PDA

View Full Version : NFA... Why?



chazthebiker
24 May 2010, 22:56
Hey guys. I know the short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns (aow) etc. are really cool. I like the pics of them a whole lot. Fantastic weapons and I have to admit to having a fetish for them. My questions are these:

1. Does anyone worry about a new AWB that doesn't grandfather you in?

2. Does it bother anyone that the Federal Govt. retains these records of your firearms ownership concerning your NFA weapons?

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love to put together an SBR. I just have a real aversion to that kind of information being in Govt. records. Especially when the Govt. behaves in such a fickle manner from one administration to the next. At least with a standard build there is no database maintained as to who owns what in some states at least.

For me, at least, an NFA weapon build will be out of the question. Just wondering whether these questions have crossed anyone else's mind and the thought process that let you overcome any reservations to go forward with a build.

For those who have gone through with such a build... more power to ya! And I love to look at them posted here.

Army Chief
25 May 2010, 05:21
We've dealt with some of these questions before, and there are admittedly a couple of different schools of thought on the issue. To be sure, the prospect of NFA ownership was significantly re-shaped in 1986 with changes in the law, as prior to that time, NFA ownership most often meant purchasing a machinegun. These days, unless you have unusually deep pockets and are looking at a transferable select-fire weapon, NFA ownership is more often about unique configurations (i.e. SBR) or capabilities (i.e. suppression or AOW).

Addressing the AWB component of your question is somewhat difficult, since we cannot know for certain what sort of legislation might be proposed on the next iteration; that said, we can find some strong clues by considering precedent. In the past, NFA weapons were largely unaffected by other ban proposals for a couple of reasons: (1) they tend to fly under the radar, since they are rarely seen in general circulation, and (2) they are already subject to the most stringent controls provided for under the law. Now, in reality, the original NFA was less about restriction than it was about taxation, but from a legislative standpoint, it still accomplished the same thing, since it made ownership of these weapons both inconvenient and expensive. That remains the case today, so there is little overt reason to change the existing law(s) where these weapons are concerned. Since the previous AWB did not have much of an affect upon NFA weapons, it seems unlikely that a future ban would deal with them any differently.

The question of the federal government having detailed records of ownership strikes me as legitimate, but still slightly overwrought. With the exception of those weapons purchased privately, inherited, or otherwise obtained "off of the books" by other legal means, the government already has a fairly detailed record of what you own, when and where you purchased it, and where you took it (i.e. presumably, your residence). For this reason, it isn't terribly relevant to suggest that NFA weapons run a greater risk of confiscation or removal; and in fact, for the reasons outlined above, one might argue that these things are actually less likely. Again, there isn't a lot of incentive for the government to expend the energy and burn the political capital to enact new laws or restrictions against a class of weapons that is already rigidly controlled, and in no way contributing to crime in America.

One might argue that all of this might be subject to change in a governmental collapse/civil disorder scenario, but I would submit that, if such a calamity were actually taking place, it would be a tall order for whatever functioninng government remained to go after NFA weapons; doubly so, considering that the typical NFA owner would likely be in-transit to a more secure (or defensible) location if something that dire was truly underway. Let's hope and pray that this always remains a wildly hypothetical question, but either way, I think you have to don a tin hat to lose too much sleep over the possibilities here.

The bottom line for me is this: NFA ownership makes sense because it gives me the opportunity to own and use non-standard configurations which are better suited to my needs and desires, and because it is provided for under the law. As with general firearms ownership under the Second Amendment, I find value in exercising the legal rights we have been afforded; if for no other reason than simply to insure that they do not fall into disuse. I may be off-base here, but I tend to think that those who can own an NFA weapon (assuming they are serious, responsible shooters with the right mindset), probably should own one.

One needn't have a bunker mentality, be a conspiracy-theorist, or be stockpiling arms in order for this to make good sense; if anything, our community would be well-served by counterbalancing some of those perceptions by educating and encouraging "regular Joe" ownership. There are legal requirements, to be sure, and NFA ownership demands a much greater familiarity with the law, but there is no reason why the typical WeVo member in a non-restricted state could not -- or should not -- exercise his rights in registering an SBR at some point along the way. Those that do might very well someday find this a solid financial investment as well as a more protected class of ownership, if indeed the laws were to change significantly.

AC

todd.k
25 May 2010, 08:57
You are posting on the Internet, in a gun forum that you are worried the government could find out you own guns?

chazthebiker
25 May 2010, 17:19
You are posting on the Internet, in a gun forum that you are worried the government could find out you own guns?

