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.

**Seaward**

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

The tax stamp is $200. Then you need to find a pre-86 automatic weapon actually for sale. They go for tens of thousands of dollars.

**Spacemanvic**

Ruberu wrote:
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.

The original intent of NFA 1934 was to tax ALL guns and establish a national gun registry. It wasnt until Congress compromised that the scope of NFA 1934 was narrowed to machine guns and sawed off shotguns.

As evidenced by this progressive website:
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/12/31/fdrs-fourth-freedom-and-gun-control/

Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners objected, Congress scaled down FDR’s proposal to allow only for a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which were thought to be gangster weapons with no usefulness for self-defense.

Clearly, FDR’s initial proposal is one that would be the dream of every current progressive Democrat and anathema to the NRA and its compatriots in the Tea Party. It’s hard to compare the “paring down” the Congress did with regard to machine guns and sawed-off shotguns to current calls for restrictions on semi-automatic, or at least automatic, weapons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

The tax stamp is $200. Then you need to find a pre-86 automatic weapon actually for sale. They go for tens of thousands of dollars.

Yup. A Thompson from 1920's goes for about $40,000 to $50,000.

**Ouze**

Ruberu wrote:
To obtain a full auto weapon you need either a class III license or a class III dealers license. (snip)

Your post was good. I'd like to add to what you said that those things only cover you from a federal angle. Some states won't allow some stuff regardless of your federal allowances; for example Iowa won't allow me a select-fire weapon, suppressor, or short barreled rifle even if I had the tax stamp.

**Spacemanvic**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
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.

Pretty much. It's a Class 3 dealers license, and a Form 4 that the purchaser fills out AFTER receiving permission from a CLEO to purchase an NFA (Class 3) item. Once the form is filled out and sent, and after a year wait, the purchaser get's the stamp that lets him buy the item.

Right now, we have customers waiting a little over a year to get their paperwork back on cans and class 3 weapons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Ruberu wrote:
To obtain a full auto weapon you need either a class III license or a class III dealers license. (snip)

Your post was good. I'd like to add to what you said that those things only cover you from a federal angle. Some states won't allow some stuff regardless of your federal allowances; for example Iowa won't allow me a select-fire weapon, suppressor, or short barreled rifle even if I had the tax stamp.

That's a shame. Shooting with a silencer is highly recommended

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Plays hell with your rebuttal of the slippery slope argument though.

No, because such a slope would have to establish that somehow, in enforcing one kind of ban, it made people more willing to accept another. That's the slippery slope - that it makes each act more likely.

So for that example to 'play hell' with my rebuttal of the slippery slope, there would need to be some kind of evidence, either stated or clearly obvious just from the example, that these gun bans were made possible because of earlier gun bans. But that isn't there. It's just a statement that some guns were banned in some states.

**cincydooley**

Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?

**Grey Templar**

the Barret is only semi-auto so I don't think it counts as Class 3, but the Caliber might also have something to do with it.

**NuggzTheNinja**

cincydooley wrote:
Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?

What's high powered about it? It's a semiautomatic (or bolt action, or single shot) rifle costing around $10,000 with glass that has never been used in a crime as far as I'm aware.

Up to .50 caliber is still a regular firearm. Larger than .50 is considered a Destructive Device as far as I know.

**Grey Templar**

Well it is a .50 cal anti-material rifle, that is pretty dang powerful.

**Spacemanvic**

cincydooley wrote:
Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?

It's a single shot weapon. We have an Armalite AR-50 .50BMG for about $2800. No NFA stamp needed. Bloody thing weighs about 80lbs in the box and its about $40 for a box of 10 rounds.

I have no use for it, but hey, whatever floats your boat!

**cincydooley**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?

What's high powered about it? It's a semiautomatic (or bolt action, or single shot) rifle costing around $10,000 with glass that has never been used in a crime as far as I'm aware.

Up to .50 caliber is still a regular firearm. Larger than .50 is considered a Destructive Device as far as I know.

Yeah, I misspoke with "high powered" perhaps when I meant large caliber.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Plays hell with your rebuttal of the slippery slope argument though.

No, because such a slope would have to establish that somehow, in enforcing one kind of ban, it made people more willing to accept another. That's the slippery slope - that it makes each act more likely.

So for that example to 'play hell' with my rebuttal of the slippery slope, there would need to be some kind of evidence, either stated or clearly obvious just from the example, that these gun bans were made possible because of earlier gun bans.

