Quantcast

Buyback/confiscation

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by FL-NC, Sep 4, 2019.

  1. FL-NC

    FL-NC Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2016
    Messages:
    4,697
    Location:
    Fl panhandle
    I wonder if the elected employees who have hitched themselves to the buyback/confiscation wagon intend to do the same thing for NFA items which have had the tax paid and detailed federal background checks done on the owners?
     
  2. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,943
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    I highly doubt ANY of the presidential candidates even know of the existence of Registry.
     
    JeffG and 40-82 like this.
  3. pdsmith505

    pdsmith505 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    670
    Not long ago there were calls for banning silencers in the wake of the VA Beach shootings... so, short answer is yes, the do intend to hit the NFA items
     
  4. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,446
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I'm certain they do.
     
    LiveLife likes this.
  5. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    Colorado
    I think that's a really dangerous supposition. These gun grabbers aren't stupid. Whatever they don't know about guns they can hire somebody else to do the research for them.

    They're pitching a narrative for all those whiny women on Facebook who post on any news story regarding firearms "If you're not a part of the well-regulated militia you don't need a gun."
     
    MrShooter, LiveLife, JeffG and 3 others like this.
  6. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Virginia
    The NFA, to the extent that it's on the antigunners' radar at all, is being held up as a model of gun control. Therefore, it's likely that the NFA would be expanded if the antigunners had their way. (See H.R. 1263, introduced by Rep. Ted Deutch.)
     
  7. bersaguy

    bersaguy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    514
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    So, here's a question I can't seem to find a straight answer to. In '34 when the NFA was passed, if you had a machine gun in your possession...did you have to pay the $200 to register it at that time, or only when the firearm was transferred? And also, in '68 during the amnesty, were you required to pay for the tax stamp at that time?
    If Congress wanted to repeal the Hughes amendment and open the registry, and add semiautomatic weapons to the nfa...well that would be a problem, but even more so if they adjusted the tax stamp for inflation...$200 in '34 is something like $3800 today. Even requiring a $200 tax stamp for each semiauto rifle would be a fiasco
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
    FL-NC likes this.
  8. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Virginia
    No. The initial registration was free. Any subsequent transfers were subject to the tax.
    Again, the amnesty registration was free.
    The idea of adding semiautomatics to the NFA has been floated by Sen. Feinstein in 2013, and again by Rep. Deutch this year (H.R. 1263). In both cases, the practical difficulties were pointed out to them, and they backed off. Rep. Deutch is now a co-sponsor of the more comprehensive AWB bill, H.R. 1296. I personally think that the H.R. 1263 approach would be preferable to H.R. 1296, provided that (a) the Hughes Amendment was repealed, and an amnesty declared for registering all unregistered machine guns, (b) the ATF was staffed and funded at a level that would allow processing of transfers within no more than a month, and (c) SBR's, SBS's, and suppressors were removed from the NFA. (Actually, SBR's would mostly be redundant if all semis were included.) Some reasonable increase in the transfer tax could be expected, but that would be the least of our worries.
     
    FL-NC, 40-82 and bersaguy like this.
  9. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,670
    Location:
    Alaska
    This is my thinking as well. Make everything semi-auto on the same plane of existence as anything full auto. Although, the one thing I never understood about the NFA, the Registry, etc., is how or why it ever made any difference. I'm certain I can pass a background check to get a type 3 license, so putting my Marlin Model 60 under the NFA isn't going to keep me from getting one. The only thing that would keep me from having a full auto firearm is the artificial shortage in transferable guns they've created by closing the registry and banning production of new guns. But that's just simple economics there. So, other than creating a database, I see no practical reason to put semi-autos under NFA...UNLESS...they're going to ban the production and importation at a later date, much like they did with the full auto guns in 1986. (Now THAT would seriously hamper gun ownership.)
     
    FL-NC likes this.
  10. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    Never discount the students at the clown college.
    It would not bother them in the slightest to add a Title III, Prohibited weapons.
    They'd just write a new Title I for single-shot, manually operated weapons; rename the previous Title I to II (with all the stamp requirements); then the former Title II would become III, Prohibited. Done.

    "...Mr & Mrs America, turn'em in..." remains their stated goal. The under-informed would be told it was a "minor" change in existing law, go back to watching reality tv and do as you are told.

    And, of course, flagrantly unconstitutional. And, anyone pointing that out gets red flagged. When/if it was found unconstitutional, that would be years later and would require a huge Amnesty. Presuming of course, that the orderly rule of law had been retained at all.
     
    FL-NC, bk42261, 40-82 and 1 other person like this.
  11. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,174
    Buy back? I don’t think I have ever purchased a firearm from the federal government.

    I figure any future gun grabbers will just follow our current President’s president and just make them illegal to possess by the stroke of a pen, like bump stocks. No grandfather, no buy back nothing, destroy or become a felon.
     
  12. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,670
    Location:
    Alaska
    Probably not. Banning gun ownership by Executive Order would be a 2A violation. Bump stocks are not guns. Braces, 15 & 30 round magazines, binary triggers, etc., are not guns. An outright ban/confiscation scheme is going to require legislation, and that legislation is going to have to pass Constitutional muster via the Supreme Court. (The NRA might lay down on this but GOA and 2AF will sue.) I'm not saying the court won't uphold it, they may very well, but it won't be by executive fiat. The only other option is a repeal of the 2A, and that will be even more difficult than getting legislation passed and through the Supreme Court.
     
