What led to the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986?

[denton]

I do have a proposal for a compromise, but I don't think any of us will live to see it:

When the 4473 came into being, gun owners rightly feared that if the government held the data, it would lead to a federal registry. The compromise that was struck was that the data would exist, and be held by the FFLs. That way, it is accessible if there is a legitimate need.

Modern technology allows a simple and worthwhile extension of that principle, using blockchain and public key encryption technology. The system would include the following:

1. The prohibited person list would be made public. All private and dealer sales would check the list before a transaction is made, and receive a validation code. It would be the responsibility of the seller to verify that the buyer was not on the list.

2. Sales records would be individually encrypted and accessible only by permission of the person who generated the record. Access to the record dies with the owner. Sales records would very cheaply live on the cloud, administered by an independent organization. The NRA would do nicely, a bit like the ARRL administers amateur radio licensing.

3. All sales would be recorded. If buyer and seller don't have internet access, the public libraries would be acceptable input points.

4. In return, the MG registry (already acknowledged to be less than 50% accurate) would be opened up, the transfer tax would be rescinded, there would be no limits on magazine capacity and no special tax for suppressors.

That's what I'd propose. Just watching the antis choke on that in return for requiring background checks and sales records for all transactions would be highly entertaining.

 

[2agunner]

Modern technology allows a simple and worthwhile extension of that principle, using blockchain and public key encryption technology. The system would include the following:

Interesting, thinking outside of the box proposal.

 

[AlexanderA]

I have a feeling that the majority of machine gun owners wouldn’t want the Hughes Amendment repealed. No one wants to see their investments tank.

I believe you are wrong on this. Speaking as a machine gun owner myself, I absolutely want the Hughes Amendment to be repealed, because I want to add to my collection at reasonable prices. Very few owners bought their guns as investments. They bought them because of interest in the guns themselves. The paper gains are just an unexpected windfall.

And just repealing the Hughes Amendment is not enough. There need to be two further changes: (1) Authorizing the Defense Department to sell surplus automatic weapons, such as M14's, through the CMP, and (2) Allowing imports of American-made and foreign-made automatic weapons.

 

[CapnMac]

The paper gains are just an unexpected windfall.

And, one very much limited by the "when" not the "how much."
Sure, if you bought an MG fot $5000, and the same thing now sells for $35,000, that looks like an investment. But, if you bought at $33,000, that's not really a great enough gain to be labeled an "investment."
Thirty-two years is a long time.

$5000 at 7.5% for 32 years yields a shade over $50,000--that's an investment.

An MG is just a thing, something to own because you are keen on it.

I wish we could quash this myth that MG ownership is some sort of "investment." No one calls their $35k boat or RV an "investment."

 

[CapnMac]

For 2¢ there might be a way to clobber Hughes.
Hughes clearly prevents AGUSA for being able to declare amnesties when deemed fit.
Which seems to be at odds with the legislative intent of the law.
Either there can be amnesties or the Registry can be closed, it cannot be both.

And, probably, what is needed is for somebody to find some uniques, special, or otherwise notable MG in a late relatie's garage or attic to get this into the public light. Ideally, what we need would be a current disabled et who finds out his(her) grandpa has an mg off Pappy Boyington's Corsair, or the last Type 92 taken off Iwo or the like. Sorry, no Amnesty. Why--Hughes, so, off to the crusher; national outcry (maybe).

Now, it's likely I'm jaded and cynical. But, what "we" need is something that can energize the vox populi (Supoort The Troops! Thank You For Your Service) while also coupling it to "Those Idiots In The Swamp" (DC). Our politicians are many things, both bad and good. But, they are excellent barometers of pubilic opinion.

 

[dogtown tom]

I do have a proposal for a compromise, but I don't think any of us will live to see it:

When the 4473 came into being, gun owners rightly feared that if the government held the data, it would lead to a federal registry. The compromise that was struck was that the data would exist, and be held by the FFLs. That way, it is accessible if there is a legitimate need.

Not after twenty years. Then a licensee can destroy the 4473.

Modern technology allows a simple and worthwhile extension of that principle, using blockchain and public key encryption technology. The system would include the following:

1. The prohibited person list would be made public. All private and dealer sales would check the list before a transaction is made, and receive a validation code. It would be the responsibility of the seller to verify that the buyer was not on the list.

