too busy with other issues.


Gentlemen, be careful with the political discussion. Although this has been a civil thread,
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313714

Originally Posted by Al Norris

Straight political discussions or partisan politics will be off topic. Our primary test for partisan politics in this forum is the mention of candidate's or party names. While some political discussion will necessarily crop up as an adjunct to the civil rights issue(s) of the individual thread(s), we expect that this will be a much smaller part of the discussion at hand.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I don't know that the Hughes amendment represents a big enough bargaining chip to get constitutional carry, particularly when RKBA has, at best, luke warm support in the Senate and White House. If forced to give up either the Hughes Amendment or Constitutional Carry, I think the anti's would be more likely to give up the Hughes Amendment because it has been a pretty useless piece of legislation from the get go.
Actually, what I tried to say (I apparently didn't get my point across) was that instead of using the Health Care bill as a bargaining chip to repeal the Hughes Amendment, we should try to use the repeal of the Health Care bill to pass Constitutional Carry.

OK, I understand your point better now. The problem that I see with using repeal of the healthcare law as a bargaining chip for anything is that the current House leadership seems to have made it their number one priority (a fairly clever political move, but that's really off topic for the current discussion). I rather doubt that House Republicans would be willing to give up healthcare repeal to get Constitutional Carry. My guess is that the Republicans think they can take the Senate, increase their majority in the House, and/or take the White House in 2012 and if they intend to take on any RKBA issues, they'll probably do it after the 2012 election.

When I mentioned the healthcare bill before, I was using it more as an example of the magnitude of legislation that might get the left to ignore Hughes repeal and/or Constitutional Carry. If we were going to use healthcare, the time to do it was before it passed rather than after.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
I think the big question is do any politicians actually care enough to do this?
No, as it would be political suicide. In all fairness, reopening the MG registry is rather extreme. It's enough of a fight to hold onto what we have, let alone to push back the front on a federal scale.

I think maybe you're being a bit overly pessimistic. The RKBA movement stopped being on the defensive at the federal level about ten years ago and the anti-gun movement began losing momentum at the federal-level after the Republicans took Congress in 1994. Since 2001, we've gotten the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and CCW in National Parks as well as our victories in both Heller and McDonald.

As long as we can keep it under the radar (and I think we can), repeal of the Hughes Amendment would probably go largely unnoticed. The anti's tried to work the public into a tizzy about FA in 2004 in an attempt to get the AWB reinstated and failed then. I really don't think they'd be any more successful now because a) I don't think they'd get as much face time as they did in '94 and '04 and b) it would expose their lies in '94 and '04.

This would also shine a spotlight on NFA law, and I'm not sure we really want that at this time. Public outcry would be enormous, and it is a fairly extreme issue. It could possibly just be immediately repealed again depending on the political climate. Or, if it wasn't, there's still plenty of room for things to go poorly. For example, the tax stamps are relatively cheap today due to inflation. If the MG registry was reopened, but the $200 stamps were corrected for inflation to about $3100, how far ahead did we really get?

I think the negative outcomes you describe would be much more likely if we tried to eliminate the entire NFA in one fell swoop. However, if we carefully whittle away at the most draconian parts and carefully choose when to pursue it, I think we can probably keep things from getting out of hand. I think we could probably get rid of Hughes right now without too much fallout. Next, I think we might be able to go after the CLEO signoff requirement through the courts (the current SCOTUS doesn't seem to be too friendly to purely discretionary law). Beyond that, I think we'd probably be pushing too much too fast.

I don't think a "quid pro quo" approach could work anytime in the near future. The political environment isn't right for it. Both parties are too busy with other issues.

You see, the way I look at it the other issues might be a good cover to get things done unnoticed.

Gentlemen, be careful with the political discussion. Although this has been a civil thread,
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
Straight political discussions or partisan politics will be off topic. Our primary test for partisan politics in this forum is the mention of candidate's or party names. While some political discussion will necessarily crop up as an adjunct to the civil rights issue(s) of the individual thread(s), we expect that this will be a much smaller part of the discussion at hand.

I realize we're walking a rather fine line here, hence my note to the moderators at the beginning of my first post.

[carguychris]

I think maybe you're being a bit overly pessimistic. The RKBA movement stopped being on the defensive at the federal level about ten years ago and the anti-gun movement began losing momentum at the federal-level after the Republicans took Congress in 1994. Since 2001, we've gotten the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and CCW in National Parks as well as our victories in both Heller and McDonald.

As long as we can keep it under the radar (and I think we can), repeal of the Hughes Amendment would probably go largely unnoticed. The anti's tried to work the public into a tizzy about FA in 2004 in an attempt to get the AWB reinstated and failed then.

I agree fully with the first half of your statement, but IMHO reopening the FA registry is the proverbial Bridge Too Far.

I think the negative outcomes you describe would be much more likely if we tried to eliminate the entire NFA in one fell swoop. However, if we carefully whittle away at the most draconian parts and carefully choose when to pursue it, I think we can probably keep things from getting out of hand.

I agree, but IMHO the best place to start is to remove suppressors from the NFA, which will benefit the shooting community and the general public far more than reopening the FA registry. (FWIW I believe I wrote this in the last L&CR thread concerning suppressors.) My fear is that the potential controversy over reopening the FA registry may poison the well for further changes to the NFA.

[RedneckFur]

Just an idea....
I had once thought that anyone with an honorable discharge from the military would be eligable to purchase firearms. No limits. Anyone else would have to prove their fitness (at their own expense) to own a firearm. A graduated system might be used. Thus a shot gun might be easy to get, a handgun might require 100 hours of training and a background check, a machine gun might require the same as a hand gun and a one year wait with a mental fitness check.
If we had universal military service, this would work even better.
Any thoughts on this?

Keep in mind, this would not have stopped Timothy McVeigh.

In doing so, you would be putting restrictions on a god-given right. It would be the same as only allowing folks with a college degree in english to excersize their right of free speech and free press, and all others would have to pass an english language competency test before speaking or writing in public.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by dlb435

I had once thought that anyone with an honorable discharge from the military would be eligable to purchase firearms. No limits. Anyone else would have to prove their fitness (at their own expense) to own a firearm. A graduated system might be used. Thus a shot gun might be easy to get, a handgun might require 100 hours of training and a background check, a machine gun might require the same as a hand gun and a one year wait with a mental fitness check.
If we had universal military service, this would work even better.
Any thoughts on this?

That idea officially qualifies for the "Worst Ideas in the History of History" award.

Seriously. It would be hard to think of something worse if we intend to be anything remotely close to "free" people.

[alloy]

A "we have to pass the bill and then you can see what's in it" seems to be one of the new ways to get things done, but I don't think the legislature's make-up is quite right yet.
Simple enough, if that's how the system works.

[Maus]

Just a thought, perhaps a bill could be proposed that reopens the FA registry to guns made before 1986, so that new military weapons couldn't be brought, but any historical firearms could be registered. I've seen some stories around this forum about seeing old Thompsons and Brens and such laying about, esp. overseas and the finder not saying anything about them because they would be destroyed or otherwise confiscated (although to my knowledge no one took them home either).

The anti-gun groups seem to fear modern military weapons, and this might be because of their brutish appearance compared to the elegant weapons of the early 20th century. If it was presented as a bill for or as part of a bill for saving history for future generations, then I think it would come across better than a straight out "bring back FA" bill.


Sorry to bump, but I thought this would be better than a new thread.

[TheMacMocek]

Y'all should all join the "Repeal the Hughes Amendment" page on facebook