No, that was not it at all. My questions were more in line with the response that Army Chief gave above. It had more to do with my perception that the hoops one must jump through to legally own NFA weapons may give Govt. more information about what one has than one is comfortable with. It also had to do with whether or not anyone worries about the loss of those valuable weapons in the event of a new AWB that may also target those weapons already owned. If you are suggesting I might be unaware of where I am posting or who may have access to what I am posting, that is not the case. Don't know why anyone would imply that.

From what I understand, the Federal Govt. does not maintain records of ordinary gun ownership. Records of transactions (from my understanding) are retained by dealers and not in a Federal Database. NFA is different in that the Federal Govt. does know who owns what. I may be wrong here, but an NICS only checks for eligibilty to own a firearm and does not record any transactions or serial numbers. My state does not register any firearms, not handguns or rifles.

chazthebiker
25 May 2010, 17:23
We've dealt with some of these questions before, and there are admittedly a couple of different schools of thought on the issue. To be sure, the prospect of NFA ownership was significantly re-shaped in 1986 with changes in the law, as prior to that time, NFA ownership most often meant purchasing a machinegun. These days, unless you have unusually deep pockets and are looking at a transferable select-fire weapon, NFA ownership is more often about unique configurations (i.e. SBR) or capabilities (i.e. suppression or AOW).

Addressing the AWB component of your question is somewhat difficult, since we cannot know for certain what sort of legislation might be proposed on the next iteration; that said, we can find some strong clues by considering precedent. In the past, NFA weapons were largely unaffected by other ban proposals for a couple of reasons: (1) they tend to fly under the radar, since they are rarely seen in general circulation, and (2) they are already subject to the most stringent controls provided for under the law. Now, in reality, the original NFA was less about restriction than it was about taxation, but from a legislative standpoint, it still accomplished the same thing, since it made ownership of these weapons both inconvenient and expensive. That remains the case today, so there is little overt reason to change the existing law(s) where these weapons are concerned. Since the previous AWB did not have much of an affect upon NFA weapons, it seems unlikely that a future ban would deal with them any differently.

The question of the federal government having detailed records of ownership strikes me as legitimate, but still slightly overwrought. With the exception of those weapons purchased privately, inherited, or otherwise obtained "off of the books" by other legal means, the government already has a fairly detailed record of what you own, when and where you purchased it, and where you took it (i.e. presumably, your residence). For this reason, it isn't terribly relevant to suggest that NFA weapons run a greater risk of confiscation or removal; and in fact, for the reasons outlined above, one might argue that these things are actually less likely. Again, there isn't a lot of incentive for the government to expend the energy and burn the political capital to enact new laws or restrictions against a class of weapons that is already rigidly controlled, and in no way contributing to crime in America.

One might argue that all of this might be subject to change in a governmental collapse/civil disorder scenario, but I would submit that, if such a calamity were actually taking place, it would be a tall order for whatever functioninng government remained to go after NFA weapons; doubly so, considering that the typical NFA owner would likely be in-transit to a more secure (or defensible) location if something that dire was truly underway. Let's hope and pray that this always remains a wildly hypothetical question, but either way, I think you have to don a tin hat to lose too much sleep over the possibilities here.

The bottom line for me is this: NFA ownership makes sense because it gives me the opportunity to own and use non-standard configurations which are better suited to my needs and desires, and because it is provided for under the law. As with general firearms ownership under the Second Amendment, I find value in exercising the legal rights we have been afforded; if for no other reason than simply to insure that they do not fall into disuse. I may be off-base here, but I tend to think that those who can own an NFA weapon (assuming they are serious, responsible shooters with the right mindset), probably should own one.

One needn't have a bunker mentality, be a conspiracy-theorist, or be stockpiling arms in order for this to make good sense; if anything, our community would be well-served by counterbalancing some of those perceptions by educating and encouraging "regular Joe" ownership. There are legal requirements, to be sure, and NFA ownership demands a much greater familiarity with the law, but there is no reason why the typical WeVo member in a non-restricted state could not -- or should not -- exercise his rights in registering an SBR at some point along the way. Those that do might very well someday find this a solid financial investment as well as a more protected class of ownership, if indeed the laws were to change significantly.

AC

Thanks Army Chief. That is exactly the type of response I was looking for. Am I wrong in my belief that an NICS check for a standard firearms purchase does not record the serial number of the weapon being purchased? I thought only dealers maintained those records.

chazthebiker
25 May 2010, 17:30
From Gunsite.com:

"These forms and records are used by law enforcement agencies to trace firearms associated with crime. To initiate a firearm trace, the police must note the serial number of the gun, then forward a firearm trace request (Form 3312.1) with other pertinent information to the ATF. The ATF then contacts the manufacturer who identifies the wholesaler that bought the firearm. The wholesaler then refers the ATF to the retail dealer who, using the bound-book, identifies the original retail purchaser.

