Why don't we do more about fighting the machine gun ban?

[Mugsy90/10]

I agree with 444 here. I own a 1967 Chevelle that I have spent countless hours and over $20,000 rebuilding. I could own an MP5 for that easy. I am NOT rich in fact I'm far from it. It comes down to a personal choice.

Many of my friends think I'm nuts for spending 20K on a car that’s almost 40 years old, just as many of them would think its crazy to spend 15k on a MG. But they see no problem with driving two NEW cars each costing 18-25K, going out to eat 2-3 times a week, buying expensive clothes, etc...

It’s a matter of personal choice, nothing more. 15K is an expensive item no doubt about it, but think about it this way:

A 2005 Ford Taurus costs about $15,000
Financed at 5.5%
For a period of 60 months
Comes to a monthly payment of $286.51

286.51 x 60 = $17,191 (This is the total you would pay for this car)

At the end of those 60 months you have a 5 year old car that's worth roughly $3000.00.

This results in a net loss of $14,191.

vs.

Buy a 5 year old Ford Taurus for $3000.00
Save the same amount of money each month (as though you were making car payments) for 60 months.

$286.51 x 60 = $17,191
Minus the initial purchase price
$17,191 - $3000 = $14,191
Figure $3000 in repairs over a five year period.
$14,191 - $3000 = $11,191

Take your 11k and buy a registered MG, a few cases of ammo, mags, etc... Enjoy it for a few years.

Sell the MG for 10k
Sell the car for 1k

This scenario results in a net loss of $6,191.00.

Everyone who can afford to surf the internet, and buy/shoot firearms as a hobby has SOME disposable income. It all comes down to what YOU want to spend YOUR money on.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Everyone who can afford to surf the internet, and buy/shoot firearms as a hobby has SOME disposable income. It all comes down to what YOU want to spend YOUR money on.

No kidding.

But if the NFA was repealed, the price of machine guns would go down to near the price of semi-autos.

While I might be able to afford a $10,000 machine gun now, I could get 10 of them for that price.

They aren't making 1967 Chevelles anymore. If you want one, you expect to have to pay through the nose and rebuild it.

Full Autos are another matter. They are obviously still in full production, and don't cost much more than a semi. Anyone who owns a firearm could afford one if NFA was repealed.

 

[Mugsy90/10]

I agree, I wish MG prices were 5-10% more than semi's, but their not, and chances are they wont be anytime in the near future.

Firearm owners have enough trouble battling the ridiculous media hyped "evil" things as it is; High cap mags, flash hiders, telescoping stocks, AP ammo, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, handguns that are "too small" to be imported, Calibers that are "too large" to be useful to the common man, etc...

Just think of the news story that 60 minutes, dateline, 20/20, CNN, and every other media outlet would run if any politician even mentioned repealing the NFA.

 

[444]

"Do you think that the number of machine gun owners would go up if NFA and the 1986 law were repealed?"

Almost certainly, and the biggest reason would be money by a long shot. However, that wouldn't be the only reason.
I was alive and into guns before 1986. I lived in a state that allowed machine gun ownership. But, I didn't own a machine gun and no one else I knew did either. I used to hang out at an indoor range that was an NFA dealer. He told me many times that I could buy a MAC for $350 brand new. Money wasn't holding me back, although I wasn't making much. Back then, just like now, a lot of people don't believe that you can legally own a machine gun. They think that it is so exotic that average people don't own them. I was afraid to own one. I was afraid to go to the sheiff to get the sign off even though I knew people did it. I was afraid that my name would go on "the list". I believed the rumors that ATF could search my house without a warrant. I believed all the BS rumors that were in circulation then. These are the same BS rumors that still circulate. One of the reasons I get into debates like this one is for that reason: I don't want people to buy into this crap. IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO OWN A MACHINE GUN. AVERAGE GUYS JUST LIKE YOU OWN MACHINE GUNS. AVERAGE GUYS JUST LIKE YOU BUY MACHINE GUNS AND SHOOT MACHINE GUNS. THEY ARE NOT ILLEGAL.
So, if the 1986 legislation was done away with, there would still be a lot of people who wouldn't buy a new machine gun, even though they could now afford it. In addition, the state laws would remain in effect preventing a lot of people from buying one that might otherwise take the plunge. But, you are right, tons of people would buy one even if the price was substantially higher than a semi-auto. If an M16 was five grand all of the sudden, I would buy one without batting an eye.
If the whole NFA was done away with, substantially more people would buy a machine gun. Not because of the money, but because there would be no tax stamps. You wouldn't have to do any paperwork. There would be no wait. There would be no CLEO signoff.