Oh good grief no. For so many reasons.
First, even prohibited persons have a right to privacy. Not all prohibiting factors are criminal.
Second, OH HECK NO! the seller shouldn't be responsible for verifying that the buyer is/is not on the list.

2. Sales records would be individually encrypted and accessible only by permission of the person who generated the record. Access to the record dies with the owner. Sales records would very cheaply live on the cloud, administered by an independent organization. The NRA would do nicely, a bit like the ARRL administers amateur radio licensing.

And this would be better how? More technology, more problems. "Records" aren't the problem. The problem is enforcement of existing laws and prosecution of those who violate them.

3. All sales would be recorded. If buyer and seller don't have internet access, the public libraries would be acceptable input points.

They already are.
And I doubt libraries will be happy to see guys with guns walking in to complete their transfer.

4. In return, the MG registry (already acknowledged to be less than 50% accurate) would be opened up, the transfer tax would be rescinded, there would be no limits on magazine capacity and no special tax for suppressors.

So...…..you think it a fair compromise to have federal firearm registration? I don't.

That's what I'd propose. Just watching the antis choke on that in return for requiring background checks and sales records for all transactions would be highly entertaining.

Until the antis, the media and Average Joe understand that people are the problem we'll never make headway on gun laws. The antis feel the problem is the gun itself.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Culling the rolls of FFL's came shortly after FOPA.
Culling the rolls of FFLs was counted as a major victory by the Clinton Administration and by the Brady Campaign as a result of the Brady Act and the Assault Weapon Ban. Even though 1994 was after 1986, I'd blame/credit the Democrats' anti-gun bias, not the FOPA, for the campaign to reduce the number of FFLs.

If everybody and his brother could obtain an FFL ... brick-and-mortar local gun shops would disappear.
Considering some of the state and local gun law restrictions on gun businesses (a business address separate from the state licensee's residence, with posted hours, parking available, business insurance and zoning, sales tax compliance), the improbable disappearance of brick and mortar gun shops where local regs don't allow kitchen table FFLs would leave nothing in several states.

In fact, there was a temporary [MG] glut as manufacturers took advantage to the 30-day lag between passage of the bill and its signing by Reagan to work nonstop churning out MG's.
A lot of the Hughes-rush "MG"s were actually just numbered receiver tubes registered by the makers with the National Firearms Registry, not complete MGs. The extra number produced was equivalent to a few years of normal NFA MG sales.

What makes you think that the majority of gun owners (and not to mention general public) want full-auto firearms deregulated?
I would like to see the NFA registry that was frozen and limited by the Hughes amendment to machineguns registered by 19 May 1986, reopened to allow one to register and make a MG on an ATF Form 1 and to transfer registration of post-19 May 1986 MGs to a new owner on an ATF Form 4. Opening the NFA registry to post-19 May 1986 MGs is hardly deregulation of machineguns. It's actually pretty strict regulation. I have heard many people say, "Repeat Hughes, Open the Registry". I have not heard many people say "Deregulate MGs Entirely".
The intransigence of the anti-gunners on Hughes reinforces my meme that "Reasonable Regulation to Prohibitionists is Prohibition".
If Hughes were repealed I'd lose a talking point.

 

[denton]

Not after twenty years. Then a licensee can destroy the 4473.


Oh good grief no. For so many reasons.
First, even prohibited persons have a right to privacy. Not all prohibiting factors are criminal.
Second, OH HECK NO! the seller shouldn't be responsible for verifying that the buyer is/is not on the list.


And this would be better how? More technology, more problems. "Records" aren't the problem. The problem is enforcement of existing laws and prosecution of those who violate them.


They already are.
And I doubt libraries will be happy to see guys with guns walking in to complete their transfer.


So...…..you think it a fair compromise to have federal firearm registration? I don't.

Until the antis, the media and Average Joe understand that people are the problem we'll never make headway on gun laws. The antis feel the problem is the gun itself.

I don't think that the question is whether we'd like every point of my suggestion. I do think that the appropriate question is whether we'd be better off with the total package. I think it is essentially giving up the sleeves out of our vest to get some things we really want.