Like the automatic weapon ban continuation in '86 leading to the "assault weapon" ban in '94, would you say?

**NuggzTheNinja**

cincydooley wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Do high powered rifled like Barrett's fall under the NFA? Or are they pretty much "buy it If you can afford it"?

What's high powered about it? It's a semiautomatic (or bolt action, or single shot) rifle costing around $10,000 with glass that has never been used in a crime as far as I'm aware.

Up to .50 caliber is still a regular firearm. Larger than .50 is considered a Destructive Device as far as I know.

Yeah, I misspoke with "high powered" perhaps when I meant large caliber.

No offense man...I get kind of picky about the terminology. Everything is a "high powered rifle," or an "assault rifle" these days. People throw these terms around and all they really mean is, "gak that I don't want people to have" without any bearing on the actual use of these things.

**sebster**

cincydooley wrote:
The hilarious ridiculousness of all of these confiscations is that they're taking guns that are involved in a teeny tiny portion of the gun crime. Makes no sense. I like to believe that if enforcement and penalties were harsher for illegally possessing a handgun (which most gun crime is perpetuated with) we'd see some decline, but I sadly doubt it.

I absolutely agree with you there. Those laws, like most gun laws attempted or passed in the last few decades have been absolutely terrible laws.

As I've said a few times, if you just watch what the anti-gun side talks about (scary black guns, clip sizes, bayonet fittings etc), you ought to quickly realise that those people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

But the counter to that is that if you spend any time listening to the pro-gun side, then you get just as much nonsense (high murder rate is due to gangs, ludicrous claims about rates of firearms used in home defence etc), and people ought to realise that they also have no idea what they're talking about.

What's needed is informed, sensible people on both sides looking for a ground that looks to minimise the dangers of guns while ensuring legitimate uses are restricted as little as possible. Until the majority of the population decides that the current loons dominating both sides of the debate need to be thrown out, that unfortunately isn't going to happen.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Except Space is right.

Nah, he's silly.

Of course, I'm only saying that because I live in a country with tight restrictions on guns, so I type only what my political masters order me to type.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
But the counter to that is that if you spend any time listening to the pro-gun side, then you get just as much nonsense (high murder rate is due to gangs, ludicrous claims about rates of firearms used in home defence etc), and people ought to realise that they also have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm not sure I've ever heard the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation or pro-gun politicians talks much about either of those statistics, to be honest.

**sebster**

Spacemanvic wrote:
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.

Which was the final compromise position, after an initial proposal to ban such weapons was resisted. And on seeing that compromise position end up getting passed as law, you conclude it's all more evidence that it's about control and they're taking guns from ordinary Americans while letting the elite keep them... it's control! Control I tell you!

You're being very silly.

**Spacemanvic**

sebster wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
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.

Which was the final compromise position, after an initial proposal to ban such weapons was resisted. And on seeing that compromise position end up getting passed as law, you conclude it's all more evidence that it's about control and they're taking guns from ordinary Americans while letting the elite keep them... it's control! Control I tell you!

You're being very silly.

And your being extremely dense and naive. See, we can both call each other out.

How does that espouse constructive dialog?

**carlos13th**

whembly wrote:
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).

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.

Thanks for the clarification guys

**sebster**

SOFDC wrote:
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!

Absolutely. I think one of the best approaches to new gun reforms should be to look at giving up some stuff that isn't needed and is likely harmful, in exchange for removing a bunch of stuff that does nothing but annoy gun owners. So giving up bits of cake you don't want, and getting back some bits the cake grabber realised he didn't want. Not that anyone wants cake that been in someone else's hands since, like, the 80s, but no analogy is perfect

And then, if that process can be done well a couple of times, then hopefully a culture will emergy where pro-gun people don't feel they're constantly on the defensive, and anti-gun people don't feel like they have to work incredibly hard just to get minor reforms passed, and the two sides can actually start seeing that they all want the same thing - decent gun laws.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spacemanvic wrote:
And your being extremely dense and naive. See, we can both call each other out.

How does that espouse constructive dialog?

It is what it is, mate. I mean, the position you're holding is simply silly... would you prefer I danced around that out of a sense of politeness?

