Do you want to own a legal Machinegun?

[Alaskacajun]

If so, you may be interested in a thread that is going on over at AR15.com concerning the possiblity of getting the NFA turned over so we can legally own machineguns manufactured after May of 1986.

If you aren't familiar with the inner workings of the NFA and the legal ownership of MG's, suppressors, short barreled rifles(SBR's), and Any Other Weapon's (AOW's) you should stop in there and start to read. This could be a chance for us to take our rights back.

In short what is happening is that the ATF sent out a letter recently that states that a "Gun Trust" is NOT considered an "individual"... some crafty gun owners took this as an opportunity to submit a Form 1 on a gun trust in an attempt to get a legal MG made after May of 1986. Well some of the form 1's got stamped and returned approved to those individuals.

The ATF discovered their mistake and contacted these individuals and demanded that they return the stamps. These gun owners sought legal council and now they are beginning the process of not only making the ATF approve MG's on gun trusts but possibly even turning the NFA over.

I never thought I would ever see the day that someone would challenge the "Hughes amendment" but here we are ladies and gentlemen. This is the moment that we have all been waiting for. Let's get this information out there, tell all of your friends and fellow gun owners. There will soon come a time when we can invest in this effort financially, we are going to need a lot of people involved to get this thing pushed through. Let's do this thing! I want a beltfed!

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/162...14.html&page=1

- Clint

[Mobius]

Fascinating! It will be very interesting to see this develop over the next few years. Especially given the potential for a badly stacked court before it makes it there.

[gunbugs]

I doubt this will pan out. I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, BUT, the simple argument can be made that the Form 1's were issued in error and are invalid. Also, an error by ATF can not be used to circumvent the May '86 ban on manufacture. Simple, but probably effective arguments. Best wishes to the plaintiffs, hope they have DEEP pockets. I'll just keep filing Form 4's on pre '86 stuff.

[northwoods]

It will never happen! It's a novel concept, but will never take any substantial footing. There are way to many pro gun investors that stand to lose lots of money for it to ever go anywhere. Once upon a time title two/class 3 inventory was ranked third from Forbes as an investment.

[Mobius]

I doubt this will pan out. I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, BUT, the simple argument can be made that the Form 1's were issued in error and are invalid. Also, an error by ATF can not be used to circumvent the May '86 ban on manufacture. Simple, but probably effective arguments. Best wishes to the plaintiffs, hope they have DEEP pockets. I'll just keep filing Form 4's on pre '86 stuff.

Forgive my intrusion, but I think you're missing the point. The lawsuit isn't an attack on the ATF and this process. It's an attack on the NFA law at it's core. Sure the ATF can just say they made a mistake. This lawsuit seeks to attack the validity of the law they are basing the process on. Until now, no one has really dared to make the argument because there wasn't a large enough pool of people with money enough to fight. What's happened is the ATF exposed a blunder and in doing so essentially created a pool of people that had standing to sue. Now the lawsuit can become a class action suit with hundreds of plaintiffs instead of one guy who got caught breaking a law.

Bascially, this is the first real challenge to the 1968 NFA law. And the issue here is that SCOTUS has precedent set in other cases that lean toward nullifying the law. The big one is that SCOTUS has ruled previously that firearms that are "commonly in use" by the military are the intent of the 2nd amendment. A select fire M4 (M16, or whatever) is certainly commonly in use. This blunder by the ATF opens up the chance to finally take it to court.

Not saying they will win in the end, but it's first time it's ever even been challenged. It could be HUGE.

[northwoods]

There could be major consequences for challenging NFA legislation. It is truly remarkable how many pro gun enthusiasts have very little knowledge about class 3 NFA weaponry and the immediate reaction is "why do you need that". If the public actually knew you can legally purchase a machine gun and suppressors on a trust without a back ground check, how well would this go over if put to a vote in congress? I wonder if this is some other fast and furious dupe being purported and put on by the justice department to draw out a fight?

[GrassLakeRon]

MG 42 would make my squirrel issue much better.

[Mobius]

^^^ A very valid point.

I wonder if it would matter though. Sure Congress can make a law, but if NFA is deemed unconstitutional on the basis that commonly used military weapons are the core, what law could they make to stop it?

UPDATE, GrassLakeRon, ya just had to sneak in there and make my reference look stupid... LOL. The valid point was meant to point to northwoods post.

[tccak71]

The turds in Congress would find some loophole to limit it to semi-autos or something; rights are not absolute. However, I for one would love to see full restoration of gun rights, instead of being treated like a criminal.

[northwoods]

The turds in Congress would find some loophole to limit it to semi-autos or something; rights are not absolute. However, I for one would love to see full restoration of gun rights, instead of being treated like a criminal.

Yes, I agree!!

[northwoods]

MG 42 would make my squirrel issue much better.

I would like an M134 for squirrels here!

[Smitty of the North]

Owning fully automatic weapon is not important to me, but I don't think they should be restricted.

I've no problem with repealing a Gun Law, since the most of them accomplish nothing of value anyway.

However, I would think that there are OTHER more IMPORTANT gun laws that need to be rescinded. I'm sick of having to jump through hoops just to be a gun owner.

Smitty of the North

[GrassLakeRon]

^^^ A very valid point.

I wonder if it would matter though. Sure Congress can make a law, but if NFA is deemed unconstitutional on the basis that commonly used military weapons are the core, what law could they make to stop it?

UPDATE, GrassLakeRon, ya just had to sneak in there and make my reference look stupid... LOL. The valid point was meant to point to northwoods post.

To be honest, I couldn't afford to shoot one. You know when congress or scotus gets done it could end up much worse. Its funny, a Chinese ak fully auto is $11000. The gun new was $250 with a $30 conversion. In africa at a street bazaar is $50. I will never pay $11000 or more for fully auto.

[rbuck351]

I'm not overly concerned about machine guns either but making a suppressor without a stamp would be neat. Shooting my hand guns without ear muffs would be great. Getting a machinegun if you really needed one would be easy by making someone else that has one not need his any more.

[Mobius]

To be honest, I couldn't afford to shoot one. You know when congress or scotus gets done it could end up much worse. Its funny, a Chinese ak fully auto is $11000. The gun new was $250 with a $30 conversion. In africa at a street bazaar is $50. I will never pay $11000 or more for fully auto.

If you think about it, if NFA is no longer valid, the entire investment industry for pre-1986 machine guns becomes irrelevant. If I can legally buy a newly made full auto rifle, why spend $11,000 for a 30 yr old AK? I think the guys who spent $50,000 on that pre-1986 M-16 and then safed it stand to lose a LOT of money. Assuming NFA get's over turned.

BUT, I'm with rbuck on this one. If NFA get's overturned, I can go buy a $300 suppressor at Fred Meyer and not pay a $200 stamp and wait for 9 months (or whatever the wait is now) and not be subject to opening my life to the ATF. (Slight exaggeration, but not much)