How Can One Get a New Machine Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
berrieberrie said:
You thought wrong. This once again shows that "Europe" still (praise the Lord) isn't ONE singular country, and that the huge differences between countries are relatively unknown to US gun enthusiasts.

Apart from Switzerland, FAs are legal in the Czech Republic (which is even a better place for gun ownership than Switzerland) and Finland.
Click to expand...
Could you tell me about the gun laws in Czech Republic and Finland?
 
No post 1986 civilian sales

Civilians cannot own non-transferable post 1986 NFA weapons. The law probably won't change in this regard.

It is not worth the effort to obtain an SOT (Class 2 or 3) (license - to manufacture or sell machine guns) unless you expect a significant sales volume.
I applied for a Class 2 manufacturer's license and had to wait approximately one year before the required BATF interview. Then my San Antonio zoning was not appropriate. I rented another space with the correct zoning but the location was not suitable to BATF. I decided it was not worth it and withdrew my application. Instead of manufacturing class 2 weapons myself, I financed the manufacture by Class 2 manufacturers and accomplished the same result with less overhead but more problems (due to lack of control)
 
The Hughes Amendment wasn't actually passed.


132 Cong.Rec. H1741-06 Page 16 of 31

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is read, I would like to know if the amendment was one of those printed in the RECORD prior to today. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey whether his amendment has been printed in the RECORD? Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in the RECORD, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has it been printed in the RECORD by Mr. HUGHES? The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it is not required that the sponsor of the amendment have it printed in the RECORD. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES to the amendment as amended, offered by Mr. VOLKMER as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended: Section 102 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking out "and"; (2) in paragraph (8), by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (9) by inserting after the subsection added by paragraph (8) of this section the following: "(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. "(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to- "(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or "(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.". Section 110 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended by adding at the end the following: (c) MACHINEGUN PROHIBITION.-Section 102(9) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request that the amendment be considerd as read and printed in the RECORD. I ask my colleagues, in all fairness and rationality-we only have 3 minutes left-to give me an opportunity to explain why machineguns should be banned. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regular order and reserving the right to object–– The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment. I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machineguns. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey moves that the Committee do now rise? Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey . The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12, as follows:

AYES-124 Ackerman Akaka Anderson Annunzio Anthony Aspin Atkins Barnes Bates Beilenson Bennett Berman Biaggi Boland Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conyers Cooper Coyne Crockett Dellums Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar Edwards (CA) Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Foglietta Ford (TN) Frank Garcia Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez Gordon Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hawkins Hayes Henry Hertel Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee Kleczka LaFalce Lehman (CA) Lehman (FL) Leland Levin (MI) Levine (CA) Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules McKinney Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller (WA) Mineta Moakley Moody Morrison (CT) Mrazek Oakar Owens Porter Price Rangel Rodino Roe Rostenkowski Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Scheuer Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL) Solarz Spratt St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Udall Vento Visclosky Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Wolpe Yates

NOES-298 Alexander Andrews Applegate Archer Armey AuCoin Badham Barnard Bartlett Barton Bateman Bedell Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boggs Boner (TN) Bonker Bosco Boucher Breaux Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron Callahan Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey Coble Coelho Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Conte Coughlin Courter Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer Darden Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell DioGuardi Dorgan (ND) Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK) Emerson English Erdreich Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Florio Foley Ford (MI) Fowler Franklin Frenzel Frost Fuqua Gallo Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gradison Gray (IL) Gregg Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall, Ralph Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon Hiler Hillis Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones (NC) Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kasich Kemp Kindness Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer Lagomarsino Lantos Latta Leach (IA) Leath (TX) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd Loeffler Long Lott Lowery (CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan Marlenee Martin (IL) Martin (NY) Mazzoli McCain McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade McEwen McGrath McHugh McKernan McMillan Meyers Mica Michel Miller (OH) Mitchell Molinari Mollohan Monson Montgomery Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA) Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson Nowak Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Panetta Parris Pashayan Pease Penny Pepper Perkins Petri Pickle Pursell Quillen Rahall Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Roberts Robinson Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Roukema Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer Schneider Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH) Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm Strang Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas (GA) Traxler Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise Wolf Wortley Wyden Wylie Yatron Young (AK) Young (FL) Young (MO) Zschau

NOT VOTING-12 Addabbo Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O'Brien Schulze Stokes Wright
 
To the OP:

Convince the Secretary of the Treasury to issue an NFA amnesty (which would allow anyone to register any non-registered machine guns, destructive devices, silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs). Hasn't happened since 1968.
 
The Hughes Amendment wasn't actually passed.
Click to expand...
So the Hughes Amenedment is actually null and void? It was attached to the signed bill as I understand but if it wasn't eligiable to be there it should be voided.
 
Yes that's correct. The Hughes Amendment never passed therefore could not legally be on the bill that President Reagan signed on that fateful day. 922 (o) is completely BS from a legal standpoint. It wasn't passed therefore the signature of President Reagan makes no difference and means nothing. It's not a "cleanser" that all of a sudden makes something legal and it most certainly cannot be mandated by and Executive Order.
 
