Repeal the NFA

[fred333]

Hopefully, I'm not broaching a subject that's been beaten to death previously (a quick search failed to turn up a similar thread), but it suddenly occurred to me that, instead of trying to hang onto those [inalienable] Second Amendment rights that haven't already been lost, why isn't there a movement to repeal the NFA, which has been infringing on the Second Amendment since 1934?

Had the colonists, who successfully fought the British army, not personally possessed muskets and cannons--the state-of-the-art weaponry of their day!--we'd still be English subjects today. So, logically, it only follows that the intent of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the American people the right to keep and bear the state-of-the-art in weaponry of today.

 

[DC-W]

There is.

Armed Citizens United is just one group that's targeted the NFA specifically.
https://armedcitizensunited.com/about/

 

[fred333]

Thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that group (some of Don Porter's (Sootch00) videos are very entertaining), but they kinda make my point. The ACU's Initiatives and Objectives cite a number of things they're involved in, which runs counter to what I'm posing. That is, to make repeal of the NFA, which is where most of the infringements on the Second Amendment began and is the point of reference that most gun control debates ultimately devolve into (i.e., "Next, you'll want everyone to have a machine gun, too!"....well, yeah, if they feel they need a machine gun, yes....that's the whole point of the Second Amendment), the sole initiative.

It just seems to me that the best defense is a good offense; and a simple, determined and single-minded front aimed at repeal of the NFA might be more powerful than trying to barter with liberal loons, who've already got the NFA precedent on their side.

 

[Rack&Roll]

The full-auto tax stamp was $200 in 1934 and it is still $200 today, thanks to political pressure that kept the Feds from upping it.

In today's dollars that 1934 tax stamp, accounting for inflation, is $3,531 in today's money. Maybe if the stamp cost had been allowed to rise with inflation there would have been an outcry that killed the NFA.

 

[PO2012]

Hopefully, I'm not broaching a subject that's been beaten to death previously (a quick search failed to turn up a similar thread), but it suddenly occurred to me that, instead of trying to hang onto those [inalienable] Second Amendment rights that haven't already been lost, why isn't there a movement to repeal the NFA, which has been infringing on the Second Amendment since 1934?

There isn't any substantive movement to repeal the National Firearms Act because the original intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that private citizens had access to state of the art military weaponry and only a very small percentage of the population today is comfortable with that idea.

As a nation we've become overconfident and complacent. We believe that no foreign power could ever invade our territory due to our perceived military superiority. What most fail to take into account is the fact that any nation strong enough to mount an invasion of the United States will also be a nuclear power and as such we aren't going to launch our nuclear arsenal at the first sign of an incursion since doing so would result in mutually assured destruction. The only way that we're going to respond to a conventional invasion with nuclear weapons is either a) as a last resort when defeat is perceived to be imminent or b) the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons on our own soil to blunt the enemy advance. Any power hostile to our interests and capable of mounting an invasion knows that we are not going to trigger a nuclear exchange as long as a conventional victory is possible. Such an enemy may also end up possessing the means to disable our early warning and nuclear retaliatory systems rendering a nuclear response impracticable. Bottom line: invasion is always a possibility no matter what people might like to think. The French believed that their Maginot Line was impregnable and found out the hard way that it was easily bypassed by a determined and well resourced enemy. If an invasion of the United States is ever mounted ever able bodied citizen will be needed to turn the enemy back. Without military grade weapons in the hands of private citizens resisting an invasion by a foreign power will be extremely difficult. Tens of millions of citizen riflemen defending their home soil will inflict a massive number of casualties on an enemy whose supply lines are long and fragile, casualties that will be hard to replace. Most folks don't think in these terms, though. In their minds our military is invincible and anyone who gives more than a passing thought to the role of the militia in the event of an attack is a nutjob. They're wrong on both counts and their hubris will cost us all dearly in the century to come.

