Results 16 to 30 of 42
Thread: NFA... Why?
-
26 May 2010, 18:20 #16
-
26 May 2010, 19:50 #17
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!
-
26 May 2010, 19:54 #18
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!Last edited by chazthebiker; 26 May 2010 at 20:03.
-
14 August 2010, 09:00 #19
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.
-
17 August 2010, 17:23 #20Banned
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 81
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
18 August 2010, 09:31 #21The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed ~ Jeff Snyder
-
19 August 2010, 13:29 #22Banned
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 81
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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
-
3 July 2012, 17:26 #23Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- SE WA
- Posts
- 1
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
"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........
-
4 July 2012, 05:47 #24Member
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Posts
- 12
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
"make (your attacker) advance through a wall of bullets. I may get killed with my own gun, but he's going to have to beat me to death with it, cause its going to be empty" -Clint Smith-
-
4 July 2012, 14:40 #25
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
-
4 July 2012, 14:46 #26
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.
WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
5 July 2012, 10:47 #27
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.S/F
"There is no greater calling than to defend the life of a fellow Marine" - LtCol McClane, USMC
-
5 July 2012, 17:07 #28
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
-
5 July 2012, 20:17 #29
You say, "NFA why?" I say, "NFA why not?"
Last edited by Cameron; 6 July 2012 at 07:48.
-
6 July 2012, 01:54 #30