Add "assault rifles" to NFA in exchange for "machineguns?"

[Ben B.]

I posted this on my local board, but I think the collective IQ might be a little higher over here..

Copy/paste:



I'm not at all suggesting this... but it does seem like the kind of compromise that could be negotiated. So, for argument sake, hypothetically..

Would you be willing to entertain the compromise of putting all "assault rifles" on the NFA registry if the goobermint would repeal the manufacturing for private transfer clause of the FOPA for "machineguns?"

For arguments sake, let us also reduce the tax to $50/weapon and require the ATF to process all applications within 6 months. Weapons possessed at the time of enactment are grandfathered- still need to be registered, but tax-exempt, and you retain possession during filing.

If no, but not SO no, what additional concessions would you want?

[SamuelBLong]

I posted this on my local board, but I think the collective IQ might be a little higher over here..

Copy/paste:



I'm not at all suggesting this... but it does seem like the kind of compromise that could be negotiated. So, for argument sake, hypothetically..

Would you be willing to entertain the compromise of putting all "assault rifles" on the NFA registry if the goobermint would repeal the manufacturing for private transfer clause of the FOPA for "machineguns?"

For arguments sake, let us also reduce the tax to $50/weapon and require the ATF to process all applications within 6 months. Weapons possessed at the time of enactment are grandfathered- still need to be registered, but tax-exempt, and you retain possession during filing.

If no, but not SO no, what additional concessions would you want?

Hell to the No.

The NFA branch can barely function as is. I don't want to fill out more paperwork to transport my carbine out of state to go attend a class. I don't want to pay any more tax dollars that I don't have to currently.

MG's while fun, get old quick. You get past that initial evil grin after the 4th or 5th time you step up to the line. How often do I now flip to the extra position on my M16? Almost never.... unless I'm taking new shooters to the range.

If you want to work on an NFA issue that actually may have a chance of passing, put your support behind removing suppressors from the NFA.

[JV_]

Would you be willing to entertain the compromise of putting all "assault rifles" on the NFA registry

I'm not in favor of registration, and even *if* I entertained negotiating - that's not a middle ground.

[VolGrad]

Nnnnnoooooooooo

never

[TGS]

I'll say YES, just because assault rifles are already NFA items! So we wouldn't be losing anything.....

[Ben B.]

I'm not in favor of registration, and even *if* I entertained negotiating - that's not a middle ground.

No, it's not... it'd be a huge bargaining chip, though, if it were in the realm of reality. Federal preemption for NFA items, is a big concession that enters my mind- states can't ban.

It wouldn't necessarily be that big of a deal for us, at least those of us with items already in the registry.. but I think the ban-crowd would see it as their greatest victory ever. They'd give a lot for it.

[Ben B.]

I'll say YES, just because assault rifles are already NFA items! So we wouldn't be losing anything.....

Well that's why I "quoted" it.

[Tamara]

I'm not at all suggesting this... but it does seem like the kind of compromise that could be negotiated. So, for argument sake, hypothetically..

Would you be willing to entertain the compromise...

Why am I entertaining compromises?

They've got nothing I want bad enough to give up anything I have. For all their bluster, they're bluffing from a busted flush.

They're coming over all hard right now because this is their hill to die on, not ours. The legislative and judicial momentum is all on our side.

[Kyle Reese]

Nyet!

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[Palmguy]

Even if "we" wanted to do that...as evil as semi-autos are made out to be, I think it'll be a chilly day in hell before restrictions on automatics are loosened.

[jlw]

I'll say YES, just because assault rifles are already NFA items! So we wouldn't be losing anything.....


Good point.

[jlw]

I don't support putting any other items on the registry. I support completely doing away with the registry.

[guymontag]

No.

I do not support any further infringements upon my rights.

[LOKNLOD]

I think we (me included) talked about that in one of the previous AWB threads. I like the thought that if truly forced to give something up, we got something back, but in that particular case I'd equate it to losing your right hand while growing back the appendix you had removed as a child. Much more symbolic than practical.

AWB support is loud, but waning. If it turns out they don't want it bad enough to fight over getting it for free, they won't give us something in order to get it, they'll just take less and come back for more later. Any loss for us is a victory for them, but every loss for them is not necessarily a victory for us.

A buddy and I were talking about this last night-- if they're smart, all they really need is a strict mag ban. We could all have machine guns for all they cared if we were stuck with 10 rounds. That MP5K I've always dreamed of is just a really awkward G26 if I can only have 10 rounds. So why have the fight over AWBs at all? Similar to Obama and the EO-E-I-O song and dance, they get everyone worked up over an AWB, then back off and "compromise" that they'll only take mag limits. There is stronger support for that than a gun ban, I think it could be passed much easier, especially if they didn't go full NYtard and try to go for 7 rounds. Plus they get to say they didn't ban any guns! (If they truly were smart, they'd do 15, it would lessen the impact on handguns greatly, while still being a big hit on AR/AK types, so you'd weaken resistance from part of our base, furthering the divide and conquer plan. They'd come back for the next five rounds later, of course.)

Thank goodness they're as stupid and irrational as they are, because its holding them back. The trick is for us not to become equally stupid. You can only stare into that abyss for so long without it dragging you in...

[LittleLebowski]

I posted this on my local board, but I think the collective IQ might be a little higher over here..

Copy/paste:



I'm not at all suggesting this... but it does seem like the kind of compromise that could be negotiated. So, for argument sake, hypothetically..

Would you be willing to entertain the compromise of putting all "assault rifles" on the NFA registry if the goobermint would repeal the manufacturing for private transfer clause of the FOPA for "machineguns?"

For arguments sake, let us also reduce the tax to $50/weapon and require the ATF to process all applications within 6 months. Weapons possessed at the time of enactment are grandfathered- still need to be registered, but tax-exempt, and you retain possession during filing.

If no, but not SO no, what additional concessions would you want?

Not no, but fuck no. Machine guns mean very little to me. Additional registration could not ever be anything but bad.

[Tamara]

The absolute most important thing that gives teeth to the Second Amendment is the lack of registration.

In a nightmare scenario where some Eeevil Dictatorship takes control of the USA, it's the fact that they don't know how many rifles are out there and who has them that makes them a viable threat.

[JHC]

Nope. Gun rights are in the drivers seat when it comes to the issue in the House and Senate even. No reason to register the semis.

[Joe in PNG]

And again no. This tends to be the kind of road where you start off trying to get machine guns, but wind up with mandatory NFA registration for all semiautomatics and no machine guns.

[TGS]

A buddy and I were talking about this last night-- if they're smart, all they really need is a strict mag ban. We could all have machine guns for all they cared if we were stuck with 10 rounds. That MP5K I've always dreamed of is just a really awkward G26 if I can only have 10 rounds. So why have the fight over AWBs at all? Similar to Obama and the EO-E-I-O song and dance, they get everyone worked up over an AWB, then back off and "compromise" that they'll only take mag limits. There is stronger support for that than a gun ban, I think it could be passed much easier, especially if they didn't go full NYtard and try to go for 7 rounds. Plus they get to say they didn't ban any guns! (If they truly were smart, they'd do 15, it would lessen the impact on handguns greatly, while still being a big hit on AR/AK types, so you'd weaken resistance from part of our base, furthering the divide and conquer plan. They'd come back for the next five rounds later, of course.)

As is happening in NJ right now. We currently have a 15 round magazine limit....but they're trying to lower it.

Full auto are the only NFA items we can own in NJ, but they're still limited to 15 rounds. Belt feds are not allowed to have a belt with more than 15 linked rounds. :rolleyes: because, ya know that just cuts down on the carnage. It's not like if someone wanted to go postal with their belt fed they couldn't just snap together successive links.

[Josh Runkle]

To the original question:

No. We shouldn't give up some rights to get others back.

[steve]

Don't register a damn thing ever.

[BWT]

I don't see them lessening restrictions on MGs, they're loud and fast. It affects perception of them, and you're going up against a constituency of people that live only by their immediate perception of what's "good".

ETA: For discussion's sake, no. The NFA market is tiny because of how it's regulated. You would dramatically decrease the interest in ownership by that process.

[TGS]

You would dramatically decrease the interest in ownership by that process.

Thus helping to put evil black rifles into "that" category of unnecessary things that civilians shouldn't be able to own.

And then after that your Remington 700BDL is in the hotseat for being a quasi sniper rifle......and your 12ga pump for being a weapon purposed to open doors and shoot huns....

And before ya know it, we're back to muskets.

[BWT]

Thus helping to put evil black rifles into "that" category of unnecessary things that civilians shouldn't be able to own.

And then after that your Remington 700BDL is in the hotseat for being a quasi sniper rifle......and your 12ga pump for being a weapon purposed to open doors and shoot huns....

And before ya know it, we're back to muskets.

Exactly.

ETA: If no one owns one, why do they care?

[LHS]

We gave up machine guns to get FOPA protections and mail order ammo. Guess what New York just took away.

Compromise is silly if we're giving up something we really want.

[Tamara]

We gave up machine guns to get FOPA protections and mail order ammo.

...and military surplus firearms.

[CMG]

I am not a fan of any type of registration but if something like this were to be proposed they should change the current NFA process from approval and registration to just a registration process. So if they wanted to add "assault weapons" to the NFA they should make the following changes for all (SBR, SBS, suppressors, etc.) NFA purchases:


No more $200 tax stamp required.
Replace current approval process with NICS check at time of purchase.
Registration document sent in after the fact.


So essentially you would go a LGS to purchase your new SBR/suppressor/"assault weapon" and they would run a NICS check on you. When you pass you fill out some registration form and walk out with your purchase.

It might be enough of a poison pill to prevent any legislation from going forward or it gains back a little ground as it makes some stuff easier to acquire. Later down the road when the registry is shown to have little effect on reducing "gun violence" it can be abolished all together.

[SamuelBLong]

I am not a fan of any type of registration but if something like this were to be proposed they should change the current NFA process from approval and registration to just a registration process. So if they wanted to add "assault weapons" to the NFA they should make the following changes for all (SBR, SBS, suppressors, etc.) NFA purchases:


No more $200 tax stamp required.
Replace current approval process with NICS check at time of purchase.
Registration document sent in after the fact.


So essentially you would go a LGS to purchase your new SBR/suppressor/"assault weapon" and they would run a NICS check on you. When you pass you fill out some registration form and walk out with your purchase.


In what reality are you living where you think they would even consider dropping a tax completely?

You don't want to tempt legislators to change anything regarding the tax amount being collected. $200 was alot of money back in 1934. What if they decided to keep it, but just tack on an extra zero making it a $2000 transfer tax?

I think the NFA process could be modified to be a point of sale process:

1) go in and buy the item
2) NICS check
3) dealer fills out registration / transfer info via an online portal
4) dealer collects tax and settles it electronically
5) Take home item with recpt generated by the online portal
6) BATFE mails out Form 4 to the transferee with the lovely green stamp in 1-2 weeks



Later down the road when the registry is shown to have little effect on reducing "gun violence" it can be abolished all together.

We can already show that statistically. Removal of registration databases never happens. Never.

[LHS]

We can already show that statistically. Removal of registration databases never happens. Never.

Except for that one in Canada, but I think we can all agree that was a statistical outlier.