Want a NEW Machinegun? The ATF may have just allowed you to make one!**Update Post 72

The Canadians, eh? have a curious system for prohibited but grandfathered weapons (full auto; 25cal handguns; handguns with < 105mm bbls)
"Yay 105mm is about 4.10 inches so my commander 1911 (4.35") is safe, so I'm fine with those restrictions."
Depends on whether they are shooters or collectors. I'd bet that most shooters would rather be able to easily get new machine guns than retain the value in their current guns, and for some collectors, it wouldn't matter too much if the Hughes Amendment was repealed. There are only as many WWI and WWII era Thompsons out there now as there ever will be, so you wouldn't expect the value of those to drop much.
I'm thinking that anybody who spent 10 grand or more on a gun or three doesn't want their values to go to $1,000... they won't be pushing too hard. I could be wrong, but look around -- how much of a push is there about repealing that vs an AWB?

Divide and conquer, turn "enemies" into allies.

Did I mention I want to get licenses and guns into the hands of the good, hard-working people of the inner city? Same philosophy -- in addition to the fact that I believe that they should be able to protect themselves, I want them on our side against the gun grabbers.
 
"Yay 105mm is about 4.10 inches so my commander 1911 (4.35") is safe, so I'm fine with those restrictions."
I'm thinking that anybody who spent 10 grand or more on a gun or three doesn't want their values to go to $1,000... they won't be pushing too hard. I could be wrong, but look around -- how much of a push is there about repealing that vs an AWB?
Buh-ring it! [smile]
 
"Yay 105mm is about 4.10 inches so my commander 1911 (4.35") is safe, so I'm fine with those restrictions."
I'm thinking that anybody who spent 10 grand or more on a gun or three doesn't want their values to go to $1,000... they won't be pushing too hard. I could be wrong, but look around -- how much of a push is there about repealing that vs an AWB?

Divide and conquer, turn "enemies" into allies.

Did I mention I want to get licenses and guns into the hands of the good, hard-working people of the inner city? Same philosophy -- in addition to the fact that I believe that they should be able to protect themselves, I want them on our side against the gun grabbers.

Love this idea. Really though, I think the reason that there is no push to repeal the Hughes Amendment is the same reason that there is no push to repeal the NFA - even among gun owners, I think a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea of civilians owning machine guns without restrictions. I have this weird feeling that I'm in a small minority in the opinion that a 15 year old should be able to walk into a hardware store and get an M16 with no paperwork.
 
Love this idea. Really though, I think the reason that there is no push to repeal the Hughes Amendment is the same reason that there is no push to repeal the NFA - even among gun owners, I think a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea of civilians owning machine guns without restrictions. I have this weird feeling that I'm in a small minority in the opinion that a 15 year old should be able to walk into a hardware store and get an M16 with no paperwork.
I'm part of that small minority as well. No questions, no paperwork, no hassles. Cash is king.
 
Love this idea. Really though, I think the reason that there is no push to repeal the Hughes Amendment is the same reason that there is no push to repeal the NFA - even among gun owners, I think a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea of civilians owning machine guns without restrictions. I have this weird feeling that I'm in a small minority in the opinion that a 15 year old should be able to walk into a hardware store and get an M16 with no paperwork.

It really depends on the 15 year old. There are some that I'd be ok with them having firearms. There are others that there's no way in hell they should have them.
 
It really depends on the 15 year old. There are some that I'd be ok with them having firearms. There are others that there's no way in hell they should have them.

Same goes for 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, and 95 year olds. I just don't want anyone to ever be making that call for anyone else.
 
Same goes for 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85, and 95 year olds. I just don't want anyone to ever be making that call for anyone else.

Someone needs to make the call though. At least for under 18. Should still be some way to ensure the person is not a violent felon. Or a total nut-job. Basically a danger to him/herself and others. Otherwise, yes, they should be able to get whatever they want with minimum of fuss.
 
Someone needs to make the call though. At least for under 18. Should still be some way to ensure the person is not a violent felon. Or a total nut-job. Basically a danger to him/herself and others. Otherwise, yes, they should be able to get whatever they want with minimum of fuss.

I figure that person would be their parent or guardian. Technically they are responsible for what their kids do, so I don't see how that is any one else's business to worry about.
 
Papua New Guinea firearms license, Class B=protection.

View attachment 114089

You spend a lot of time in Papa New Guinea?