The ATF considers a trace successful if the original purchaser is identified. Normally at this point, the ATF turns the case over to local law enforcement, however in rare cases the ATF attempts to follow the chain of possession. To trace a gun beyond the first retail purchaser, law enforcement authorities must conduct interviews and use informants, and of course these methods are often unsuccessful.

It averages 11.4 days to trace a firearm to the first retail purchaser. The ATF has developed a computer system that reduces trace time to an average of five days. Participation is voluntary, and it is anticipated the number of licensees participating will increase. (ATF, Commerce in Firearms in the United States, February 2000, p. 20) "

This is for a standard firearm. Obviously, NFA is handled differently. That is why I asked what I did. Other than NFA there is not National Registry maintained by the Federal Govt. that I am aware of.

chazthebiker
25 May 2010, 17:51
1986
A change in the political climate over firearms is apparent in the title of next important federal gun legislation, in 1986. Eighteen years after the Gun Control Act came the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, championed by Harold Volkmer, a Democratic congressman from Missouri, and Sen. Jim McClure, an Idaho Republican. (Volkmer went on to become a board member of the NRA, which supported the act.) It rolled back federal oversight of firearms transactions by reversing some provisions of the 1968 act. It eliminated the ban on interstate sales of rifles and shotguns and limited inspections and prosecutions of gun dealers. It also authorized sales of guns between private firearms owners—the exemption that allows unregulated trafficking of firearms at gun shows. It prohibited the government from creating a database of gun dealer records.

CCK
25 May 2010, 21:57
I relish the idea of the feds knowing of an ever increasing segment of the population going through the hassle of owning a Title II arms. The original intent of a $200 tax stamp was to be cost prohibitive and to discourage ownership of a class of weapons that at the time were considered dangerous. Like AC said everyday joe buying these is a good thing.

As to bans, I would suggest that if you ever feel a need to be burying your firearms, that is exactly the time you should be digging them up.

Chris

chazthebiker
25 May 2010, 22:21
I relish the idea of the feds knowing of an ever increasing segment of the population going through the hassle of owning a Title II arms. The original intent of a $200 tax stamp was to be cost prohibitive and to discourage ownership of a class of weapons that at the time were considered dangerous. Like AC said everyday joe buying these is a good thing.

As to bans, I would suggest that if you ever feel a need to be burying your firearms, that is exactly the time you should be digging them up.

Chris

I would have to agree with you on that bud. At the same time, remaining as invisible as possible has its advantages too.

rob_s
26 May 2010, 03:42
Todd's point is that it's too late. Whether you think so or not, if there is a radar screen you're already on it. these weird paranoid theories that somehow buying class III items, or getting a CCW, etc. are the difference between being "on the list" or not are just that, weird paranoid theories.

Go re-watch Red Dawn. When the invading force comes to town the general tells one of his underlings to go to the local gunshop(s) and pick up the 4473 forms. If it ever came to it, the govt would simply do the exact same thing.

GriffonSec
26 May 2010, 05:07
There is an anecdote in my local gun store (LGS) where I am currently residing here in the panhandle of Florida (lower Alabama). Conspiracy theories abound, but from shop employees comes this:

There is a regular customer who almost weekly over the course of a year, purchased 1-2 firearms. It is reported after said number of purchases (near 100 in the year), ATF agents had discussions with the store with regards to his purchases and the number of them over a short period of time. What this customer would basically do is purchase, and return/trade towards new. He didn't possess all that he had purchased due to this, but from the LGS employees, this was common pratice for him for years. This was the first time the ATF had contacted them regarding anyone specifically, and it is alleged to be with regard to the number of purchases.

This story (not mine) was told to me when I was in the shop talking about Title II weapons and the theory of the "Government in Your Business". They fall back on - they already are so buy all you want. They (BATFE) of course don't document what you buy and register it, but they do know you made a purchase.

On Edit:

It doesn't bother me in the least that information of mine is in the hands of the Government. Considering the increase in Carry Permits and recent weapons sales, I honestly feel a bit safer in my ownership than before because that information is known. Should the conspiracy theories prove out, there won't be the disarming of a few, but the attempt of many, and that's a road that most likely won't be travelled. The only irritation to me is the letter for permission for travel between states with a NFA firearm, and it's simply an irritation.

todd.k
26 May 2010, 09:46
The idea that you are off the radar because you don't own NFA is a stretch at best. I am also far more concerned about being armed when I need it that being on a list because I got my CCW. Unless you buy ALL your guns, ammo, accesories with cash, FTF you could be tracked.