A question that I find interesting is: What if the NFA never existed ? What if machine guns, suppressors, short barrel rifles and short barrled shotguns, AOWs, destructive devices etc. were always readily available without any forms to fill out or signatures to obtain ?
How many people would buy a machine gun then ? The novelty is completely gone. You would look at it as a tool: is this something I need ? Is this something that would serve some purpose for me ? Is this something that will enhance my life in some way ?

 

[El Rojo]

I was looking at Keisler's online the other day and LEO price for a new MP5 is less than $2000! How awesome would that be? I would love to have an MP5. Even if we repeal NFA 86, I still live in the PRK.

Someone buy a FA for me. It will make us both feel better.

 

[RevDisk]

There is not a technical ban on machine guns.

However, you need permission to buy a machine gun. (CLEO signing. If you form a corporation you do not own the MG, the corp owns the MG.) You must pay an inflated price that ranges between 10x (a complete MG) and 1000x (registered sear) of the normal price of the object in question. The number of MG's in the registry is strictly fixed. The process of getting permission from the government takes an unreasonable amount of time and annoyance.

While this is not a technical ban on MG's, it sure seems to follow the spirit of a ban. Only so many gunnies can have MG's. I believe there are approximately 130,000 transferable MG's. That means there can be a maximum of 130,000 (transferrable) MG owners in the entire US. Doesn't matter how much financial discipline gunnies possess. Nothing short of repealing the Hughes amendment will change that 130,000 limit. Over time and without a change, that 130,000 limit will only shrink. MG's break, get destroyed, etc. Stuff happens. In a few decades, that number will shrink more and more rapidly. Someday, it will be a virtual ban because only a very few transferrable MG's will be on the registry.

The solution? The courts. Very few if any politicians at the federal level will risk his or her neck for our civil liberties, especially when it comes to machineguns. Their political self-interest trumps our civil rights. I can only wish that some civil liberty minded fellow as rich as Soros would take on that kind of a challenge. Odder things have happened. US vs Stewart still has potential. I personally think the Supreme Court will sit on it indefinitely, but there is a chance of it succeeding.

How many people would buy a machine gun then ? The novelty is completely gone. You would look at it as a tool: is this something I need ? Is this something that would serve some purpose for me ? Is this something that will enhance my life in some way ?

If NFA never existed?

A large number. How many people buy AR-15's just because they look cool? If the option existed for people to pay an extra $50-100 for select fire version, thousands if not tens of thousands of people would pay it. Don't believe me?

Look up the number and cost of mostly cosmetic add-ons for the AR15 platform. No one truly NEEDS a custom handgrip, nor customed furniture. But need's got nothing to do with it. They pay because they like the extra features and they want to pay for those extra features. Many (maybe most?) would pay to have the same exact version of a weapon as the US forces use, assuming a minor cost difference.

You're honestly telling people that spend hundreds, sometimes thousands on add-ons, custom uppers, pretty furniture, ergonomic grips/stocks, optics, etc would not be willing to pay $50 for the factory to install a different fire control group? Or that people wouldn't just buy the parts themselves, which might run $20?

 

[Blackburn]

However, you need permission to buy a machine gun. (CLEO signing. If you form a corporation you do not own the MG, the corp owns the MG.)

What about a twenty year old who heads his own corporation?

 

[beerslurpy]

444, the engineer in me takes offense at paying 10k for a piece of metal that cost 5 cents to make in a factory. I can understand paying 1000 bucks for a differential for my car, or 500 bucks for forged rods, but I file the current price of machine guns along with the stupid JDM craze that gripped the ricers a while back. (OMG Japanese Honda emblem! I'll give you 300 bucks! )

About actually legalizing MGs....