Are prohibited persons entitled to some privacy? Probably so. But today anyone with an FFL can query the system to see if someone is prohibited. All I'm suggesting is extending the same privilege to anyone who wants to privately sell a firearm.

Contrary to creating a federal registry in the usual sense, this makes it practically impossible for the government to maintain a federal registry/database the size of the one they already have.

Personally, I've only sold a very few firearms over the years, but if I do that again, I'd like to know that I'm not handing a firearm over to a nut case. If I can do that without creating peril of a federal registry, I'd count that as a plus.

The antis get the illusion of attaining their objective, and we get back something of value.

 

[GEM]

Some articles suggesting that you could reach a compromise to roll back the act. Nope.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...tm_campaign=/digest/vermont-turn-bump-stocks/

That's Vermont - gun friendly heaven in the past!

Gun control increasing as an election issue:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shootings-thrust-gun-control-into-midterm-campaign-ads-1537263001

So fat chance, the arguments here would turn this around. We are lucky to save what we have in some states.

 

[dogtown tom]

But today anyone with an FFL can query the system to see if someone is prohibited.

Wrong. FFL's can only contact the FBI NICS or their state point of contact pursuant to a firearm transaction AFTER the buyer/transferee has completed and signed the Form 4473. Using the NICS "just to see" if someone is prohibited is strictly prohibited and will result in a dealer losing his NICS access. Further, FFL's don't "query the system" to see if someone is prohibited......the FBI does. It's not just a single list of names but several databases. If the buyer/transferees information results in multiple returns then the transaction is forwarded to a NICS Examiner. At least 25% of my NICS checks require further review from an FBI Legal Document Examiner. Sometimes even the NICS Examiner can't make a determination and requires additional time to research MORE databases. This is what's known as a "Delay".

All I'm suggesting is extending the same privilege to anyone who wants to privately sell a firearm.

Ask our friends in California how that's working out for them.

Contrary to creating a federal registry in the usual sense, this makes it practically impossible for the government to maintain a federal registry/database the size of the one they already have.

Nonsense. Right now the only 4473's "the government" possesses are those from out of business dealers that turned them in prior to the 20 year mark. Over 90% of 4473's ARE NOT in the possession of the ATF right now.

Personally, I've only sold a very few firearms over the years, but if I do that again, I'd like to know that I'm not handing a firearm over to a nut case. If I can do that without creating peril of a federal registry, I'd count that as a plus.

No one wants to sell or transfer to a nut case, but it's perfectly legal RIGHT NOW AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN to take your firearm to a local dealer and have HIM transfer to your buyer.

The antis get the illusion of attaining their objective, and we get back something of value.

Dream on.
Youre giving up rights for 99% of the population for a pittance.

 

[CapnMac]

Nonsense. Right now the only 4473's "the government" possesses are those from out of business dealers that turned them in prior to the 20 year mark. Over 90% of 4473's ARE NOT in the possession of the ATF right now.

Excellent point.
And, the reason the compliant media writes the occasional "sob story" on just how hard it is for ATFE to hand search all those paper documents. And how the hard-working employees would have easier work lives if only pesky things like FOPA prohibit them from "computerizing" even those old, closed shop, records.

And, as cogently pointed out above, those are just the records from closed FFL.

 

[P5 Guy]

This thread has made me wonder what the CMP does with their firearms purchase records?

 

[Elkins45]

This thread has made me wonder what the CMP does with their firearms purchase records?

That’s an interesting question. They are an odd duck for sure: not exactly a government agency but not a FFL either. CMP does something that no other dealer can do, which is ship a purchased gun directly to your house without going through an intermediary FFL (in most states).

Of course, you have to jump through a few hoops before you can buy from them, but imagine if every dealer could operate like the CMP.

So there’s really not a signed 4473, but there is documentation. My guess is they just stick it in a file somewhere. I doubt a lot of crime is being committed with surplus M1s.

 

[P5 Guy]

I've had the BWT deliver to my door and bought and took home from the South Store.
There really are not more hoops to jump than the ones at LGS. Well, notary instead of swearing all the above is true.