A slightly more serious answer.
The tax paid transfer nature of NFA ownership would make confiscation MORE not less difficult in my opinion.
4473's are FOREVER. The dealer keeps them and ATF has access to them, if the dealer goes out of business they get shipped to the ATF.

chazthebiker
26 May 2010, 16:08
Good information and opinions guys. Thanks!

chazthebiker
26 May 2010, 16:16
Todd's point is that it's too late. Whether you think so or not, if there is a radar screen you're already on it. these weird paranoid theories that somehow buying class III items, or getting a CCW, etc. are the difference between being "on the list" or not are just that, weird paranoid theories.

Go re-watch Red Dawn. When the invading force comes to town the general tells one of his underlings to go to the local gunshop(s) and pick up the 4473 forms. If it ever came to it, the govt would simply do the exact same thing.

Well, I already have 3 CCW's. I guess my main concern would be having the weapons confiscated after spending thousands for them should a new AWB without a grandfather clause take effect. There are always those with such a scheme on their mind (anti gun politicians and activists). I personally don't think that is a "wierd paranoid theory", but... OK.

As far as the reference to "Red Dawn" that is exactly what I mean... except that they would not have to go to a dealer to get the records if they wanted to confiscate all NFA, AOW weapons. They could never hit every dealer in the country all at once. Now, I am assuming there is a "list" of all class three owners at the federal level, and I guess that is what I am really wondering. Or if the Gun Owners Protection Act even protects from a Federal database when it comes to an NFA. AOW weapon. Of course, all bets are off if the Feds don't obey their own laws as spelled out in the act anyway.

chazthebiker
26 May 2010, 16:32
Just for the record: I asked 2 simple questions and wasn't refering to or trumpeting any conspiracy theories. Just two simple questions about owner's personal thoughts about those two questions.

Army Chief
26 May 2010, 18:20
The tax paid transfer nature of NFA ownership would make confiscation MORE not less difficult in my opinion.

Hear, hear.

AC

chazthebiker
26 May 2010, 19:50
Hear, hear.

AC

Really? Never thought of that. There must be something I am missing. This stuff gets confusing for a noob like me. Could someone explain that for me? I would really like to understand this. Maybe my thinking on the subject is wrong because I really don't know enough yet. Thanks!

chazthebiker
26 May 2010, 19:54
Could you explain this part for me Tood.k? There must be something I am missing and would really like to know. I am confused, I guess, about the difference between the tax paid transfer and the 4473 transfer. Are you saying that once the stamp is paid that there is then no data base of owners or retained record?
Maybe I should be more specific: An SBR or Short barrel shotgun is all I would consider. I could never afford a machine gun. Those might both be AOW, I don't know. Thanks!

Hmac
14 August 2010, 09:00
My local FFL tells me that ATF agents can drop by and access, review, and copy any and all of his 4473's. And there's a thread over on one of the other forums about a Texas resident that had just that thing happen - ATF agents at his door wanting to audit his personal weapons inventory based not on a government database, but their local access to all of his 4473's.

CCK
17 August 2010, 17:23
My local FFL tells me that ATF agents can drop by and access, review, and copy any and all of his 4473's. And there's a thread over on one of the other forums about a Texas resident that had just that thing happen - ATF agents at his door wanting to audit his personal weapons inventory based not on a government database, but their local access to all of his 4473's.


Keep in mind the proper response to this is "got a warrant?'

8'Duece
18 August 2010, 09:31
Keep in mind the proper response to this is "got a warrant?'

I don't think that would a very good response.

My Class III dealer has told us the same. Although he admits, he's never been visited by the ATF.

CCK
19 August 2010, 13:29
Working at a C3 dealership myself.....
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution tells me otherwise, so you'll excuse me if I don't do back flips over what your C3 dealer says.


Chris

Explorer1
3 July 2012, 17:26
"Go re-watch Red Dawn. When the invading force comes to town the general tells one of his underlings to go to the local gunshop(s) and pick up the 4473 forms. If it ever came to it, the govt would simply do the exact same thing. "

Its essentailly too late when this happens IMHO........

cbarker777
4 July 2012, 05:47
I don't think that would a very good response.

My Class III dealer has told us the same. Although he admits, he's never been visited by the ATF.