922 (o) is completely BS from a legal standpoint. It wasn't passed therefore the signature of President Reagan makes no difference and means nothing.
Click to expand...
And how does this "fact" work to our advantage? Is there a strategy we can use here to get the Registry re-opened?
 
If you have enough money (ie contact Stephen Halbrook) and use the official vote count (posted above but available from the US Library of Congress for free) as your affirmative evidence, the Supreme Court has no choice but to rule it unconstitutional (doesn't follow the lawmaking rules set out in it) therefore null and void.

Then if you're still rich, you can use the precedent set forth in Murdock v PA 1943 to tackle the actual tax portion of the NFA of 1934 ("No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, tax it, nor charge a fee therefore.") State has been held to mean any form of government, be it chartered state of the United States of America or the federal government itself.

Two things holding it back:

money
drive of the American gun owners as a collective group

If every member of any gun rights type organization, from the NRA, GOA, the little state clubs, etc gave $1 to the cause, there's your funding.
 
Cool, then! Post this in Activism with a plan of action and some contact info for whomever will be spear-heading the effort. You couldn't have found a more enthusiastic group of supporters than the membership of THR.org!

(It might help to have a credentialed attorney critique your battle plan and claims that this is a "sure thing" as it will help deter the nay-sayers.)
 
How is the Hughes amendment then enforced the past 25 years if it never actually passed? Is there some other procedure that makes it valid? Are there some good lawyers that are pretty good with this stuff? It would be nice if the Post 86 ban did not exist for machine guns...thus driving down the price....but if you own a pre 86 machine gun you may not be too happy b/c they are good investments.

The best way to own a machine gun is pay the pay the piper the 200 bucks...and get a pre 86 one right now....expensive but about the only practical way to do it as an individual.

The manufacturer and dealer ways are VERY expensive...you're talking liability insurance, zoning, 'business' purpose, incorporation w/ the state, lawyer & acct fees, maintaining a business and all the headache that goes along with it. That will cost you more than a Post 86 machine gun....UNLESS you really want to be a manufacturer or dealer.
 
I'm a class 2 manufacturer and it's not that expensive.

It's been enforced because it was on the bill that Reagan signed. However, no one questioned its passage to be on the bill in the first place. It was put on there despite the vote result. It should not have been on the bill because it didn't pass. Neither did the 16th Amendment but we still pay income tax.
 
Recreational shooting, shooting competitions, research for firearms development, and defense of country (defense is about preparation, not playing games of probabilities. Proper defense is such that we make the country so well prepared, an attack upon it is folly to our enemy.)

Ever since the enforcement of the Hughes Amendment, development of fully automatic small arms has seen a drastic reduction in occurrence. Now instead of the private sector of individuals making improvements for a mere $200 a piece tax, it is left to the private sector manufacturers which is an investment just to be legal. Now the suppressor industry has seen many innovations as their use is regulated to the $200 tax upon making or transfer. The private (non-government, non-military) sector of the country has brought such excellent innovation and design such that the military is now using silencers more than ever. When you limit industry and limit the free mind of a people to innovate, you are limiting the power and technological strength of their country.

And before you state the "blood in the streets" and "needs" mantra, there has been a total of ONE case where a machine gun that was legally possessed was used in a crime. It was a police officer that killed his wife and her lover in 1935 with a personally owned and properly registered machine gun.

North Hollywood shootout? Those were illegally converted.

I have quite a respectable collection of machine guns (plus a supply of machine guns made under my company's Class 2 status) and none of them have been used in a crime.
 
Except to say you have one, what could you possibly want with a machine gun?
Click to expand...
A "good reason" doesn't have to be demonstrated for one to exercise a right. However, there had better be a darn good reason for infringing on the rights of a law-abiding individual.

What reasons can you provide justifying elitist rules that allow only to the rich and the police to own machine guns?
 
First of all, I was never concerned with the "blood in the streets" thing. And I agree that private "civilian" owned industry WILL be as it always has been the leaders in inovation of ANY technology not just weapons. But I fail to buy the "recreational shooting" argument for a private citizen owning a fully automatic weapon. I personally would not want to see a large market of machine guns for sale to the generaly public. I believe that would be like throwing gasoline on a fire in many ways. The anti-gun idiots already think that those of us who love guns and more than that wish to be able to protect our families or just hunt for game are blood thirsty and itching to "kill" someone. As I said they are the idiots, not us, but claiming a right to own a machine gun (right or wrong) only strengthens their argument in the press and to congress about why we shouldn't have any guns. Not to mention the FACT that most crimes involving guns are commited with STOLEN once LEGALLY owned guns. I wouldn't want to face a more powerful criminal element armed with fully automatic weapons. The way I see it, the more legal machine guns there are in the private sector, the more illigal machine guns there would then be on the streets because of the theft of those guns. Most law enforcement agencies in this country are in favor of law abiding citizens right to carry a conceled hand gun for self defense, those same law enforcement agencies are staunchly opposed to legalizing fully automatic weapons. They learned the hard way in the roaring 20's that gangsters with machine guns were not a good thing and back then the gansters could get them legally. I respect your opinion on this and I agree with your thoughts the government infringing on our constitutional rights. I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use. The collecting of rare old guns is one thing, even machine guns, but I just think that legalizing machine guns is a can of worms we shouldn't open.
 