    FL-NC likes this.
  13. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,174
    If that was the case, they in an of themselves couldn’t be “machineguns” and they are now. Might as well have a DIAS, Lightning link etc if you own one, even if you don’t own a compatible firearm.

    Ah, the power of the pen...mightier than the sword, some say.

    That’s why I figure the people that said “who cares” are short sighted. The next logical step is to come to the realization that any semiauto firearm can be bump fired without a stock, so they are in effect machineguns too. Then after that, anything with an optic will be a “sniper rifle”....
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
    FL-NC, LiveLife and D.B. Cooper like this.
  14. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    97
    How much do they pay? Should I collect as many old junky guns as possible just for the possibility? For an industrious person - could be a cash cow.
     
  15. D.B. Cooper

    D.B. Cooper Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2016
    Messages:
    1,670
    Location:
    Alaska
    That has been done in the past. I've seen video and images of people turning in old beaters for $100. I suspect many of those guns were stolen.
     
    FL-NC likes this.
  16. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    Colorado
    I seem to remember reading a post here on THR several years ago in which the poster claimed to be an FFL who had several Lorcins that were worth about $75 a piece and the buyback I think was paying a hundred.

    Supposably he sold every single one of them to the buyback
     
    D.B. Cooper and FL-NC like this.
  17. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,174
    I don’t see why they would “buy back” anything they didn’t sell anything to you in the first place. 2nd place the government doesn’t have any money they didn’t take from you and 3rd as I said in #11 the new standard has already been set.
     
  18. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Virginia
    Placing semiautomatics in the Registry would, in effect, freeze current ownership. We now have a 10-12 month wait for a Form 4 transfer of a machine gun. The number of semiautomatics would be orders of magnitude greater than the number of machine guns. If the same bureaucratic procedures were followed, it would take years (who knows how many?) for transfers to be approved. That would destroy the market just as effectively as an outright ban with grandfathering of current owners.
     
    FL-NC, bk42261 and 40-82 like this.
  19. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,816
    Location:
    TX
    A magazine limit of ten rounds, if passed nationally, will negate the benefits and fun of most full auto firearms. I wonder what folks with them do in ban states, never thought of that?
     
    FL-NC likes this.
  20. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Virginia
    A gun that will accept a 10-round magazine will accept a magazine of greater capacity. And there are plenty (millions) of such magazines, so, effectively, they can't be controlled.

    The antigunners are beginning to wake up to that fact, so now they are coming up with a new proposal -- that the gun itself be limited to 10 rounds. The way they would do this would be to require all magazines to be internal and nonremovable. On an AR-15, for example, you would have a blind magazine well and the rounds would have to be loaded one at a time through the ejection port. They claim that this modification could be retrofitted to existing guns.

    Banning or limiting magazines to no more than 10 rounds will not work. "The NRA estimates that more than 250 million magazines with a capacity of 11 rounds or more are in circulation. Of those, 100 million have a capacity of at least 30 rounds." If a weapon can take a replaceable 10-round magazine, it can also take all other-size reloadable magazines.

    What is required is to ban assault-style weapons unless converted for reasonable civilian self-defense. The magazine-reload process needs to be changed from the military style of complete magazine replacement to a fixed, 10-round magazine that has a single-round reload process, which would take at least 10 seconds for a complete reload.


    ----- Denis Michael Katchmeric, writing in the Washington Post opinion page, September 8, 2019​

    As a collector of both machine guns and "assault weapons," I feel that I'm living on borrowed time. They are coming after me even though I haven't done anything wrong.
     
    FL-NC likes this.
  21. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,816
    Location:
    TX
    They can’t be controlled if people disobey a turn in law but if such a law passes, they cannot be used. Are you going to have a public full auto shoot with illegal mags? Great if they are hidden in your basements. That’s what the hiders do not get.
     
    FL-NC likes this.
  22. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Virginia
    Even hidden guns have a deterrent effect against high-handed, undemocratic government actions. Such a usurping government could never be sure about when a fed-up public would bring out its hidden guns. As a matter of fact, this "uncertainty" factor would be even greater when the guns are underground than when they are owned openly.

    The difference between America today and, say, the Warsaw Ghetto, is that our baseline (the status quo ante) is that we are awash in guns whereas the Jews of Warsaw didn't have any.
     
    FL-NC, Gtscotty and bk42261 like this.
  23. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,174
    Not all guns even use magazines.

    85F18955-51BF-48E3-AF22-CAE5FDF716FE.jpeg
     
    Gtscotty and FL-NC like this.
  24. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,816
    Location:
    TX
    Missed the point in the last two posts. The bans and not being able to use them will contribute to a cultural shift against the ownership of firearms. I do support the defense against tyranny as one of the major points for the RKBA. However, its deterrent effect is lessened if the guns have to go underground.

    My concern is that folks just say - OH, well - so what if there is a ban, I will hide mine.

    The emphasis should be to stop such and rewind existing ones.
     
    Gtscotty and FL-NC like this.
  25. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Virginia
    Arguably, hidden guns have more of a deterrent effect since the authorities have no idea where they are, or how many there are. Secrecy is a "force multiplier."
    Obviously.
    All the AWB proposals include belts among the banned feeding devices. The issue concerns disintegrating links. Are you safe if you link up a maximum of 10 rounds? Or would having several of these 10-round short belts put you in "constructive possession"? These are the sorts of questions that the ATF would be called upon to answer.
     
    FL-NC likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice