FL-NC
Member
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?
I highly doubt ANY of the presidential candidates even know of the existence of Registry.
No. The initial registration was free. Any subsequent transfers were subject to the tax.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?
Again, the amnesty registration was free.And also, in '68 during the amnesty, were you required to pay for the tax stamp at that time?
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think that the H.R. 1263 approach would be preferable to H.R. 1296, provided that (a) the Hughes Amendment was repealed, and an amnesty declared for registering all unregistered machine guns, (b) the ATF was staffed and funded at a level that would allow processing of transfers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.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
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.)
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.
Bump stocks are not guns.
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.
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.
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.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.)
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.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?
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.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.
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."However, its deterrent effect is lessened if the guns have to go underground.
Obviously.The emphasis should be to stop such and rewind existing ones.
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.Not all guns even use magazines.