The single biggest reason that very few people are agitating to repeal the NFA is because most people are extremely uncomfortable, often to the point of hysteria, when it comes to discussing the subject of violent resistance to governmental abuse. The general feeling in this country today is that if the Supreme Court says it's okay (or refuses to hear the case) then you just have to suck it up and take your licks, no matter how outrageous the government's behavior. Murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, torture - if inflicted by a private person most Americans would have no problem resisting in some form or fashion. When inflicted by government, however, you'll find that most Americans are afflicted by a form of learned helplessness. It's beaten into Americans' heads these days that there is nothing worse than "anarchy" or "vigilantism" and that you're better off suffering terrible oppression at the hands of your government than abolishing it by force. To get the NFA repealed is going to require that we have an honest discussion in this country about the right of revolution which was at one time almost universally acknowledged by every American but has now become a taboo subject not to be discussed or to be dismissed out of hand. Violent revolution should always be regarded as a last resort, an action to be undertaken only when all other means have failed and government corruption or oppression has reached dangerous levels. Possession of fully automatic weapons is crucial to successfully engaging in armed revolt. Trying to convince the average American that the NFA should be repealed so that he can arm himself in preparation for the day when it may be necessary to kill Soldiers, Police Officers and government officials, however, is a tricky proposition. Most Americans refuse to consider the idea that the conditions which existed in Nazi Germany, Communist China, North Korea or the Soviet Union could ever take hold here in the United States. Until you can get the majority of voters to agree that there is a right to revolution under certain narrowly defined circumstances and that it is fundamentally important to prepare as individuals for that potential eventuality any attempt to repeal the NFA will meet with defeat. The Second Amendment has been construed as being about fighting off muggers and hunting wild game when neither had anything to do with the Amendment's passage. Neither one of those justifications is going to get you a repeal of the NFA, only widespread acceptance of the Second Amendment's original purpose will do that.

For what it's worth, I support repealing (or striking down) the NFA. The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to own a machine gun. Sadly, most folks don't agree. If only Miller had been decided differently.

 

[Brooklyn]

The nfa as is is venerable. But its much to soon to try. You will loose and you will loose big.

Proceed at your own risk. But I am not going there until after we have a standard of review.

 

[fred333]

Venerable? The NFA's about as venerable as a load of old crap. But, unlike old crap, the NFA still stinks.
Too soon to try to repeal a(n unconstitutional) law that's been on the books for 80 years? Really? It's so old it qualifies for C&R status.

 

[Brooklyn]

Venerable? The NFA's about as venerable as a load of old crap. But, unlike old crap, the NFA still stinks.
Too soon to try to repeal a(n unconstitutional) law that's been on the books for 80 years? Really? It's so old it qualifies for C&R status.

You can kill it in court faster than via congress. If you try you will rally our opposition and make it even harder to get good bills though congress. The time to repeal it has past. Like it or not we need moderates to back the play-- they will not, but under SS or IS a good deal of it can go away. then when the world does not end, we can go for repeal of the rest.

Or you can go hail mary on it. I will be playing the long slow game.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Every American currently has an inalienable right to a Slide Fire stock. Basically as much full auto as your barrel and an ammo box can handle. Pay cash at a gun show and only The Shadow Knows….

 

[Indiana Jones]

The nfa as is is venerable. But its much to soon to try. You will loose and you will loose big.

Proceed at your own risk. But I am not going there until after we have a standard of review.

Every American currently has an inalienable right to a Slide Fire stock. Basically as much full auto as your barrel and an ammo box can handle. Pay cash at a gun show and only The Shadow Knows….

Hence the reason MD passed SB281. Comfortable, complacent, cowardice.


Sent from the Bantu Wind using Tapatalk.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Hence the reason MD passed SB281. Comfortable, complacent, cowardice.


Sent from the Bantu Wind using Tapatalk.

IJ in NoCo…don't misunderstand…I want the NFA gone as much as anybody, but the Slide Fire is available by lunchtime tomorrow, whereas the NFA will likely be around thru the end of the month, at least. Just saying...

 

[Biggfoot44]

Why was NFA not fought against for so long ? Because everyone had fresh memories that the final version of the NFA was a major Victory for gun owners.

The intention of the Anti's was for the regations and tax stamps to be in effect for ALL handguns. And they actually had good chances to pull it off. The valiant efforts of progun citizens , the NRA , and the USRA , were able to trim it back to only the machineguns and present items.
Yes the NFA is silly and illogical. If it had passed in origional form , it actually would have been much more logically consistant.

