So. About those gun laws...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Except Space is right.

**whembly**

Alexzandvar wrote:
The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.

No one is arguing that "America is the best country on earth". We're challenging you with your obvious belligerence over your opinion over the founding fathers and being "saddled" with the US Constitution.

Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.

Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.

And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.

I...

I don't even...

My brain hurts.

**Spacemanvic**

Ouze wrote:
I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.

I don't know anything about the CA ones though.

Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-confiscation-underway/#axzz2tAmnJITX

**Frazzled**

I...

I don't even...

My brain hurts.

Its ok, watch the wiener dog song and you'll be fine. Listen to Grandpa Frazzled, and rest your weary brow.

**Spacemanvic**

Frazzled wrote:
Except Space is right.

That fact's gotta be twisting in their gut like hot lava.

**carlos13th**

Spacemanvic wrote:
carlos13th wrote:
What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?

FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was a socialist democrat president who wanted to control the ability of the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. Originally, he wanted to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners raised concern, Congress attempted to satiate the gun grabbers by scaling down FDR’s proposal to allow only a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which at the time were thought to be weapons only a gangster would use with no real usefulness for self-defense by the average citizen.

So, the tax was levied at $200 ($3,478.64 in 2013 dollars) which at the time was an exorbitant amount - remember, the Stock Market crash of 1929 had just occurred and this tax took the ability away of the average citizen with little means to purchase such weapons.

This NFA act of 1934 did NOTHING (as do the current gun control laws) to provide for the public safety. It was, as it always has been, an exercise of control

The issue of gun control as well as things like the ATF (now BATF) and the NFA is convoluted and many times, contradictory in accomplishing it's stated intent.

Do you really think it was done just to be an exercise of control? Or do you think it was done with the reason to protect people. It may not have achived that but I think its a bit silly to think it was a done for controls sake only.

Do you not think that making automatic weapons illegal was a good move then?

**Frazzled**

I'd proffer licensing automatic weapons was just fine. I'm now a Second Amendment heretic...

**carlos13th**

Sorry it may be because I am tired and have a terrible head ache but I am not quite sure what you mean.

**cincydooley**

Frazzled wrote:
I'd proffer licensing automatic weapons was just fine. I'm now a Second Amendment heretic...

Nope. I agree as well. Unless we're just heretics together then.....

**Spacemanvic**

carlos13th wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
carlos13th wrote:
What did the national firearms act of 1934 actually do?

FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was a socialist democrat president who wanted to control the ability of the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. Originally, he wanted to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners raised concern, Congress attempted to satiate the gun grabbers by scaling down FDR’s proposal to allow only a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which at the time were thought to be weapons only a gangster would use with no real usefulness for self-defense by the average citizen.

So, the tax was levied at $200 ($3,478.64 in 2013 dollars) which at the time was an exorbitant amount - remember, the Stock Market crash of 1929 had just occurred and this tax took the ability away of the average citizen with little means to purchase such weapons.

This NFA act of 1934 did NOTHING (as do the current gun control laws) to provide for the public safety. It was, as it always has been, an exercise of control

The issue of gun control as well as things like the ATF (now BATF) and the NFA is convoluted and many times, contradictory in accomplishing it's stated intent.

Do you really think it was done just to be an exercise of control? Or do you think it was done with the reason to protect people. It may not have achived that but I think its a bit silly to think it was a done for controls sake only.

Do you not think that making automatic weapons illegal was a good move then?

Read up on the history of the NFA as well as what has occurred since then, It becomes painfully obvious that this is more about control than about public safety. The guns werent made illegal, they were made so that only the very elite/affluent could afford them for instance.

**whembly**

carlos13th wrote:
Sorry it may be because I am tired and have a terrible head ache but I am not quite sure what you mean.

Some folks argue that 2nd amendment grants them the right to own/purchase fully automatics w/o restrictions.

Frazz is sorta advocating that "licensing" requirement in ORDER to own/purchase fully automatic is okay... licensing is a type of restriction as it entails large tax fee and strong background checks (ie, ATF knows you have it and where you live).

**Spacemanvic**

Frazzled wrote:
I'd proffer licensing automatic weapons was just fine. I'm now a Second Amendment heretic...

Nah.

Automatics are fun, but damned they are expensive to own and feed!!

**cincydooley**

Carlos, presently to obtain a NFA weapon in the US you need the sign off of a law enforcement official. These are seldom, if ever, granted.

