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