The problem we face is very simple. We must move a mountain of public opinion. Mountains move slowly, but they also dont tend to be very difficult adversaries if you are patient. Remember (I'll just keep saying this until it sinks in) that most (90+ percent) of society is
a) sheep, more interested in getting along and taking care of the business in front of their face
b) not capable of thinking deeply, abstractly or in great detail about legal, political or technical issues
c) uninterested in mechanical things of any sort, including firearms

The world is full of small picture people. They arent going to understand the liberty angle we treasure so deeply, nor are they going to understand why machine guns arent really evil or why we get so much enjoyment from playing with them. They react to things on an emotional gut instinct level rather than thinking. Sadly, there are many gun owners who fall into this category. You know it, too.

All we have to do is slowly reshape public opinion. It is already happening. A ton of soccer moms here have carry permits. It is considered normal to own guns by people who you wouldnt expect to think that way. Anti-gun Democrats are talking about how self defense is ok, and how gun ownership is ok. Would you have imagined a senator from massechusets going duck hunting to cater to gun owners 10 years ago?

Don't you see the frog getting warm? Dont give up hope. Be patient.

 

[1911JMB]

revdisk,
According to Dan Shea there are about 177,000 fully transferable MG's, and 250,000 if you count pre 86 DS.

 

[Bubbles]

Why don't we do more about fighting the machine gun ban?

Because we're waiting on the USSC rulings in the Raich and Stewart cases.

 

[30 cal slob]

So, has anyone checked prices on the few transferable GE Miniguns that are available for sale?

 

[GreenFurniture]

It would be a rather simple process to get the 1986 ban thrown away.

The problem is that the people who could get this done, the makers, are too afraid to step up and make it happen.

The upside for the ban to go away would be higher tax revenues, less unemployment and more dollars in the economy.

Want to hear my plan?

 

[Mugsy90/10]

I'll play, let's hear your plan.

 

[artherd]

Wait, there are transferable M249s?! I want one!

 

[LAR-15]

I'll still take an unregulated AR-15 over a taxed M-16 anyday.

I don't care what happens to the Hughes Amendment (922 (o) )

If Machineguns are still on the NFA, I will never buy one.

And there are enough machine gun owners that do not want the Hughes Amendment repealed that it will never be.

 

[artherd]

A question that I find interesting is: What if the NFA never existed ? What if machine guns, suppressors, short barrel rifles and short barrled shotguns, AOWs, destructive devices etc. were always readily available without any forms to fill out or signatures to obtain ?
How many people would buy a machine gun then ? The novelty is completely gone. You would look at it as a tool: is this something I need ? Is this something that would serve some purpose for me ? Is this something that will enhance my life in some way ?

Yeah, we'd all own mil-spec M-16s and think nothing of it. Though my gatling cannon would probally still be kinda exoitc

 

[PMDW]

And there are enough machine gun owners that do not want the Hughes Amendment repealed that it will never be.

The only MG owners that don't want it repealed are the ones with $20,000,000 collections that are sitting on them solely for investment purposes.

There aren't many of those.

I just spent $5,400 on a machine gun, which I bought primarily as an investment. I'd be glad to see it worth $900 if it meant I could buy a Grease Gun for or AK $150.

 

[LAR-15]

The 1968 GCA still bans all FOREIGN machineguns.

Repealing the Hughes Amendment will only allow DOMESTIC machineguns back onto the civie market.

Merely repealing 922 (o) will not get you a FN FAL made in Belgium.

 

[Poodleshooter]

And there are enough machine gun owners that do not want the Hughes Amendment repealed that it will never be.

According to the registry numbers above,there are under 250,000 owners. Very likely the number is MUCH lower,as almost every Title II weapon owner that I know of has 2 or more NFA registered weapons. That's a pretty insignificant number of people/voters for either good or bad when you split it up amongst states and legislative districts. That probably explains why we haven't seen any action on machinegun laws since '86. There isn't enough voter interest.
Elimination of the new manufacture ban will only slip by as a last minute rider.
I wouldn't count on the current Supreme Court for anything. Until you have some more constructionists on board, they're not going to rule in any way that we approve of. I'm always entertained that people can't fathom that the current court will happily make an inconsistent ruling that the 1st,3rd,etc amendments apply to the individual people, but that the 2nd only applies collectively. Just look at the recent 2nd circuit appeals Bach decision for a preview of what we'll get unless the makeup of the court changes.
At that level, it's basically just a matter of backing your majority opinion with whatever case law you can scrounge up. There's opinions on both sides,so anything goes and no one can overturn your decision.