Someone needs to make the call though. At least for under 18.

Sure, their parents, if parents actually did parenting still.

Should still be some way to ensure the person is not a violent felon. Or a total nut-job. Basically a danger to him/herself and others. Otherwise, yes, they should be able to get whatever they want with minimum of fuss.

[sad2]
 
I figure that person would be their parent or guardian. Technically they are responsible for what their kids do, so I don't see how that is any one else's business to worry about.

Sure, their parents, if parents actually did parenting still.

[sad2]

Assuming parents are actually doing a proper job at raising their children is a dangerous thing. Sure, there are many that do a great job of it. But there's probably just as many people doing a shitty job of it (or worse). My parents did a great job. But I know of more that their parents did a shitty job.

I'm not going to pretend that I have the answer for figuring that part out. Just knowing that going from one extreme to the other is very dangerous. Having zero limitations is just as bad as having tons (like what's in place in MA, NY and CA). I do like the model that NH has had so far. No license needed to purchase/own. If you buy from a dealer, you still do the 4473 to make sure you're not a federally PP. Private sales are good for long guns (not knowing the person) or handguns if you know the person or he/she has a P&R. I also think that the current NICS system can seriously blow at random times. Personally, I've not had any delays (knock on woods), but have been in shops where someone has.

I also don't think there's any valid reason to not allow law abiding citizens to have full auto firearms. If the military, and police, can have them, then so should we. Hell, the criminals have them, so why can't we?

- - - Updated - - -

It's called "other people with guns"

As long as I don't get ****ed over when I have to take out the nutjob...
 
Absolutely, it's certainly not plausible the way things are, but in the Libertarian dream world where a 15 year old can buy a machine gun at home depot....

In that same world, I'll just use my 40mm rotary grenade launcher on the jackoff... Easy to claim headshot that way. [rofl2]
 
Assuming parents are actually doing a proper job at raising their children is a dangerous thing. Sure, there are many that do a great job of it. But there's probably just as many people doing a shitty job of it (or worse). My parents did a great job. But I know of more that their parents did a shitty job.

I'm not going to pretend that I have the answer for figuring that part out. Just knowing that going from one extreme to the other is very dangerous. Having zero limitations is just as bad as having tons (like what's in place in MA, NY and CA). I do like the model that NH has had so far. No license needed to purchase/own. If you buy from a dealer, you still do the 4473 to make sure you're not a federally PP. Private sales are good for long guns (not knowing the person) or handguns if you know the person or he/she has a P&R. I also think that the current NICS system can seriously blow at random times. Personally, I've not had any delays (knock on woods), but have been in shops where someone has.

I also don't think there's any valid reason to not allow law abiding citizens to have full auto firearms. If the military, and police, can have them, then so should we. Hell, the criminals have them, so why can't we?

- - - Updated - - -



As long as I don't get ****ed over when I have to take out the nutjob...

Bad parenting would be a self correcting problem if our society wasn't so into holding everybody's hands. I think you are proving my point Golddiggie, for why we don't get more push back on these laws, because people think that there is some reasonable amount of restriction that should exist. I quoted this decision recently, and I think it is awesome enough for me to quote it again.

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

Nunn v State, Georgia Supreme Court, 1846
 
Bad parenting would be a self correcting problem if our society wasn't so into holding everybody's hands. I think you are proving my point Golddiggie, for why we don't get more push back on these laws, because people think that there is some reasonable amount of restriction that should exist. I quoted this decision recently, and I think it is awesome enough for me to quote it again.

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

Nunn v State, Georgia Supreme Court, 1846

Thing is, IMO, kids were more mature/responsible back in 1846 than they are today. Parents, far more often than not, did a proper job of raising their children too. Sadly, that's also not done these days. Back in the mid 1800's, I'm sure more people were raised around firearms.

Trying to use logic from over 150 years ago simply doesn't work. You might as well use it from 1500 years ago.

From what I've seen, parents have been hamstrung from actually being parents for at least the past 10-15 years. Not being able to discipline their own kids is total bullshit. If you don't make the consequence of doing something you're not supposed to do far worse than any 'pleasure' you may gain from doing it, the punishment is impotent. Parents getting jammed up for striking their child (when they seriously screwed up) is just wrong. I'm not advocating abuse, just discipline. I only ****ed up bad enough one time, growing up, to warrant being smacked. Guess what, I never did anything that bad ever again. Today, a parent that did that would probably be brought up on felony charges, convicted (especially in a nanny state) and then become a PP.
 