**SOFDC**

But another option is to actually open a real and meaningful dialogue with the other guy, and try and set up mutual respect on both sides to build a solution that works best for everyone. Talk about the bits of cake you don't even want, and then genuinely listen when the other cake owner talks about why he thinks certain bits of cake need to be taken away.

Another option would be to offer me something for my cake, rather than attempt to dictate to me why my cake needs to be taken away. Even if I don't personally care for the gooey overly moist bits, it's still my cake you are after, and I may just like having soggy cake over no cake at all.

You want to ban all private sales between individuals? Ok, cool. Lets talk about this over the paperwork to repeal the Hughes amendment and/or standardized, shall issue CCW nationwide. What's that? You don't want to even entertain the idea of rolling back some gun control in exchange for something that might actually have both sides happier at the end? What a shock!

.....This cake is delicious though.

Nom Nom Nom Nom burp Nom.

**Spacemanvic**

cincydooley wrote:
Carlos, presently to obtain a NFA weapon in the US you need the sign off of a law enforcement official. These are seldom, if ever, granted.

Yes and no. Depends on where you are as well as if you are using a trust to purchase the firearm through.

You have to fill out a Form 4, then have your local Chief Law Enforcement Office - CLEO - sign it (allowing you to purchase a Class 3 firearm). A trust however does not require a CLEO signature.

Then you have a year wait for the ATF to respond. Afterwards, you get your stamp and can purchase your item from the Class 3 vendor.

Of course, those with influence arent so encumbered.

**cincydooley**

Correct me if I'm wrong but the CLEO is allowed to simply refrain from signing it if he doesn't see a "viable purpose" for your ownership, correct?

I can't say I've ever looked, mostly because I really have no desire to light dollar bills on fire with the amount it would cost to actually shoot one.

**Spacemanvic**

cincydooley wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the CLEO is allowed to simply refrain from signing it if he doesn't see a "viable purpose" for your ownership, correct?

I can't say I've ever looked, mostly because I really have no desire to light dollar bills on fire with the amount it would cost to actually shoot one.

Of course, which is why some go the trust route.

* Full disclosure, I do some work for a Class 3 vendor.

**Ouze**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.

I don't know anything about the CA ones though.

Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-confiscation-underway/#axzz2tAmnJITX

This is not what I thought you were referring to - that link is news to me.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.

I don't know anything about the CA ones though.

Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-confiscation-underway/#axzz2tAmnJITX

This is not what I thought you were referring to - that link is news to me.

Got me too...

I've been bouncing around this topic... seems legit tho.

**Spacemanvic**

Ouze wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I still think the alleged NYC gun confiscations are bogus. It's one of those stories, like the Obama 200 bajillion dollar a day India trip, that only seems to have been picked up in the derposphere and they all seem to boil back down to the same single one source. You'd think they're be tons of these letters, right, not just this one guy? Plus his letter reflects text that actually isn't in the act, and there is some real wonky stuff with the dates...
I think it's probably bogus.

I don't know anything about the CA ones though.

Ummm.....the NYC confiscations have been verified:

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/new-york-gun-confiscation-underway/#axzz2tAmnJITX

This is not what I thought you were referring to - that link is news to me.

Here are some firearms news websites for you to peruse:

http://www.thegunwire.com

http://www.ammoland.com

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/

http://thefirearmschannel.com/FirearmsNews.html

http://www.shotgunnews.com/

http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Got me too...

I've been bouncing around this topic... seems legit tho.

I can't really dig into this because I'm at work and my job bans weapons and gun related sites. But when:

If anyone still feels some level of doubt regarding the veracity of this story, Attorney Tresmond welcomes anyone to visit his website tresmondlaw.com, Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/james.tresmond.7 ), or send an email to TresmondLaw@gmail.com.

references 2 nonexistent sites, I'm dubious. Another article I did get to showed it was actually 2 specific people, one of which got his guns back, and another of which was being worked on. So, not to move the goalposts, but a single person having his guns taken away for indeterminate reasons wouldn't fit my idea of what "confiscation has started" entails... but we'll see, I'll look into it more. That other story I think was debunked though.

**Spacemanvic**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Got me too...

I've been bouncing around this topic... seems legit tho.

I can't really dig into this because I'm at work and my job bans weapons and gun related sites. But when:

If anyone still feels some level of doubt regarding the veracity of this story, Attorney Tresmond welcomes anyone to visit his website tresmondlaw.com, Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/james.tresmond.7 ), or send an email to TresmondLaw@gmail.com.

references 2 nonexistent sites, I'm dubious. Another article I did get to showed it was actually 2 specific people, one of which got his guns back, and another of which was being worked on. So, not to move the goalposts, but a single person having his guns taken away for indeterminate reasons wouldn't fit my idea of what "confiscation has started" entails... but we'll see, I'll look into it more. That other story I think was debunked though.