 

[Ironicaintit]

I cant figure out how to phrase this cogently.... but one point that keeps nagging at me is this;

there are 175,977 transferable weapons on the full auto registry.
There are over 325 million people living in the US.

Does the Hughes amendment not make "equal protection under the law" impossible, as related to the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments?

 

[Elkins45]

I've had the BWT deliver to my door and bought and took home from the South Store.
There really are not more hoops to jump than the ones at LGS. Well, notary instead of swearing all the above is true.

BWT?

4473 doesn’t require proof of training/competency, nor membership in an affiliated agency. Not that those were huge hoops, but they did add to the complexity.

 

[dogtown tom]

That’s an interesting question. They are an odd duck for sure: not exactly a government agency but not a FFL either. CMP does something that no other dealer can do, which is ship a purchased gun directly to your house without going through an intermediary FFL (in most states)...

Federal law clearly allows a licensed dealer or manufacturer to return a repaired or replacement firearm of the same kind or type directly to the person that shipped it for repair, gunsmithing or customization.
Happens every day.

 

[FROGO207]

On this note I am sure that the manufacturer HAS TO keep records of what was returned where with the SN. How about those records? Are they treated like a FFL by .gov?
It is also my understanding that a replacement has to go through a FFL for the SN to be initially assigned to you. Did I miss something?

 

[Elkins45]

Federal law clearly allows a licensed dealer or manufacturer to return a repaired or replacement firearm of the same kind or type directly to the person that shipped it for repair, gunsmithing or customization.
Happens every day.

I know that, but that's not the circumstance I was describing. It doesn't allow Joe Citizen to purchase a gun and have it shipped to him from another state without going through an FFL, which was what CMP does and what I was referencing.

On this note I am sure that the manufacturer HAS TO keep records of what was returned where with the SN. How about those records? Are they treated like a FFL by .gov?
It is also my understanding that a replacement has to go through a FFL for the SN to be initially assigned to you. Did I miss something?

When Glock replaced the frame of my G20 it just showed up on my doorstep one day, and I don't live in Georgia. The guy who called told me "ATF has been notified of the new SN".

 

[dogtown tom]

On this note I am sure that the manufacturer HAS TO keep records of what was returned where with the SN.How about those records?

Licensees are required to record all dispositions and acquisitions of firearms into their bound book.

Are they treated like a FFL by .gov?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you asking is a manufacturer an "FFL"?
"FFL" means Federal Firearms License. There are several types, among them are Dealer, Manufacturer, Importer, Collector, Importer, Pawnbroker, etc.
Not all can perform the same firearms business activity.

It is also my understanding that a replacement has to go through a FFL for the SN to be initially assigned to you. Did I miss something?

You missed a lot. Since 1968, ATF regulations have allowed the direct return of a repaired or replacement firearm from a dealer or manufacturer to the person who shipped it to them. Direct as in no FFL needed, no 4473, no NICS. If your state or local government has laws requiring all firearm shipments go through a licensee, then the dealer or manufacturer must abide by that. Some manufacturers prefer to return ship only to an FFL. (Ruger is one)

The manufacturer just notes the disposition of the new serial# to the customer.

 

[dogtown tom]

…. The guy who called told me "ATF has been notified of the new SN".

Manufacturers do not have a mechanism to report to ATF what serial#'s go to particular customers.
Manufacturer builds firearm and reports the type (pistol, revolver, rifle, receiver, etc) and caliber to ATF once per year on this form:https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/f...rtation-report-afmer-atf-form-530011/download Note that model name and serial number are not required.

The manufacturer will record model/serial#/caliber in his bound book and later the disposition to whatever dealer, distributor or customer.

 

[P5 Guy]

BWT?

4473 doesn’t require proof of training/competency, nor membership in an affiliated agency. Not that those were huge hoops, but they did add to the complexity.

Big White Truck FedEx delivery
Garand Collector's Assoc is the affiliated agency I belong to and my CCW is proof of Firearms training.
That and a notarized form was all I needed to have the BWT ship to my door.
Delivery to the home canceled out any other inconvenience involved in purchasing from the CMP in my mind.

 

[FROGO207]

dogtown tom, thanks for those clarifications. I never have had the need to send anything back to the mother ship yet.