Ravenwood - 09/12/05 06:30 AM
Watching the police and military go house to house with machineguns forcing the people of New Orleans to leave, has made me think more about the 1986 ban on automatic firearms for civilians. I was worried though that by coming right out and calling for the repeal of long standing gun control laws, people would make me out to be some sort of anarchist gun nut. Especially since even many gun owners draw the line at civilian ownership of automatics. So before I put my thoughts into writing, I decided to search the interweb to see who else had taken a similar stance.
Enter Publicola, who earlier this year presciently covered the subject:
The NFA imposes registration under the guise of taxation for certain items which the people have a Right to possess. Short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, fully automatic firearms & sound suppressors all require a prohibitive tax. Fully automatic weapons are further forced into a three tiered classification system which artificially distorts their value (registered pre-68, post 68, or contraband). Having access to martial arms is the primary purpose of the 2n Article of the Bill of Rights. Fully automatic firearms as well as short barreled long guns are being used by the military & police & therefore should not be prohibited or restricted for civilian use. Sound suppressors are one of the most useful user-safety devices ever made for a firearm & should be encouraged, not prohibitively taxed. A straight repeal of the NFA would not only benefit the physical health of those who practice with firearms but it would benefit the moral health of the nation as people were not deemed untrustworthy to own the very weapons the government supplies its agents with.I think it's a good plan, but I would take the baby steps approach. First up would be to eliminate the ATF's prohibitive taxation and registration scheme on short barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors. Suppressors (called silencers by the ignorant masses) muffle a gun's report. Not only do they keep shooters from going deaf, but they would reduce the noise pollution coming from gun ranges. Gun grabbers have been attacking gun ranges for the noise they produce, so it's hypocritical for them to not support de-regulation of devices that muffle the noise. Short barreled shotguns and rifles are also pretty much a no brainer. They function the same as regular guns, they're just.. well.. shorter.Legally this would be a push over if we could find a string of honest judges from the circuit level to SCOTUS. Sadly this is not usually the case so legislative means would probably be our best bet. Not ideal because a legislature can re-enact a law as easily as it repeals it whereas a court decision would nullify that law until another court disagreed. The judicial route would be harder to travel but much harder to backslide on if we're successful.
Public opinion would be perhaps the hardest part. Hell, even us gun nuts go to great lengths to differentiate between "assault weapons" & machineguns. The average Joe might be convinced that semi-auto's aren't bad but may still think that full auto's are evil. This is where PR comes into play.
What we have to do is fight umpteen years of government school indoctrination reinforced by the MSM. We can do this by asking a very simple question, "Why does the soldier have a firearm that the citizen cannot possess?" Now it's not entirely true that citizens cannot possess the same arms that the military issues, but it is true if said firearm was made after 1986. & there's a great burden placed on the citizen in order to possess a pre-86 machinegun.
Now if those people you ask the question to try to say that there's a difference between military & civilian needs ask them what exactly that is. Fighting wars? A citizen may be called to do just that. But perhaps a better example would be that in house to house fighting the soldier has fully automatic firearms at his disposal, yet we're limited to semi-automatics for defending our home against unlawful invasion. If it's effective for the military then why isn't it effective for the citizen? If they counter with a machinegun being too dangerous then ask why it's not too dangerous for a soldier. After all soldiers operate with other soldiers around them & sometimes in front of them so if a fully automatic firearm was too dangerous because it'd hurt innocent bystanders then why arm a soldier with one when he could hit his companions?
It can be argued. It won't be easy. & it doesn't get easier the longer we wait.
The short barreled long guns position should be a little easier since police are the most prolific users of said implements. Bringing up the market for short barreled shotguns among shop keepers & such prior to 1934 will help illustrate their usefulness as defensive arms. But to sure to include a brief summary on short barreled shotguns not spraying an entire room with shot. They're actually weaker than a longer barreled shotgun & the pattern wouldn't open up much more than a longer barreled gun inside of 15 yards.
Sound suppressors should be easiest since they provide a noticeable benefit to the shooter - they reduce the onset of hearing damage. The idea that they'll be used in untraceable murders is absurd since anyone wanting to commit such an act silently can improvise one, buy one illegally or use a knife.
Before tackling ATF registration of machineguns, I would first try to repeal the ban on new manufacture for civilians. This is the 1986 law that says new guns can't be sold the same way as the old guns. It effectively caps the supply and causes the price of the available guns to skyrocket. For instance an automatic AR-15 that *should* cost $1200 ends up costing $12,000 because they can't make any new ones to meet retail demand. A huge hurdle for repealing the ban would be that many NFA enthusiasts may not support it. People who have tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in NFA guns may not want to see the price of their guns go south. At one point Forbes listed NFA automatics as a top 5 investment vehicle. After getting new manufacture reinstated, I would begin to work on repealing the ATF's taxation and registration scheme for automatics.