Here, a non firearms website you can read at work:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/

Also, the Associated Press contributed to this report. So....yeah.

Oh, another one, this time from a former member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns:
http://freebeacon.com/former-bloomberg-ally-says-mayors-groups-goal-is-gun-confiscation/

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 6, 2014 4:00 pm

A former member of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group claimed this week that the group’s objectives are far more radical than it has let on.

John Tkazyik, the mayor of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., said he quit the former New York City mayor’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, after he realized its objective was outright confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

“Under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intend[s] to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens,” Tkazyik wrote in a Wednesday column in the Poughkeepsie Journal.

I’m the mayor of one of the largest cities in the Hudson Valley, just 90 minutes north of New York City. I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association and a former member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, or MAIG, started by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2006.

I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? Just as Ronald Reagan said of the Democratic Party, it left me. And I’m not alone: Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did. MAIG became a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda — violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and taking resources away from initiatives that could actually work to protect our neighborhoods and save precious lives. […]

It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
You just finished a post in which you concluded that gun restrictions are all about control of the populace and not safety, so I'd be careful about who you choose to write off.

The restrictions being pushed for now are absolutely not about safety.

**Alexzandvar**

Frazzled wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
The amount of hatred and vitriol that has also been thrown my way in this thread is more than enough evidence that the idea America is somehow the best country on earth and that questioning our founding fathers actions and the documents they saddled us with is "unamerican" is far more self destructive than any unconstitutional action.

Dare I say the last country that stood on a international level and abused others ,despite what other countrys found it reprehensible, out of a sense that they, were in fact better than everyone else, and that nobody could ever dare to challenge there superior culture and form of governance started a world war and used their super nationalist ideals to justify war crimes.

Well we have the whole pissing off the world part down, causing strife and chaos were we should not down to. We also commit war crimes because we think as the freest country on earth and that we could ever be possibly convicted of a wrong.

And if you tell me that our extreme nationalism is totally okay because it's "American nationalism" then you have less self awareness then that of a brick.

Classic example of a troll post. Has nothing to do with anything except designed to inflame.

But your image macro is not?

I cannot accept that you are not self aware enough to understand there is a difference between trolling and criticism and observation. Hell you have being slinging dirt from the start with out stopping to think that maybe the people that post who don't share you views are not trying to inflame you and are trying to just engage you in discussion.

Is that what you think? That anyone who agrees with you is normal and anyone who doesn't is either trolling or dumb? Do you not see how that kind of attitude is the very thing that is preventing actual proper change and compromise in this country.

Thanks by the way for proving my point that you all will just go own totally unaware of the ramifications of your actions and dismissals with out the slightest iota of doubt and then when crap hits the fan your type will blame the entire government for not changing when only a short time ago you planted your foot firmly in the way of change.

**Spacemanvic**

Seaward wrote:
sebster wrote:
You just finished a post in which you concluded that gun restrictions are all about control of the populace and not safety, so I'd be careful about who you choose to write off.

The restrictions being pushed for now are absolutely not about safety.

He's trying really hard to avoid that cold fact. It wrecks hell with his narrative.

**Ruberu**

To obtain a full auto weapon you need either a class III license or a class III dealers license. They are not as hard to get as people think but it still is a long process and a lot of background checks. For a civilian to get a class III weapon, the weapons receiver (the body of the weapon usually where the trigger is) must be manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986. This prevents standard civilians from getting or making modern full auto assault style weapons.

The act of 1934 was mainly to control the mafia and the Thompson Sub Machine gun. The Thompson was invented in the 1918s and was first produced in the 1920s as a hunting rifle, yes that’s right. One could buy a full automatic Thompson at the local hardware store for hunting or what not. The mafia brought the Thompson to the feared weapon that it is today and so the act of 1934 was to get Thompsons, BARs and other mafia used weapons off the street.

**NuggzTheNinja**

There's no such thing as a "Class III license" in the way you describe it.

You pay for the tax stamp. It's no more a license than a stamp from the post office is license to mail infinite letters for the rest of your life without purchasing additional stamps.

**cincydooley**

How much do these tax stamps typically run?

**NuggzTheNinja**

cincydooley wrote:
How much do these tax stamps typically run?

$200

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#nfa-tax

**cincydooley**

Oh, I thought someone had mentioned $200-$10k earlier. Must have misread.