Will we ever get full autos back?

[monotonous_iterancy]

Before Sandy Hook happened, I was confident that gun control was being rolled back, and that public opinion had reached the tipping point in our favor. While we did keep any new federal gun control from passing (admittedly a huge accomplishment that would have probably been unimaginable 10 years ago), it has blunted the expansion of gun rights, possibly for some time.

I was wondering if I'd ever see the day that the Hughes amendment, or maybe even the NFA itself would ever be repealed.

I doubt it happening in my lifetime, or ever now, but I was wondering if it could still be possible. What arguments would come up against repealing the laws?

 

[razorback2003]

The new manufacture machine gun ban is probably unconstitutional when you put Heller and Miller together. I don't think you would ever have machine guns without a tax stamp, but I can see a sound legal argument requiring the machine gun registry opened.

 

[Sam1911]

I don't think that in the long term Sandy Hook will be more than a blip on the historic timeline. Maybe a historic note of the last great gasp of the late anti-gun movement.

As for re-opening the registry? That's been a long shot since about 1987 or so. We work toward it, but much else will happen before that one gets tackled.

Now, silencers probably will be removed from Title II soon. That seems a totally obtainable goal as more and more folks realize the idiocy of having legal restrictions on owning a safety device.

Then SBR/SBS. Probably a few other issues like some kind of national CCW normalization.

MGs are likely the final big goal. That or striking down GCA'86 and the federal dealer licensing system.

 

[Furncliff]

Sandy Hook may be a blip on your historical radar, but it will not be the last time a mad man runs amok, thus adding fuel to the anti gun fire.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

Well, part of my thinking was about how people keep confusing "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" and think that they're machine guns. People would probably argue that having easier access to machine guns would make mad men running amok more dangerous.

But if they actually were machine guns, then wouldn't the shooter burn up his ammo faster and hit fewer innocents?

 

[taliv]

Well distructive devices are prob the final goal. To be honest even I'm not pushing much for that.

I see these things as a pendulum swinging one way arguably for 60 years and then back the other direction for 20. We've got a lot of momentum both legislatively and in the courts. But I dont see any major advances soon. I think the key issues. O
Now aren't so much about guns as other gov issues like privacy, the gestapoization of LEO, and other freedoms. Some of those have NOT gone well in the courts like imminent domain and the gov being able to force you to buy healthcare Heck there's even a court case over quartering troops in your house!

I say that notf to derail the thread but just to say so many other concerns will take the spotlight from the 2a

 

[Sam1911]

Very probably, depending on his level of training and skill. That's one of those "inside baseball" arguments that are so important to gunny folks and don't have any meaning at all for the average citizen.

 

[Jim K]

Chances are between zero and none. And if there ever is any chance at all, hundreds of school children will be slaughtered with machineguns to "prove the need" for MG confiscation and execution of owners.

Jim

 

[MartinS]

Assume half the country wants a gun free world, we have to give up something or live in perpetual civil war. Concentrate on what you can have, do have and wish to keep. Meditation and paint ball can help.

 

[hso]

Perhaps the registry could be opened, but there never was any chance of getting NFA rolled back for full auto.

 

[WALKERs210]

people keep confusing "assault weapon" with "assault rifle"

Educating people is one of the first things that needs to be done for any thing regarding firearms. My wife was married for 32yrs to her late husband and they never allowed even a BB gun in their home. Now we have been married for 15 yrs and me being the redneck from Alabama she has learned that the guns are not the evil things she thought them to be. In fact she purchased her first hand gun last year, this year for her birthday I gave her a 38spl w/2In barrel. She liked


\\\\etween thsound and want tach function was used for It has been show afe,a;e

 

[denton]

There is a way it could happen.

Heller and McDonald established that the types of firearms covered by 2A are those that people commonly hold for lawful purposes. So, obviously, handguns as a general class are covered, AR-15s are covered, and so on.

People do not commonly hold machine guns for lawful purposes. Why? Because the government forbids it. So the argument then is that the government itself has caused machine guns to not be widely held for lawful purposes, and cannot have the benefit of an unconstitutional ban in determining whether they are a covered item.

There is another angle to consider. Police departments can and do own machine guns. But the police have no right to self defense beyond what civilians have. The notion that they do has no basis in the law or the Constitution.

If the police commonly hold them for lawful purposes, then civilians must also be able to do so.

Doubt it will happen anytime soon.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

People do not commonly hold machine guns for lawful purposes. Why? Because the government forbids it. So the argument then is that the government itself has caused machine guns to not be widely held for lawful purposes, and cannot have the benefit of an unconstitutional ban in determining whether they are a covered item.