I don't care why le is at my door the response is got a warrant. I am le and would still ask for one no matter what.

FortTom
4 July 2012, 14:40
We've dealt with some of these questions before, and there are admittedly a couple of different schools of thought on the issue. To be sure, the prospect of NFA ownership was significantly re-shaped in 1986 with changes in the law, as prior to that time, NFA ownership most often meant purchasing a machinegun. These days, unless you have unusually deep pockets and are looking at a transferable select-fire weapon, NFA ownership is more often about unique configurations (i.e. SBR) or capabilities (i.e. suppression or AOW).

Addressing the AWB component of your question is somewhat difficult, since we cannot know for certain what sort of legislation might be proposed on the next iteration; that said, we can find some strong clues by considering precedent. In the past, NFA weapons were largely unaffected by other ban proposals for a couple of reasons: (1) they tend to fly under the radar, since they are rarely seen in general circulation, and (2) they are already subject to the most stringent controls provided for under the law. Now, in reality, the original NFA was less about restriction than it was about taxation, but from a legislative standpoint, it still accomplished the same thing, since it made ownership of these weapons both inconvenient and expensive. That remains the case today, so there is little overt reason to change the existing law(s) where these weapons are concerned. Since the previous AWB did not have much of an affect upon NFA weapons, it seems unlikely that a future ban would deal with them any differently.

The question of the federal government having detailed records of ownership strikes me as legitimate, but still slightly overwrought. With the exception of those weapons purchased privately, inherited, or otherwise obtained "off of the books" by other legal means, the government already has a fairly detailed record of what you own, when and where you purchased it, and where you took it (i.e. presumably, your residence). For this reason, it isn't terribly relevant to suggest that NFA weapons run a greater risk of confiscation or removal; and in fact, for the reasons outlined above, one might argue that these things are actually less likely. Again, there isn't a lot of incentive for the government to expend the energy and burn the political capital to enact new laws or restrictions against a class of weapons that is already rigidly controlled, and in no way contributing to crime in America.

One might argue that all of this might be subject to change in a governmental collapse/civil disorder scenario, but I would submit that, if such a calamity were actually taking place, it would be a tall order for whatever functioninng government remained to go after NFA weapons; doubly so, considering that the typical NFA owner would likely be in-transit to a more secure (or defensible) location if something that dire was truly underway. Let's hope and pray that this always remains a wildly hypothetical question, but either way, I think you have to don a tin hat to lose too much sleep over the possibilities here.

The bottom line for me is this: NFA ownership makes sense because it gives me the opportunity to own and use non-standard configurations which are better suited to my needs and desires, and because it is provided for under the law. As with general firearms ownership under the Second Amendment, I find value in exercising the legal rights we have been afforded; if for no other reason than simply to insure that they do not fall into disuse. I may be off-base here, but I tend to think that those who can own an NFA weapon (assuming they are serious, responsible shooters with the right mindset), probably should own one.

One needn't have a bunker mentality, be a conspiracy-theorist, or be stockpiling arms in order for this to make good sense; if anything, our community would be well-served by counterbalancing some of those perceptions by educating and encouraging "regular Joe" ownership. There are legal requirements, to be sure, and NFA ownership demands a much greater familiarity with the law, but there is no reason why the typical WeVo member in a non-restricted state could not -- or should not -- exercise his rights in registering an SBR at some point along the way. Those that do might very well someday find this a solid financial investment as well as a more protected class of ownership, if indeed the laws were to change significantly.

AC
First let me address the OP's original questions.
1. Yes
2. Yes

Now your's, short and simple.
Your argument is well thought out, very articulate, and very, very reasoned and logical.
I think you missed one important variable, and that is we are not dealing with a logical, and reasoned segment of the exective and legislative branch. This president has been caught on tape stating that he is "working under the radar" as far as proactive gun control legislation - speaking to leaders of the Brady foundation. I believe it was Hillary Clinton that warned her core constituency while a sitting Senator, to avoid 2A issues at all, "because it has cost our party more elections than any other single issue".

So let's examine this point. If the sitting POTUS, stays silent on these issues during the campaign, retains his seat at the will of the people, he'll then have carte blanch to enact any restricive laws he feel's, and he's proven that he's willing to do such things by decree, hiding under the faux permission of executive decision. Should this occur, a lot of damage can be done before any legislative branch can stop him, before states can sue, etc..etc.

In short, I hope that you are 100% correct, I respect your reason and insight, but I believe you posess a degree of confidence and well placed reason, upon an insane and out of control legislative and executive branch, that is sadly misplaced, given it's track record and goals.