**Alexzandvar**

Seaward wrote:
sebster wrote:
But the counter to that is that if you spend any time listening to the pro-gun side, then you get just as much nonsense (high murder rate is due to gangs, ludicrous claims about rates of firearms used in home defence etc), and people ought to realise that they also have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm not sure I've ever heard the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation or pro-gun politicians talks much about either of those statistics, to be honest.

I just spent a whole thread being crucified over my views on the 2nd Amendment so if your looking for hard right knee jerk response read the thread.

This however will be my last post in this thread, I hope that I could at least ask of all the people who's "America" I so utterly do not belong in might pause to consider I never meant to flame or cause harm but that perhaps my views were simply just not congruent for...this board.

**Spacemanvic**

text deleted.

Reds8n

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever heard the NRA or the 2nd Amendment Foundation or pro-gun politicians talks much about either of those statistics, to be honest.

Keep reading, you'll come across it. And there's plenty of other bits of silliness out there, like the claim in this very thread that gun control is about controlling the populace.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
Keep reading, you'll come across it. And there's plenty of other bits of silliness out there, like the claim in this very thread that gun control is about controlling the populace.

But when we're referring to anti-gun movements, we're not speaking of random guys on forums; we're talking about the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg's group, certain politicians, etc.

**Kilkrazy**

There are also many individual people who support gun control.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There are also many individual people who support gun control.

They're not the ones consulting on or actually writing legislation.

And, for what it's worth, Connecticut's trying registration right now...and it's not going so hot.

The Hartford Courant wrote:Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

But few thought the figures would be this bad.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.

"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."

An aggressive hunt isn't going to happen, Lawlor said, but even the idea of letters is a scary thought considering thousands of people are now in an uncomfortable position. At the least, the legislature should reopen the registration period this year with an outreach campaign designed to boost the numbers.

It could be a tough sell. On Thursday night, Guglielmo heard from a constituent at a meeting in Ashford, who said most of his friends with military-style rifles such as AR-15s had not come forward.

"He made the analogy to prohibition," Guglielmo said. "I said, 'You're talking about civil disobedience, and he said 'Yes.' "

But it's not just refusers. A reopened registration would help many who failed to come forward out of ignorance.

"There are a lot of people, they just do not know about this law," said Scott Wilson, president of the 12,000-member Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a Second Amendment advocacy group. "There are people finding out now after the fact."

The law was widely covered in the media and Wilson said his group sent information to its members. But gun owners can be an independent bunch.

Guglielmo, who voted against the sweeping gun control bill, said he intends to raise the concern at the next meeting of the public safety committee. Lawlor said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration is willing to talk about solutions.

But Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and Management, said that even if many thousands of guns remain unregistered and are now illegal, the law is not necessarily failing at its goal.

"Like anything else, people who violate the law face consequences. … that's their decision. The consequences are pretty clear. …There's nothing unique about this," Lawlor said. "The goal is to have fewer of these types of weapons in circulation."

**Kelly502**

I don't know who said waiting for their class III to come back from the BATF&E takes a year it does not. I went to the store to buy a sound suppressor for my job since one was not provided that was grunt proof... I went to a gun store in Springfield TN, found what I needed, bought it, filled out two original forms, one I would get back and one the BATF&E keeps. So everything is paid I then had to go collect fingerprints, two passport style photos of my mug... then a $200 money order, I went back to the store because they are just awesome and helpful, they checked it all out ans sent the two forms with attached photos and the $200 money order...

Three months later, I got a phone call from the store, said I had been approved, so I went and picked up my sound suppressor, one original form was handed to me, I made a jillion copies, shrunk one to a wallet size and laminated it to carry one me. Then off I went. Oh, the stamp is a real stamp, stuck on the form all fancy, should be able to cook and clean for the price of the little bugger. So after the first one completed more Class III has been so easy for me to obtain. Yeah you pay a $200 for every bit of class III kit you buy but whatever. If you want it bad enough you should get it. It's polite to shoot suppressed anyway. Plus engaging real bad guys, it’s more difficult to spot your lessened barrel flash at night, the sound is hard to locate it you not subsonic, well even if you aren't subsonic a 5.56 is hard to find with the lessened blast it makes.

Cops should have them in tacticle teams, because the goal is to save lives so on multiple target objectives, if they have to engage a bad guy up front then a suppressed shot won't amp up or even alert the rest of the blokes they're after.

Anyway I go on...

**reds8n**

Thread closed due to multiple rude posts.

Especially from people who should know better.