That's a good point. The NFA was passed before machine guns had a chance to get into wide circulation. They were far too expensive for most people, and also had little utilitarian value.

If that law had never passed, do you think machine guns would be much more common today?

 

[blarby]

f that law had never passed, do you think machine guns would be much more common today?

Yep.

 

[happygeek]

If that law had never passed, do you think machine guns would be much more common today?

Yes, as long as the import restrictions in the 68 GCA had also never happened. Why pay extra to have an AK (or any other foreign evil black rifle) cut down, imported in parts, and then rebuilt with an arbitrary number of US made parts if you could just buy it as is (i.e. a select fire rifle)?

We've also sent a lot of surplus M14s, M16A1s, and M16A2s to countries like the Philippines. Without the NFA and Hughes those could have been sold here as surplus the way M1 Gararands, M1 Carbines, etc were.

What arguments would come up against repealing the laws?

They'll hyperventilate about police officers being outgunned, blood in the streets, nobody needs 'military weapons', basically all the same stuff we already hear about evil black rifles.

 

[monotonous_iterancy]

I could see select fire, but would full-auto have any utility besides being a range toy?

Yes, as long as the import restrictions in the 68 GCA had also never happened. Why pay extra to have an AK (or any other foreign evil black rifle) cut down, imported in parts, and then rebuilt with an arbitrary number of US made parts if you could just buy it as is (i.e. a select fire rifle)?

It would probably be a lot cheaper as well.

 

[Impureclient]

Not to get too far off the subject but can anybody confirm or expand on what Sam1911 said here:

Now, silencers probably will be removed from Title II soon.

I'd much rather see suppressors become non-NFA title 1 before we begin worrying about full auto guns.
It is the one stand out item that really doesn't fit among the other regulated NFA devices.
Honestly, has a crime ever been committed with a suppressor? It probably helps to keep them slightly regulated in a
way that makes it a little harder to get, like getting a CCW permit, but the 6 month wait and $200 is just ridiculous
for something that protects your hearing and makes shooting more pleasant for your neighbors.

 

[mrvco]

As far as FA weapons go, that's major wishful thinking short of a significant collapse of the federal government.

I have a tiny bit of hope that the restrictions on suppressors and SBR's might get relaxed... if for no other reason to generate more revenue from tax stamps.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

What arguments could be made?

In favor: Criminals do not obtain their firearms legally. So banning full auto guns does nothing but punish law abiding citizens and disallows them from buying an item, that when used properly is perfectly safe.

Against: Full auto? Oh dear god! Won't someone think of the children?!!!!

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

I'm on the silencer boat.. my g17 needs one real bad... and I'm not above making my own in the old man's machine shop They just allowed silencers in texas for hunting purposes... looks like a step in the right direction.

 

[Deus Machina]

I'm just hoping for opening the registry, for now.
Doubt even that would do any more than scrape by, on the premise that "omg machine guns are scary."
Dropping the NFA? That's a source of tax. There's no way the people in charge of that would ever drop it.

 

[GoWolfpack]

Dropping the NFA? That's a source of tax. There's no way the people in charge of that would ever drop it.

As far as revenue sources go, the NFA taxes are probably right up there with tariffs on imported Equadorian pickled pigs feet.

I would bet the Treasury Department spends 100 times more on NFA enforcement than they collect in revenue.


A few years ago they finally repealed the "temporary" phone tax instituted to help pay for the Spanish-American war. So there is hope.

 

[csspecs]

I could sell the idea of three round burst to your average non gun owner.. I can't figure a way to sell them on full auto.

However burst fire has more applications to civilians anyway. Like defensive applications ect. Plus since burst inherently only shoots the same object a couple more times, while reducing the actual magazine to trigger pull ratio a fair amount.



One idea I had toyed with is "recreational military munitions destruction sites". Which would be secured ranges that would military munitions and allow people to shoot otherwise illegal ammo and guns for a reasonable cost per round. It would likely make a sizable dent in the illegal arms trade if there was a legal outlet for the munitions to go to.

But the odds of that happening are slim to none.

 

[Deus Machina]

As far as revenue sources go, the NFA taxes are probably right up there with tariffs on imported Equadorian pickled pigs feet.

I would bet the Treasury Department spends 100 times more on NFA enforcement than they collect in revenue.

Right, but see, you're applying logic to bureaucracy. They see it as "income we make now, and would not if it is repealed."
I'm honestly surprised they haven't been pushing to up the costs for inflation.

 

[silvermane_1]

heck i would like to see the NFA stuff slackend or at least use real "common sense" like the fact that my PSL doesn't have that third sear on it, it has nothing to with fully automatic fire, the third sear on a PSL is a safety sear so the round doesn't go off by accident before the round is properly seated in the chamber.