Of the two of us, I hope you're correct.

FT

rob_s
4 July 2012, 14:46
If you think that by not having an SBR you are somehow sparing yourself from potential confiscations, you're missing the boat by a mile.

TehLlama
5 July 2012, 10:47
A AWB or any similar ban that would involve confiscation would prove deleterious to whichever organization is trying to pull that off. All previous attempts have been 'voluntary', but those powers that be have already tipped their hands too much, and are aware of it.

Thanks to the '08 panic, there are too many firearms out there, instead the targets will be ammunition (any lead components), registration thereof, and trying to minimize access for groups such as veterans.

FortTom
5 July 2012, 17:07
If you think that by not having an SBR you are somehow sparing yourself from potential confiscations, you're missing the boat by a mile.
Not sure who you're responding too, but an "assault weapons ban" will be an AWB, at the discretion of the person with the power to rule by decree, e.g. executive ban. Years ago, I remember a lot of the gun writer's basically chastising the gun owner world against referring to their weapons as "assault" weapons. Actually during the Clinton administration, there was quite a bit of fighting over the wording of what constituted an "assault" weapon. Years later, all you see on the cover of any gun magazine is the latest "assault weapon" system. That, and bold headlines bragging about "sniper" rifles that easily reach out 1500 - 2000 yards or more. Pictures show weapons with umpteen sighting systems, "silencers", and al the other "tacticoolness" someone can hang off their weapon. Pictures of civilians in camo and rising out of swamps, ready to "kill" in an instant. In the 80's, it was argued that the word the anti's loved to use "assault" weapon, could only be found in military manuals, and that the "anti's" were mistakenly and intentionally calling anything they deemed to be so, an assault weapon. So, I think we sort of hung ourselves with our own ropes on that count. Point being, that in the senario that we have another massive weapons ban, those implementing it will have no problem persuading the non-shooting public that nearly anything that holds more than one round, that these "dangerous military grade weapons" are good for nothing but killing other "innocent" people. Oh yeah, and they'll rehash the "it's for the children" crap again also. So SBR, mid-length, target barrel, suppressor, no suppresor, etc..etc...whatever the anti's deem to be, is uneccessary, and has no sporting/hunting or any other use but to kill, and hoards of wild eye "assault gun owners" are just foaming at the mouth to kill, and kill some more. Happened once, and could definetly happen again, regardless of the plan to ban them, be it confiscation, ban on ammo, or whatever they dream up. NFA or not, it's just splitting hairs, as far as the goonies are concerned.

FT

Cameron
5 July 2012, 20:17
You say, "NFA why?" I say, "NFA why not?"

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7514518754_a44e4cd419_b.jpg

rob_s
6 July 2012, 01:54
Not sure who you're responding too, but an "assault weapons ban" will be an AWB, at the discretion of the person with the power to rule by decree, e.g. executive ban. Years ago, I remember a lot of the gun writer's basically chastising the gun owner world against referring to their weapons as "assault" weapons. Actually during the Clinton administration, there was quite a bit of fighting over the wording of what constituted an "assault" weapon. Years later, all you see on the cover of any gun magazine is the latest "assault weapon" system. That, and bold headlines bragging about "sniper" rifles that easily reach out 1500 - 2000 yards or more. Pictures show weapons with umpteen sighting systems, "silencers", and al the other "tacticoolness" someone can hang off their weapon. Pictures of civilians in camo and rising out of swamps, ready to "kill" in an instant. In the 80's, it was argued that the word the anti's loved to use "assault" weapon, could only be found in military manuals, and that the "anti's" were mistakenly and intentionally calling anything they deemed to be so, an assault weapon. So, I think we sort of hung ourselves with our own ropes on that count. Point being, that in the senario that we have another massive weapons ban, those implementing it will have no problem persuading the non-shooting public that nearly anything that holds more than one round, that these "dangerous military grade weapons" are good for nothing but killing other "innocent" people. Oh yeah, and they'll rehash the "it's for the children" crap again also. So SBR, mid-length, target barrel, suppressor, no suppresor, etc..etc...whatever the anti's deem to be, is uneccessary, and has no sporting/hunting or any other use but to kill, and hoards of wild eye "assault gun owners" are just foaming at the mouth to kill, and kill some more. Happened once, and could definetly happen again, regardless of the plan to ban them, be it confiscation, ban on ammo, or whatever they dream up. NFA or not, it's just splitting hairs, as far as the goonies are concerned.

FT

I have no idea what all this rambling is supposed to mean..