Yes , it is stupid , pointless , set bad presecendents , and just plain bad. And of course it would be an improvement if it had never happened. But it will never be repealed on a political basis. Tweaked and reformed barely possable , repealed never. ( Overturned is possable , repeal is not. )

 

[Brooklyn]

Hence the reason MD passed SB281. Comfortable, complacent, cowardice.


Sent from the Bantu Wind using Tapatalk.

I wish you well in Colorado by the way.

 

[ericoak]

I'd be happy if they repealed/found the Hughes amendment to be invalid.

 

[Indiana Jones]

I wasnt trying to be a dick but after gaining a wider perspective of how the fight is fought elsewhere, I realize just how meek and ineffective the movement is in MD. Travel has brought me through many of my neighboring states and they just do it differently. They threaten, congregate, show up at politicians homes with signs, illegal open carry rallies... They make it personal. DEFIANCE is the way to win. Worked here. 30rd mags "cant be sold here". EVERY gunshop carries them, drums, and surefire 100s. Suits and emails dont work after a while and THAT is my point. Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming should be studied. The knee jerk stuff the libs in Denver passed last year are LITERALLY unenforced in 90% of the state. Hell there was a Deputy in uniform buying a surefire mag in front of me last week when I got my lower. The underground/ grassroots movements there are astounding in their audacity. The MD movement is flat out pussified. It took my traveling for work and such and speaking with dozens of shop owners and our very own County Sheriff to come to this conclusion. Hell his pictures are hanging in gun shops with a signature on it. No new laws are enforced, and he was a major influence in the recall.

Bottom line of my opinion: unless yall get mean, you wont get anywhere. Suits and letters are no longer useful.


Thanks for the well wishes.


Sent from the Bantu Wind using Tapatalk.

 

[Bob A]

We have less to worry about a foreign invader than about the co-opting and corruption of the government by the very wealthy, an asymmetric process that has been under way for some time.

The Bloombergs and Soroses of the world have long been invested in gun control. Internet billionaires buy up land by the square mile in places like Montana. Larry Ellison of Oracle owns a Hawaiian island. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

So long as they can continue milking the country for wealth, and things remain orderly, all will be OK. But if the government for which they pay so much comes under attack from within, and seem likely to destabilise the golden goose, then we'll see who runs America. (Hint: it ain't the so-called Commander-in-Chief).

 

[Pinecone]

NFA was not too onerous, until the late 80s when they banned all new machine guns. Up to that time, you could build or modify to make a machine gun, paying your $200 on the way.

But now, unless it was registered prior to the late 80s, you are SOL.

 

[abean4187]

A complete repeal isn’t going to happen anytime soon. While I have read no polling data, I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of America is fine and actually encourages laws against anyone owning fully automatic weapons and personal explosives. A good portion of America wants to ban “Assault Weapons” so I have a feeling we are going to have to change a lot of minds on that before we change the laws to allow ourselves to purchase grenades.

We need to do this in increments. Let’s work on national concealed carry, legal suppressors, and legal short barreled rifles first before we go after the big fish.

 

[L0gic]

Little by little. One component that you must file paperwork before moving your NFA item between States should already have been challenged and struck down because that part alone violates your right to move about freely within the US of A.

Also any State ordinance that bans NFA items should be challenged and struck down under the same ruling since that restricts my right to move to any State I want without undue burden.

There was already a precedent for this too, all be it on another topic. I don't remember the full details, but a fellow wanted to move to another State and immediately get unemployment benefits. The State challenged it saying he had to be a resident for at least a year before he would qualify, so he sued on the grounds that requiring him to live there for at least a year to get the benefits went against his Constitutional Right to move about freely. I tried my Google-Fu but couldn't find the specifics.

 

[Bagpiperer]

NFA was not too onerous...

Except for the part where $200 in 1934 was the equivalent of about $3,500 today.

They intended it to be a sin tax so exorbitant that none of the peons would ever be able to pay it. There is no doubt that the purpose was to disarm the public by increments, and that public safety was a distant afterthought. If, at the time, they could have gotten away with a similar tax on handguns, they would have.

Combine that with a Supreme Court cowed by F.D.R.'s threats to pack the bench and absent defense counsel, and you have the Miller precedent that gun control is constitutional.