Tom, a lot of people believe the way you do, or have believed so in the past. A lot of people feel, or felt, that it was socially accpetable to own long guns, but that handguns were just too dangerous and what sort of person needs a gun they can carry around in public anyway? Mobsters and criminals, that's who!

Now, it is the recognized right of every law abiding citizen in nearly 40 states to carry a sidearm with them in public every day. How times have changed!

Later, many people believed that owning a hunting rifle or shotgun was a reasonable right to request from the government, but military "assault weapons" had no place on "our streets." Who needs a bullet hose that has no purpose but to kill people?

Now, military style carbines are the most popular kind of firearm in the U.S., for training, for competition -- even for hunting. The most common face of gun owners many people see is of average folks owning and using substantively the same weapon carried by our combat soldiers. Who would have believed that 20 years ago?

The same goes for the idea that assassins and hit men were the only folks who would ever want a silencer. Now the market is flooded with innovative and effective silencer/suppressor designs available to to common shooter (with the required paperwork) to keep down range noise complaints and protect hearing.

The fear of (or ABOUT) machine guns is just another iteration of this kind of unfounded assumption about what society will do -- or think -- if we gun owners dare to take the next step.

When you consider that a) there are lots -- make that LOTS -- of legally owned machine guns in this country already; and, b) there are plenty of illegal conversions in the hands of criminals already -- and we don't really suffer a noticable social impact from either -- the argument against collapses utterly.

[Edited to add: In your defense (I'm assuming, here) -- it really helps to have some hands-on expereince with machine guns to arrive at the more enlightened viewpoint. From the movies and/or "from a distance" a machine gun appears to be an overwhelming tool of mass destruction. Once you've done some practical shooting with them you start to realize both how powerful -- and how oddly limited -- they are. When you understand that a person holding up a 7-11, or even attempting a mass murder in a public place, is not really any more dangerous with an M-16 than they are with an AR-15, your opinion starts to shift.]
 
Last edited:
I'm NOT necessarily against machine guns. Nor am I afraid that there will be blood in the streets because of them. I just think that a little give and take would get us a lot further with our argument for our right to own and carry a practical self defense weapon. I don't believe for a minute that crimes by law abiding citizens using machine guns would increase either. However the number of machine guns on the streets would increase to some degree and the cops would have to deal with that. With the right (I hate to cuss like this but) control measures on LEGAL machine guns crime against the average citizen would probably not change that much at all. I don't know maybe pushing the machine gun thing right now is maybe stirring the pot a little too much at this time. Those are my real concerns. Not an increase in violence on John Q. Public.

And I've always been in favor of silencers for public use. We are not a nation of "Hit Men" or silent stalkers as some would have us believe.
 
Fine. You don't like machine guns, don't buy one. But don't you dare tell me it isn't my right to own one. I don't care what law enforcement thinks and I certainly don't need their permission to own or carry a firearm.

With the proliferation of carry permits and handguns in the last 20 years, theft of handguns has NOT increased. In the last 10 years firearms ownership has grown exponentially yet crime has gone down and the theft of firearms has gone down despite the ownership numbers increasing. Why would you think the case would be with machine guns? Criminals don't follow laws. They will make their own. Theft of firearms isn't as frequent as some make it out to be.
 
What is the theft rate for NFA items actually? I know that guns get stolen, but how many NFA items are stolen every year?
 
I think in 2009, there were less than a dozen NFA weapons stolen. A few of those were like 2-3 silencers from a guy at a range. Think he's a member here by the name of PTK. Few more NFA weapons were taken by the former president of Anvil Arms when he went AWOL on the creditors. NFA theft is extremely infrequent and quite rare.
 
I just don't share the oppinion that we have a need for something so volitile as a machine gun for recreational use. The collecting of rare old guns is one thing, even machine guns, but I just think that legalizing machine guns is a can of worms we shouldn't open.
Click to expand...

We've been playing defense since 1934. It's time we finally go on the offensive. I say we push, and push hard, for NFA reform and deregulation. Not just for machine guns, but for destructive devices, SBSs, SBRs, silencers, and AOWs.
 
There have been a few bills introduced in congress over the years that would of opened up the registry for NFA class vet bring backs but they never went anywhere.

Probably the easiest way to repeal the Hughes amendment would be to "sneak in" a change as part of a larger bill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Theohazard
  • Locked
Question about pre-1986 dealer samples
Replies
4
Views
2K
pjeski
pjeski
C
  • Locked
Cheapest (class III) machine guns presently?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
40K
CleverNickname
C
General Geoff
  • Locked
Importing F/A-18 Fighter Jets from Australia!
Replies
13
Views
846
D.B. Cooper
D.B. Cooper
C
  • Locked
Theoretical Resistance from MG owners to repeal 1986
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Chipperman
C
J
  • Locked
Central Florida machine gun questions
Replies
7
Views
1K
Fish Miner
F
Back
Top