FortTom
6 July 2012, 06:43
Let me explain...fairly simple....looking into the possibility of an AWB, like I've lived through before...and what we might face, NFA or not, in the future, a repeat of the past on a scale that might dwarf earlier bans, if the current POTUS is chosen again by the people.. There, easier?
FT

Cameron
6 July 2012, 07:51
So, you are afraid that there will be further bans in the future and those bans may be worse than the bans of the past?

I think that means, get what you can now and shoot it as much as you can!!

FortTom
7 July 2012, 12:45
So, you are afraid that there will be further bans in the future and those bans may be worse than the bans of the past?

I think that means, get what you can now and shoot it as much as you can!!

I'm not sure, Cameron. Right now, I'm not losing any sleep over it, but I wouldn't put it past the current administration, if it remains in power, to try a masive assault on firearms owners. I'm fairly confident that it's a very real possibility. Have a gread deal of 30 round mags, and a boat load of LC brass, powder and bullets, as well as factory ammo, so I'm cool there. I guess it's just a "wait and see" proposition for now.

FT

usmcvet
12 July 2012, 17:08
Todd's point is that it's too late. Whether you think so or not, if there is a radar screen you're already on it. these weird paranoid theories that somehow buying class III items, or getting a CCW, etc. are the difference between being "on the list" or not are just that, weird paranoid theories.

Go re-watch Red Dawn. When the invading force comes to town the general tells one of his underlings to go to the local gunshop(s) and pick up the 4473 forms. If it ever came to it, the govt would simply do the exact same thing.

I remember that line and that movie well. I was 13 at the time. Well just checked my dates. I guess I was 12. Musta snuck in. I thought it was the first PG-13 movie. Unless it was a December movie and I saw it in January. [:D]

chazthebiker
12 July 2012, 22:43
Wow. Guys, thank you for all your responses. Especially 2 years later :) Forttom, thank you for answering my two simple questions and not construing them as conspiracy theories. The point of my original post (OP) had to do with the fact that considerable money can be spent on an NFA weapon that is essentially registered with the ATF. Had nothing to do with being on any other list, just THAT list which will make those easy to confiscate. Certainly, in my opinion, anti-gunners would consider SBR's, Short Barrel Shotguns, and Suppressed Weapons easy targets to make into the latest boogieman.

Someone said that paying for the tax stamp would make them harder to confiscate. I fail to understand that reasoning.

Someone else said ATF routinely walks in and copies all 4473's. That is a violation of Federal Law and is or was a case in court.

Anyway, the point was whether the registration is a concern for NFA owners. That is all. Frankly, regular old AR-15 rifles can be purchased all day long face to face right now. Even stripped lowers can be purchased that way. Rifles and components purchased in such a way ain't on any list or radar... not for the current owner at least.

Some seemed to get offended that I even asked the questions... even after how cool and fantastic I said the weapons looked. I didn't mean to offend or insult anyone. I was just curious. I have several very nice AR-15 rifles now. I don't have to get anyone's permission before I move them around the country.

I do not understand why there are NFA regs to begin with. I understand when they were instituted. I understand why it was said they were needed. But let's face it, the criminals get all the machine guns, sawed off shotguns, explosive devices, supressors, etc. they want anyway. The NFA regs. are a waste. I ain't gonna pay $200 for permission to be on anyone's list, even if I would dearly love to have an SBR.

As far as "Red Dawn" goes, LOL... isn't that the point of my question? There are tens of thousands of gun dealers in the country. "OK boys, go gather up all 4473s! While you boys are out doing that, we'll track down the NFA owners... the easy targets." In the mean time, Billy Bob and Bubba have burried everything they have and say they sold it all years ago to some guy they met in a bar. NFA, on the other hand, if you cannot produce it when asked for it.... wow, you are in a world of hurt.

BEWARE THE U. N. SMALL ARMS TREATY... It may not pass the senate this year, but it just takes one election to change that.

chazthebiker
12 July 2012, 23:14
If you think that by not having an SBR you are somehow sparing yourself from potential confiscations, you're missing the boat by a mile.

