Posted on 05/07/2005 12:40:33 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
"There is no intent to enable confiscation of ANYTHING that is not already subject to confiscation as contraband. The intent is actually the opposite, to allow veterans and their heirs to keep arms that are currently regarded as contraband".
I don't see it as a negative, but I don't see it as a big deal either. As I see it the only people effected are:"
--Non registered VETERAN owners of fully automatic weapons, who CANNOT now register, pay the annual fee, and keep them EVEN IF they DO live in a state which ALLOWS fully automatic weapons.
That's a good thing, though I don't know how many that effects. IT AFFECTS MANY MORE VETERANS AND HEIRS THAN MOST PEOPLE REALIZE.
.
--Non registered owners of handguns in a state or locality which either requires registration or bans handgun ownership, with a grandfather clause post 68. That's a good thing, though I don't know how many that effects.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ABOVE.
--"Assault weapon", whatever the state says that is, owners in states that ban them. I'm not that familiar with recent state laws in that regard, if they have grandfather clauses it's a good thing, if they don't which I think is the case in California, the one that comes to mind, it's a nothing. I doubt that effects many people either. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ABOVE.
There's no doubt in my mind that localities will access the records. NO, EXISTING FEDERAL LAW PREVENTS THAT, THE INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL TAX DATA.
I'd certainly not suggest that people violate gun laws. But this seem to have very little practical impact. IT HAS HUGE PRACTICAL IMPACT FOR VETERANS AND THEIR HEIRS.
As an aside and I'm open to correction, but post (and even during) Vietnam, I don't think the number of "liberated" arms is all that great. I recognize that this act doesn't require that they legally entered the US.
ESTIMATES VARY, BUY EXPECT SOMETHING LIKE 50,000-100,000 IF ALL WERE FOUND AND REGISTERED.
Sorry, I do not know how to do the HTML for quoting and changing fonts.
WHICH previous bills?
The existing "laws" are not bills, they are "Law of the land".
This is only one of several good bills now in congress, but it will never escape from committee without our help, and neither will any other pro-RKBA bill.
I am very disappointed that so many here do not understand this bill, it's intent, or why it's passage is essential to regaining our full RKBA.
I can explain all the above, but it would be a book length post!
For more back-round I suggest studying the topics and post at http://www.nfaoa.org
The ban on Chicago residents owning handguns for example.
A dog of legislation in itself.
Missed one, "pay the annual fee," is a factual error.
The NFA transfer fee of $200 is only paid ONCE per change in ownership.
There is NO "annual" fee for NFA ownership.
This bill is irrelevant to Chicago's feculent ban, it has no effect on non-NFA arms at all.
This Bill ONLY addresses unregistered* arms owned by veterans and their heirs.
Too many here are allowing themselves to be panicked by the word "registration".
* Many of these guns are in fact already lawfully registered, but the NFRTR data-base has been compromised over the years.
Yes, it might aid owners of full auto's, which is what this bill is aimed at. Without the amnesty the weapon remains illegal and cannot be sold. The bill allows those who wish to sell the ability to do so, and those who wish to retain them some peace of mind. Naturally, those who do not wish to register them can ignore it, and remain in the shadows, waitin' fer the day they will be needed.
Unbelievble.
The lack of knowledge on this issue is stunning...
This bill is a GOOD THING.
This bill is a GOOD THING.
This bill is a GOOD THING.
I will be forced to explain things in detail, just so maybe a few of you will understand. I am going to shear a lot of specifics to make it easier for the laypeople to understand.
First off, Fully Automatic weapons have been federally registered since 1934. This will likely never change.
Each transfer of these weapons requires fingerprints, photographs, signatures from authority figures (usually) and a one time $200 tax.
In 1968, a general 30 day amnesty was declared to allow people who were in posession of unregistered automatic weapons to register them legally. Many WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets registered their bring-back machineguns to be in accordance with the law.
It is worth mentioning that up to this point, your average police department viewed a WWII veteran with a bring-back Sten gun much in the same way they view jaywalking.
In 1986, as a part of the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" (oddly enough), a moratorium was declared on the registry of new machineguns for civilian sale. The existing ones could be transfered, in full accordance with all federal regulations.
So, those are the dates you need to know for the pop quiz on this issue.
1934, 1968, and 1986.
Here are a few other pertinent details.
Due to the moratorium on registry of new machineguns in 86, the supply of available machineguns was fixed at a certain number. Over the years, as demand increased and people actually learned that it was legal to own a machinegun (albeit with much more paperwork than you or I fill out to purchase a pistol or an AR15) the demand skyrocketed.