Thing is, IMO, kids were more mature/responsible back in 1846 than they are today. Parents, far more often than not, did a proper job of raising their children too. Sadly, that's also not done these days. Back in the mid 1800's, I'm sure more people were raised around firearms.

Trying to use logic from over 150 years ago simply doesn't work. You might as well use it from 1500 years ago.

From what I've seen, parents have been hamstrung from actually being parents for at least the past 10-15 years. Not being able to discipline their own kids is total bullshit. If you don't make the consequence of doing something you're not supposed to do far worse than any 'pleasure' you may gain from doing it, the punishment is impotent. Parents getting jammed up for striking their child (when they seriously screwed up) is just wrong. I'm not advocating abuse, just discipline. I only ****ed up bad enough one time, growing up, to warrant being smacked. Guess what, I never did anything that bad ever again. Today, a parent that did that would probably be brought up on felony charges, convicted (especially in a nanny state) and then become a PP.
I'll stop taking this thread off topic, but did you really make the "logic no longer valid argument"? The one that antis use all the time to rationalize why the 2A no longer is necessary? Maybe the fact that kids are less responsible now is a symptom of the fact that they aren't given responsibility. Send a 5 year old into the woods with a rifle to bring back food, and the irresponsible 5 year olds aren't going to become irresponsible 15 year olds.
 
Thing is, IMO, kids were more mature/responsible back in 1846 than they are today. Parents, far more often than not, did a proper job of raising their children too. Sadly, that's also not done these days. Back in the mid 1800's, I'm sure more people were raised around firearms.

Trying to use logic from over 150 years ago simply doesn't work. You might as well use it from 1500 years ago.

From what I've seen, parents have been hamstrung from actually being parents for at least the past 10-15 years. Not being able to discipline their own kids is total bullshit. If you don't make the consequence of doing something you're not supposed to do far worse than any 'pleasure' you may gain from doing it, the punishment is impotent. Parents getting jammed up for striking their child (when they seriously screwed up) is just wrong. I'm not advocating abuse, just discipline. I only ****ed up bad enough one time, growing up, to warrant being smacked. Guess what, I never did anything that bad ever again. Today, a parent that did that would probably be brought up on felony charges, convicted (especially in a nanny state) and then become a PP.

Liberals use a very similar argument for why the second amendment no longer applies. So your opinion is that we all need our rights restricted so that nothing bad happens?
 
Liberals use a very similar argument for why the second amendment no longer applies. So your opinion is that we all need our rights restricted so that nothing bad happens?

Never said that... I said it depends on the 15 year old. IF the person is mature enough to not go ape-shit-nuts with a gun (of any kind) then he can have one (or several/many). I just don't want the people with the maturity level of a gnat to have firearms. Especially full auto. Again, that goes back to parents DOING THEIR JOBS...

If I had my way, kids would be raised around firearms, taught to shoot by the time they were 8. Have a healthy respect for firearms, and be responsible gun owners when that time comes. IF I ever have kids, I plan on doing just that.

My father had brought up a good point many years ago (still valid)... There should be a Bill of Responsibilities to go along with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was written back when those responsibilities were so basic (to everyone) that they didn't think they needed to be documented. It would be akin to giving instructions to someone on how to breathe. In the years since then, those values have fallen by the way side. [sad2]
 
I figure that person would be their parent or guardian. Technically they are responsible for what their kids do, so I don't see how that is any one else's business to worry about.

Yeah, not really. That's a misperception.

If I'm not mistaken, parents are only responsible if they are negligent in their "duty" to supervise. (as an aside, of course if there's a duty someone has to set the requirements -- did you want someone to set requirements on the duties of parents in supervising their kids?) This is why mass shooter's parents (I won't name them) are not in prison.

Back to turning enemies into allies... I've been trying to get trained to get my NRA certification, but I can't physically spend an 11 hour day or justify $500+ to do this project of giving away training in the city. I need to break it up and do it on the cheap, because there's going to be lots of expenses in the implementation and execution of it.
 
Badass:

We're getting a bit off topic, but any state could choose to permit mgs by simply passing into law that their residents have the authority of the state to be exempt from 922(o). 922(o) (2) (A) gives the states that power.