 

[LAR-15]

Money talks.


Example:

"I'm an NRA life member and I give $10,000 anually to your organization Mr. LaPierre. My collection of full autos can't be devalued now can it?"

 

[thebucket]

One thing I've heard a lot of is tacking an amendment to repeal the 86 ban on to a must pass bill. So what's the one subject right that has Democrats and liberals up in arms? Illegal immigration! I suggest we try to tack on as many pro-gun amendment to any pro-illegal immigration bill that might come up. If the Dems decide to scuttle the bill, then we hold ground on the illegal immigration front and if the bill passes, we gain ground on the pro-gun front. Losing on illegal immigration might be acceptable to win on guns. Just an idea.

 

[jefnvk]

You have the money for a machine gun but choose to spend your money on something else.

Nope. I could afford a $300 Uzi. Maybe if I sold off all my posessions, I could buy a $6000 Uzi. No way I come close to an MP5 or Colt. While you may have a $20,000 project car, not everyone does. While some people have 5 digits of expendable cash lying around, everyone I know doesn't.

How many people would buy a machine gun then ? The novelty is completely gone. You would look at it as a tool: is this something I need ? Is this something that would serve some purpose for me ? Is this something that will enhance my life in some way ?

Ah. To you, the novelty is gone if 'anyone' can buy one. Glad to see your line of thinking.

I was alive and into guns before 1986. I lived in a state that allowed machine gun ownership

Glad you were. I was all of three or four months old when it went into effect. Glad that you old guys had your chance to buy MG's at market value, then should and scream now when we want a chance.

You know what I have learned from some in this thread? Next time an AWB comes around, I will support it. It will make my AR go up in value. Obviously everyone that had the $600 to spend on one now will have the $3000 I'll be asking 20 years down the road, when bayonet lugs are just a faded memory. Plus, then it will be something special that only I have. I can tell people 'Guess what? There are only so many bayonet lugs, now. I'll sell you mine, if you have all the money I want'. That bayonet lug will be my way of feeling special, by doing something that someone else cannot.

 

[TheOtherOne]

If they really wanted to, they could attach it as an amendment to something like the recently passed war spending bill. They could of called it the "Recognizing and appreciating members of the United States Armed Forces, who have served honorably, by allowing more affordable ownership of legal arms" amendment. And of course the bill itself would be complete and total political speak to simply remove the pre-1986 clause ("Strike line 63 of paragraph 4 of Title 18 chapter 44, etc. etc." or wherever the actual code is).

Who could vote against an amendment with a name like that?

Of course, they'll never do anything like this because all the politicians know the only thing they have to do to keep the NRA and gun owners happy is to not pass any new gun grabbing laws like the AWB.

 

[alan]

I live in Pennsylvania and unless I'm very much mistaken, and several people I knew who owned machineguns and or selective fire weapons were in violation of state law, such arms are legal to own in PA, having satisfied the requirements of the feds.

Having said that, I personally doubt, costs being what they are, that it is worth while, though of course each of us can spend their cash as they like.

The real problem, speaking from the point of my personal preferences is the fact of the possibility of "visits" from the ATF. Given machineguns at $50.00 a copy, BATF presence and involvement is unacceptable to me, their record being what it is.

Others may disagree, however that is the way I see the thing.

 

[publius]

My short term bet is that Raich and Stewart will be decided in a way that opens the door a crack more on federalism to see how much noise everyone makes. Then later it will be opened a crack more, and so on.

Stewart alone could render the ban meaningless.

Wow! How did I get all the way to post #37 before finding any mention of Stewart?

You're more optimistic about those cases than I am, slurpy. I was not particularly happy to read about strict constructionist Scalia saying this at the Raich oral arguments:

"If the feds could reach the wheat used on a farm in Wickard," Scalia kept asking, "why not marijuana consumed by patients in California?"

Raich's fate will probably decide Stewart's, and that does not look to me like a question from someone who is ready to repudiate the New Deal view of the commerce clause.