Actually, Rob, that is exactly what I think... though that wasn't the point. :) Do you keep all your stuff at home? When asked for your SBR by an agent, don't you have to produce it? What happens if you don't? Or can't? Can you move it across state lines without permission? Don't you have to tell them where you keep it? Tell them when you sell it? Carry the registration everywhere you carry the weapon? Not so with any other weapon. Only NFA affords you this priviledge. Anything else can be sold, given away, lost, stolen, or simply evaporate. On the other hand, I would LOVE to own an SBR. I think they are the coolest thing around and envy NFA owners. Just not gonna spend the money if there is a chance I ever have to give it up for the whims of a politician. Were I a policeman, then I might do it. It is very unlikely they will have their weapons confiscated. They are Govt. employees after all.

chazthebiker
12 July 2012, 23:23
LOL! Since we are refering to movies for an idea of what might happen, think about this; NFA hasn't kept criminals from getting machine guns. Rewatch "Scarface". NFA is just another tool to control the law abiding and take more of our money. It isn't preventing anything.

FortTom
13 July 2012, 13:39
Wow. Guys, thank you for all your responses.

BEWARE THE U. N. SMALL ARMS TREATY... It may not pass the senate this year, but it just takes one election to change that.

Yeah, so much for those who like to tell everyone that their concerns are conspiracy theories, huh? This is a real life action, whom our sitting POTUS would love to sign onto. No need for a consultation with the 2 legislative branches he's proven that little inconvieniience won't deter him, let real life dictator's and other assorted criminals, communists, socialists and other gooines sitting in the UN just do a line itme veto on the U.S. Cconstitutuion.

So NFA stamps be damned, let's just let the U.N. dictate public gun ownership in the U.S. Now THAT's scary.

FT.

chazthebiker
14 July 2012, 00:26
Yeah, so much for those who like to tell everyone that their concerns are conspiracy theories, huh? This is a real life action, whom our sitting POTUS would love to sign onto. No need for a consultation with the 2 legislative branches he's proven that little inconvieniience won't deter him, let real life dictator's and other assorted criminals, communists, socialists and other gooines sitting in the UN just do a line itme veto on the U.S. Cconstitutuion.

So NFA stamps be damned, let's just let the U.N. dictate public gun ownership in the U.S. Now THAT's scary.

FT.

Exactly. I really would like someone to explain why they think having paid the tax makes the weapon a less likely target for confiscation. Heck, I paid for my weapons with my own money. If confscation comes then private property rights mean nothing. How paying a $200 tax changes that is a mystery to me. The 2nd Ammendment would not mean a thing, private property rights wouldn't mean a thing. The stamp is magic? You paid the NFA tax and somehow you are more respected? Heck, didn't everyone who bought a complete rifle pay a special hidden excise tax? If that treaty ever gets through the Senate... your stamp won't mean a thing.

Paulo_Santos
14 July 2012, 05:19
I live in a communist state and I can't personally own any of the cool things like SBR's, suppresses, even collapsible stocks and flash hiders. I used to get so pissed because I didn't and still don't understand why we can't have them, yet the next state allows everything. After a while, I just realized that it wasn't a big deal and I learned to live with it. My solution was to get an LMT MRP and have a couple of different barrels with the permanently attached muzzle brakes. I have a collapsible stock, but it is permanently pinned. If I ever move out of state, I'll definitely buy some of the cool toys and enjoy them. I don't think the government will ever pass any laws or confiscate any weapons, but if they did, it wouldn't be the end of the world. I love guns, but I've learned that there are more important things in life than to be worried about an AWB or other gun crap. Honestly, I think the government has way too many other things to worry about than confiscating weapons.

chazthebiker
14 July 2012, 09:34
I understand what you are saying Mr. Santos, I really do. The fact is that weapons were confiscated during the Katrina disaster. Again, it just takes the right situation to bring confiscation into the realm of reality (U.N. Treaty? Election? Natural Disaster?).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

"In their lawsuit, the gun lobbying groups accused the city of violating gun owners' constitutional right to bear arms and leaving them "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.

In response, the city argued that federal law doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims against city officials "because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right."

Then again, the web of government agencies may just regulate ranges and such out of business:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=22524

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/08/us-usa-lead-lawsuit-idUSBRE85705X20120608

Paulo_Santos
14 July 2012, 12:24
I understand what you are saying Mr. Santos, I really do. The fact is that weapons were confiscated during the Katrina disaster. Again, it just takes the right situation to bring confiscation into the realm of reality (U.N. Treaty? Election? Natural Disaster?).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

"In their lawsuit, the gun lobbying groups accused the city of violating gun owners' constitutional right to bear arms and leaving them "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.

In response, the city argued that federal law doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims against city officials "because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right."

Then again, the web of government agencies may just regulate ranges and such out of business:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=22524

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/08/us-usa-lead-lawsuit-idUSBRE85705X20120608

The Katrina incident is one of the reasons that you won't see that happen again. So many things went wrong in Katrina.