I understand teh issue well.
What I don't like is the registering of guns and amnesty that in a few years at the whim of some beauracrat may turn out to NOT be amnesty.
Do I trust any politician to protect my rights?
No.
No matter their 'intent' or the 'context'.
They can nuance it to death and I don't care.
If they really want to use this to reform laws, they should show real reform and dump the laws this is supposed to reform FIRST.
If they did that, some of the language of the bill that gun grabbers could use would be less worrisome.
Such as the words "ANY" gun.. in there.
That would include an old Stevens .22 cal.
The only thing that ancient thing would be useful for would be plinking purple martins.
But under this bill it would have to be registered as people would generally inherit them.
And I can see the gun grabbers seing inherited guns like M-1 Garands and going "look at all the assault weapons!", then use the registry list as a one stop shopping list of people to persecute.
Gun Grabbers in NY have been salivating for just such a thing.
The Fed.gov, as bad as it is, has never gone back on a gun registration amnesty to my knowledge. If anyone has ever come forward during such an amnesty period and jumped through all of the hoops, they weren't - and to date HAVEN'T BEEN - prosecuted in any way.
Do I trust the gov't, at any level - NO.
But where are these people (the WW2 vets and their surviving families) now? Right now, they hold guns that are considered illegal by the fed.gov. IF the fed.gov knew about these guns, a big truck full are heavily armed BATFE agents would show up, kick down the door, kill all nearby animals, terrorize kids & old ladies, and shoot or beat most of the adult males. The amnesty would change that. The amnesty would allow these people to sleep better at night by legalizing the guns (again, according to the gov't, because I think that they are quite legal without the $200 tax stamp, etc.). The owners of some 200,000 legal machine guns now on the registry don't lose sleep at night worrying about a BATF raid, because they are legal.
I agree that the best thing would be to repeal the '34 NFA, so that we could all go to Wallyworld or Home Despot and buy MGs over the counter with no wait, no tax stamp and no letter from our nannies, errr, local police chiefs. HOWEVER, you are living in a dream world if you think that any such thing will happen any time soon. Again, we lost rights one slice at a time, and that's the only way that we'll ever get them back.
As to the language about "any gun," you have to look at what a "gun" (or, more accurately, "firearm") is under the statutes in question. It is NOT literally any firearm. It IS all of those firearms covered under the '34 NFA - i.e. any full auto gun, short barreled guns and destructive devices. THIS is where you simply DO NOT understand the law, or the proposed legislation.
FYI, Garands and the like won't be taken away. Too many people have "ordinary" semi-autos. That stuff may fly in NJ or CA, but it won't work in TX and the many like-minded states in between. Instead of guns, the feds would much more likely be collecting the bodies of their fellow agents, and I'd bet on a few state funerals for more prominent public employees.
I understand and sympathize with your feelings on this issue. I, too, despise gun control and those in government who have absconded with our liberties. However, you are simply mistaken. PLEASE read the proposed legislation and the relevant portions of the '34 NFA. No one here is so immature as to say "told 'ya, told 'ya, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah." We'll simply celebrate your newfound knowledge, and hopefully proceed from their to help get this bill passed - as the first step toward getting the NFA repealed at some point in the future.
Here, BTW, is the relevant text from the proposed statute:
"g) Definitions- For purposes of this section:
(1) AMNESTY PERIOD- The term `amnesty period' means the 90-day period beginning on the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) FIREARM- The term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986"
And here
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html
is the definition of "firearm" to which it SPECIFICALLY refers:
§ 5845. Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter—
(a) Firearm The term “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.
SEE, the bill in question is NOT talking about anything other than those guns already regulated under the '34 NFA - machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices and "silencers" (i.e. sound suppressors, the proper and more accurate term).
Why do you think that the Schumers and the Feinsteins aren't proposing or co-sponsoring this bill? They'll be opposing it, since it'll admit many tens of thousands of NFA weapons to the registry. Guns now illegal will be made legal and enter the marketplace - and these REALLY ARE machine guns, unlike the semi-autos that were (somewhat and sort of) banned between '94 and last year).
Your fear is groundless and unrealistic.
You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding this bill.
FACT. The NFRTR registration goes all the way back to 1934. Except for ATFE's losses of records, and book keeping errors, there have been virtually no confirmed instances of the NFRTR being used to prosecute the innocent, particularly for political purposes.
The NFRTR has NEVER been the basis for ANY large scale confiscation scheme!
What you are panicking over has only been done by individual states and cities, with no relation to the NFRTR.
FACT. A similar amnesty was held for thirty days in Dec. of 1968.
That amnesty was open to EVERYONE, not just veterans and their heirs.
The doom you claim to fear has not happened in the thirty-seven years since!
ATFE is currently engaged in institutional perjury via their continued claim's at trial's that the NFRTR is 100% accurate.
This bill would allow an opportunity to make corrections to the inaccurate NFRTR, as well as aiding our veterans and heirs who may own "unregistered" NFA items.
It just might also eventually lead to a legitimately run "general amnesty" for everyone, which is the only way that the errors in the NFRTR can ever be fully corrected.
Once the amnesties are done, and there is no resulting increase in NFA related crime we MIGHT be able to dump 922.(o), thus restoring a significant portion of our RKBA!
If this were used by the gun-grabbers, all they would have to do is smoke these arms out of the woodwork by promises of lucre (being able to sell them), and then register them. The person in authority who signs off on this is usually a local sherrif or police chief, iirc, so there will be a record at the local/state level also.
Then the State need only to pass a law prohibiting or severely restricting them and comes around to collect.
I'm with you.
While this may be a philosophical step in the right direction on the one hand, It is a wolf in sheep's clothing on the other.
Others here are not thinking in terms of how this would be used against the owners in the worst case, which could occur with a mere change in mamagement in D.C. or a statehouse near you.
Incremental reversals in infringement might be more palatable to some, but restoring our RKBA ot uninfringed status should not be a question of political palatability.
I am only seeing the carrot here, the stick must be hiding somewhere else.
Pass this law as an increment if it is the only way, but keep going to the next step. I don't have anything so nice in my toy box, but as far the folks who might have one of these little items lurking in the closet go, whether they wish to take advantage of the law is up to them.
If they haven't had their kitties stomped yet, they probably won't.