Fixed supply + High Demand = Stratospheric prices.
That WWII era BAR that grandpa snuck back is worth upwards of $30,000 as a lawfully registered weapon.
It's worth nothing unregistered.
That Korean Era M3 Grease Gun that uncle has up in his closet might be worth $20,000 as a transferrable, collectable registered machinegun- it's worth nothing unregistered.
As WWII vets make their departure from this world, a number of these weapons are coming to light from attics, closets and basements. The realitives are in posession of an immensely historical and tremeandously valuable object, but they are unable to register it due to the way the law is written.
This law allows these people to register these firearms in accordance with the laws that already govern them.
No, it doesn't mean that you have to go and register your deer rifle.
No, it doesn't mean that "all of a sudden" there is some new registry and we are heading headfirst down the slippery slope...
On the other side of the spectrum- to those against gun ownership, no, this won't affect "crime".
These people already posess these firearms and are doing nothing wrong with them. This bill simply allows them to comply with the law and retain an important family heirloom.
I apologize for getting windy, but I hope I cleared some of this up.
THIS BILL IS A GOOD THING!
PLEASE WRITE YOUR SENATORS ABOUT THIS!
IT TAKES ONE MINUTE TO MAKE A PHONE CALL.
DON'T BE AFRAID. TELL THEM THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS!
THIS BILL IS GOOD FOR US ALL!
Thanks for your time
Because in that chapter of the US Code, "firearm" means:
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term ''firearm'' shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
(b) Machinegun The term ''machinegun'' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. ...
e) Any other weapon The term ''any other weapon'' means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.
As posted above, this bill would protect veterans and their heirs from the not so tender mercies of the BATFE.
But that registry has existed since 1937, so this bill does not create it. It allows existing guns to be added to the registry, in lieu of letting the BATFE come in and stomp the kittens of their owners. Of course BAFTE has been known to come in shooting when the subject is machine guns. This law would help to keep that from happening to these veterans and their heirs.
I'm disappointed that you don't understand what the current laws are. Bad as the gun grabbers who think 20,000 laws (actually that's an old number, more now) indicate that guns are less regulated than teddy bears.
To repeat, this is not a new law, but rather an improvement and clarification of existing law, albeit one that is completely and totally unconstitutional.
Now that would be the right thing to do, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. The only way those laws are going away in our lifetimes is for the Supreme Court to get off it's a$$, hear a case involving the National Firearms Act and declare the whole shebang to be the violation of the second amendment that it clearly is. However that's not much more likely than Congress and a President doing it.
Which shows that you still don't understand the situation. If they dropped the "previous bills", that is the 1934 National Firearms Act, and the provision of the Firearms Owners Protection Act (slipped in at literally the last moment) which banned further registrations of newly manufactured or imported machine guns, there would be no need for this bill. And Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others might stop spinning in their graves. (I've heard tell that Philadelphia gets a good proportion of it's electricity from Franklin's twirling).
My father brought back a Japanese rifle from Guadalcanal in 1945, if he wills it to me and it is not registered, what may happen?
Welcome to FR.
No, this is NOT a good thing.
It will be 'reinterpreted', just like all the other bills measures and addendums.
Wanna try to tell me OTHERWISE?
If it is a machinegun or has a barrel shorter than 16 inches, if you get caught with it, you will go to FEDERAL PRISON and lose your right to vote and to own any kind of firearm.
If it is not fully automatic or has a barrel 16" or longer, then nothing, no big deal.
Look, before Richard explained what the bill did, you were railing against it and had *NO IDEA WHAT IT DID*. Not only no idea, but you believed it did something almost completely opposite of what it DOES do.
Our rights were taken away by incrementialism (Fabianism) and that is OUR BEST STRATEGY for getting them back.
THE BILL IS A GOOD THING. Of course I'd love to see the machinegun registry re-opened to EVERYONE but every little thing we can do is good. This bill was written by OUR SIDE, FOR US.
Say again?
Exqueeze me?
I read it, and it has lots of qiggle room.
Gun laws by nature are not a good idea, and this one has holes in it.
Take anotehr look, if you can't see them, you're blind.
Welcome to FR by the way.
You clearly still do not understand the CONTEXT of the bill, which self limits it's scope.
It is an EXCELLENT bill, not nearly as open and far reaching as I would like, but a great start of cleaning up the NFRTR mess.
Perhaps we are blind.
Please explain the wiggle room, point-by-point.
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.