(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.

- - - Updated - - -

OH SNAP!

I've been informed that one of my gunsmith's customers (Mr Ground Zero) received his stamp and converted an AR in early August.

His lawyer has opined that the ATF is VERY CAREFULLY choosing their words as they contact those people that they have issued stamps to. His take is that they are trying to intimidate people into surrendering their stamps and any MGs that have been manufactured since those stamps were received. No words stating that the stamp holders MUST surrender were used in the audio recording posted here, it has merely been implied.

No certified letters have been received by Mr Ground Zero as is required by law when ATF ORDERS an FFL to surrender stamps or firearms. No other such official communications have taken place, either. Simply a phone call, which does not constitute an official communication. It sounds just like the telephone games IRS plays with people trying to entrap them into admitting to tax fraud.

This one individual has already contacted his congressman and is working to provide the information requested by the congressman's office to verify this complaint, which may be the prelude to congressional action on ATF making a policy change that required congressional action to be legal.

ATF is scurrying around trying to cover this mess up like a cat with diarrhea, and they are not doing a very good job of things as everything they've done has uncovered more shit they don't want exposed.


Love it:

2 or 3. 20 or 30. No longer matters.

Post-86 Form 1 machine guns exist. They were approved, they got stamps, and now they ****ing exist. That genie isn't crawling back into the bottle.
 
Last edited:
Badass:



- - - Updated - - -

OH SNAP!

Interesting. Very interesting. I was indeed wondering about the phone call posted earlier, and thinking, what happens if the person just doesn't send them back the tax stamp? It seemed very odd why this request was made via a phone call, and a returned call at that.

The plot thickens.
 
From the user NoloContendere on Arfcom who is an attorney IIRC.

So you want to be a plaintiff? Let me explain some of the ramifications of doing so. I have spoken to multiple people over the past few days. And I just want to let people know what is involved.

Number 1, you get to have your name VERSUS the federal government. Think about that in context of today. The IRS is targeting "enemies of this administration". How are your finances? You filed all your taxes?

How about your trust? Did an attorney do it or did you print it from one of the $50 dollar specials online? Does it follow your state specific protocols? Any other NFA in your trust?

So, now you've decided to file a lawsuit. For a machine gun. What about your employer? Will you suffer any adverse actions? Will you have to report your litigation to the company? Remember, lawsuits like this are public available to anyone with a pacer account, and most likely will be picked up by bloggers who will post the filings for all to see. For some people, this is a no go as they don't want the "public" to know they have NFA. Weigh your options carefully and don't rush in to any decisions on filing.

So the lawsuit is filed. If we survive the motion to dismiss, the ATF will propound discovery (written questions under oath) and may want your deposition (testimony). We get to do the same to them. Then they will move for summary judgment. If we get passed summary judgment, then we proceed to a trial and then the judge will issue his opinion. (Will not happen fast. I have a federal case that took over 16 months for an opinion and order on a motion to dismiss). So, we have a trial and you lose/win. If you lose, you appeal. If you win, they appeal. More time. More money. More waiting. Appeals court rules. Maybe you win. Maybe you lose. Either way it may be appealed and then on to the Supreme Court, which can either grant or deny your appeal. More time. More money. More waiting.

Don't get me wrong. I think we are closer now to post 1986 MGs than we have even been after Hughes. The difference in these cases versus the prior cases where 922(o) has been upheld is that for the first time we have actual approvals of form 1's. Approvals. That is huge.

I say all that to let you know that you really need to think about whether you want to be a plaintiff. I don't say that to discourage anyone, but you need to go into it with all the facts. This will not be easy, it will not be over quickly, and you may not enjoy the process.
 
In the meantime I would be concerned the ATF _wants_ to consider one who they think might have built or be in the process of building a machinegun in violation of federal law and would likely act accordingly. For all the mention of the prospective builder and government bureaucrats adhering rigidly to some seemingly contradictory passages of legal code, there has been none on the reality of how law enforcement operates with regard to adherence to laws as they pertain to our rights. This undertaking seems like a good way to get SWATed and put oneself, family members, and pets in extreme danger, get one's _entire_ gun collection, NFA and non-NFA alike, confiscated, and of course get one's suitability thrown into question. Thus I could see the machinegun case winding its way through the courts while the builder is simultaneously fighting to prevent becoming a prohibited person.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom