Reducing/repealing the NFA?

[depserv]

The best defense is a good offense, and this is a good place for one, since the edicts in question can easily be shown to be illegal infringements and not the reasonable restrictions they are claimed to be.  Always better to take the initiative instead of just trying to keep your enemy from taking more ground.

I'd think the minimum o/a and barrel length would be the easiest to do away with, especially considering the excuse given by the Court for its decision.  Compact shoulder-fired weapons definitely do have a place in the arsenal of the militia, whether the Court wants to see it or not.

Legalizing machineguns does not seem likely no matter who controls Congress and the Executive.  But I think the definition could be made more realistic.  An automatic rifle, for example, is not a machinegun, and neither is a sub machinegun, at least insofar as being designed to mow people down, which seems to be the reason for the law against them being called reasonable. So I would suggest that the definition of machinegun for the purpose of law be changed from more than one shot being fired with a single trigger pull to more than three, which would allow tri-burst.  That plus no minimum length would put small arms of the militia more in line with the 21st Century.  Devices that allow bursts to be fired legally have been available for a long time, and I'm not aware of crowds of people being mowed down by guns fitted with them.  If anyone knows of such a thing, or if they've been a significant problem for law enforcement, I'd be interested in seeing information on it.  Otherwise, if they haven't been a problem, a case can be made that tri-burst would not be a problem either.  If it was up to me full auto would be legal, though if it was my rifles would be capable of single shot or tri-burst; I'm not interested in full auto.  Those who are should be able to have it, but tri-burst would be a good compromise with anti-gun bigots.

Also, violations of NFA edicts should be treated like speeding tickets.  For example, if a person has a rifle that fires full auto instead of semi or tri-burst, give him a small fine and tell him to change it; this makes more sense than throwing him in jail.  What leads to more death: the difference between full and semi auto, or people driving too fast?  And there isn't even a Constitutional right to drive.

Silencers being legalized seems unlikely because many people believe that the sound of a gunshot will bring police, so without that sound there would be more murders.  I don't buy that reasoning, but a lot of people do.  I'd still like to see them legalized, because they could be invaluable to the militia.

Another adjustment that could improve the NFA would be to say that a concealed carry permit automatically makes the bearer able to legally possess class III weapons.  We've been fingerprinted and investigated and tested, and we have earned a reputation of being very law-abiding and competent, so you'd think this could pass.

None of this will happen though as long as the liars of the liberal press continue to have the amount of control they now have over our political system.  So fighting back against their big lie campaigns and exposing them for the propagandists they are is the critical path to getting things like this done.  Toward that end I mention on a regular basis to my representatives that I'd like to see them stand up to the liars of the liberal press.  And when someone does stand up to them and is subjected to one of their hate campaigns, I do my best to support them in their battle with those traitors.  If all patriots would do this, we might end up getting some more realistic laws.

[mott555]

I wonder if something might happen on the SBR/SBS front after the ATF's recent ruling about the Sig brace. Basically they determined an AR-15 pistol equipped with the Sig brace is legal if you don't shoulder it, but if you shoulder it then it becomes an NFA device which must be registered and stamped. While it makes sense given the way the NFA is written, it really exposes how arbitrary and silly the NFA actually is.

[dkarp]

Just musing on the SIG Brace ruling- what if I were to fire a revolver by holding the grip up against my shoulder...would I then have "created" a short barrel rifle? I think someone could argue that.

Again, showing how silly the NFA is. Another example, I can use an Ar15 receiver to build a pistol, THEN add a buttstock and upper that makes it meet the minimum length, but if it starts as a receiver built as a rifle, I can't legally build it into a pistol...IIRC...

[FarmerRick]

Henry Repeating Arms
Mare’s Leg Lever Action Pistol

You'll notice these Pistols have a butt-stock. 

http://www.henryrifles.com/rifles/mares-leg/





But, it's a pistol. 

With a butt-stock.

But, it's just a lever-action... so it's not scary like an AR15 or AK47 rifle pistol SBR with a butt-stock.


The NFA is a freaking joke, and will continue to be so unless some true Constitutionalists are elected to the highest ranks of the Federal government.  I'm certainly not holding my breath.   

[mott555]

Just musing on the SIG Brace ruling- what if I were to fire a revolver by holding the grip up against my shoulder...would I then have "created" a short barrel rifle? I think someone could argue that.

Isn't this why the Taurus Judge has a rifled barrel and will chamber .45 Colt? I remember reading if it was a smoothbore instead of rifled, it gets classified as a short-barreled shotgun and thus subject to NFA regulation, instead of a handgun.

[DenmanShooter]

Just musing on the SIG Brace ruling- what if I were to fire a revolver by holding the grip up against my shoulder...would I then have "created" a short barrel rifle? I think someone could argue that.

Again, showing how silly the NFA is. Another example, I can use an Ar15 receiver to build a pistol, THEN add a buttstock and upper that makes it meet the minimum length, but if it starts as a receiver built as a rifle, I can't legally build it into a pistol...IIRC...

ATF had a bunch of idiot jackasses writing them to find out if they could get around the SBR requirements by using the SIG brace.

ATF had to clarify by saying it is the INTENTION that counts.

So if you start out to build a pistol and add the brace, you are good to go still.

Just don't start out with the INTENTION of building a SBR.

So you need your pistol and then you can add your brace or buy the pistol with the brace with the intention of using it as a pistol.

See how that works?  What was your intention sir?

Aye, aye, aye!

[RobertH]

Isn't this why the Taurus Judge has a rifled barrel and will chamber .45 Colt? I remember reading if it was a smoothbore instead of rifled, it gets classified as a short-barreled shotgun and thus subject to NFA regulation, instead of a handgun.

I believe smoothbores without a stock are AOWs.

[Dtrain323i]

You have to use the anti's playbook to get rid of stuff like this. One inch at a time. I think the best start would be to get rid of the Hughes amendment. Its something that could be slipped into an unrelated bill and maybe get passed fairly easily. Then go after suppressors, tougher since "hurr durr silencers are for assassinations". But you go after it bit by bit. Going after the whole enchilada is a non-starter.

[Hardwood83]

ATF had a bunch of idiot jackasses writing them to find out if they could get around the SBR requirements by using the SIG brace.

ATF had to clarify by saying it is the INTENTION that counts.

So if you start out to build a pistol and add the brace, you are good to go still.

Just don't start out with the INTENTION of building a SBR.

So you need your pistol and then you can add your brace or buy the pistol with the brace with the intention of using it as a pistol.

See how that works?  What was your intention sir?

Aye, aye, aye!

I disagree- the ATF are the jack-asses. Confusing, contradictory and purely subjective 'opinion letters' and 'interpretations' lead to average schmucks asking questions to avoid Federal charges. Repeal NFA, disband the ATF and call it a day.

Also, there is this: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1

[DenmanShooter]

I disagree- the ATF are the jack-asses. Confusing, contradictory and purely subjective 'opinion letters' and 'interpretations' lead to average schmucks asking questions to avoid Federal charges. Repeal NFA, disband the ATF and call it a day.

Also, there is this: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_NFA_cases__Hollis_v__Holder__Watson_v__Holder___DOJ_responses_P__42_.html&page=1

I agree ATF are schmucks and needs disbanded.  But you are confusing 2 different things.  After the ATF clarified the sig brace could be used on a pistol (AR pistol) and the act of shouldering did not change the definition, several schmoes wrote to ask if they could then build sbr's and get around the sbr tax.  The atf had already ruled and it was all fine and dandy then they found themselves between a rock and a hard place and had to reclarify and practicallyt reverse themselves.

It is hard to tell if that was an act of sabotage or actual curiosity.

But not worth arguing the point over. 

The general idea is that, yes they are arbitrary and capricious and their rules are just plain stupid and they need to go.

If enough law suits get going then maybe, maybe, some success will be made.  But I would rather have it repealed than leave it to the courts as they are unreliable.

The executive branch has been handed too much leeway in creating regulations which were never approved as law.  It has ALMOST gotten out of control.  If it isn't reigned in soon we are all looking at a very bleak future in this country.