The arguments for repealing it all are both Constitutionally and logically sound. The Founding Fathers did not intend for the government to have heavily armed standing armies among a mostly disarmed populace. Yet here we are with not only military, but local and state police forces with a full arsenal of automatic firearms, body armor, and armored vehicles.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George WashingtonRestoring our freedom is not going to be easy. It is going to take years of hard work and determination. Gun grabbers have never been ones to listen to logic or reason. Furthermore, the average gun owner or hunter probably doesn't care a hill of beans about automatics. But if we don't take that first step, we're never ever going to get there."What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
Category: Cold Dead Hands
Comments (34) top link me
Whoa. Are you kidding?
Posted by: mikem at September 12, 2005 9:10 AMKidding about which part?
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 12, 2005 9:17 AMAny of it.
Posted by: mikem at September 12, 2005 9:23 AMNo. I'm not kidding.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 12, 2005 9:27 AMI for one agree with you.
For the life of me I can't even get my gun enthusiast friends to see it this way though. Not that I'll give up trying to convince them. The arguements you've posted here will help me a little.
Posted by: hillkillr at September 12, 2005 10:00 AMThe government should never be better armed than the populace. This was the entire point of the second amendment to our constitution. The founders understood (and had just experienced) why this was necessary.
A disarmed populace is the first step in government abuse.
Posted by: Wesley at September 12, 2005 10:07 AMWell, the ironic aspect of the point of view you cite is that you are reinforcing the logic of gun grabbers by 'finding' that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow "martial arms", rather than just self defense. No one is going to accept that our founding fathers meant for each citizen to have the means to wage war, but that is what you are implying. However, such a reading certainly dovetails nicely with the idea of a 2nd Amendment that is meant only to provide "martial arms" for purposes of a "well regulated militia", now doesn't it? Self defense, no. Waging war, yes. It actually makes both parts of the 2nd flow together nicely for gun grabbers.
I am a pretty hardcore gun rights advocate, by my reckoning, and I think you not only don't make sense, especially common sense, but that you do a disservice to gun rights. But then again, I don't mind the idea of registering weapons, or providing a ballistic sample. I figure it is a reasonable crime fighting tool and am not at all anticipating going to war against my country or local police force or using my weapons in crimes.
The silencer (I'm one of the ignorant masses) logic is so specious as to be laughable. Suddenly what is OK for a 100 million trained soldiers is 'injurious' to the weekend shooter? Use ear protection. That is what we did at the range. A silenced weapon is only antimacassar to the sniper and assassin, not to the law abiding citizen defending his home and family. And not to the common soldier, obviously.
I could go on, and I probably will later. But WTF??
Antimacassar?
Posted by: Thibodeaux at September 12, 2005 10:32 AM"Antimacassar?"
Yeah, I LMAO at my own post when I saw that. I figured the context suffised, but to be clear, I meant to type necessary. (I have no idea.)
PS: It was a shareware version of Word that auto 'corrected' my misspelling of necessary.
For the record:
Antimacassar
n : a piece of ornamented cloth that protects the back of chair from hair oils.
Posted by: mikem at September 12, 2005 10:51 AMYeah, I looked it up, but I was wondering if maybe it had some other meaning.
Posted by: Thibodeaux at September 12, 2005 11:13 AMI'm with you, Ravenwood. Also, FWIW, I've never seen any comments from NFA collectors indicating that they wouldn't want to see '86 repealled. Maybe I'm just hanging out with the right crowd, but they all like full auto so much they want *more* of it. Once '86 is gone, they'll get ten times as much for their money. :)
Another potential baby step to consider would be requiring the ATF to process transfer paperwork in under 60 or 90 days. As it stands, they take forever, and what the hell are they doing with the time, anyways? Just call the instant-check people and get it over with.
Posted by: Jay Kominek at September 12, 2005 12:26 PMMike,
You are aware that sound supressors are legal and unregulated in most of Europe? You may have a point that only assassins use "silencers" because all the assassins in movies seem to have a European accent.
I would love to get a suppressed .22 and set up a bullet trap down my main hallway, living in the mountains with no near by range means I can't shoot much in the winter.
Posted by: Brass at September 12, 2005 12:59 PMBallistic samples (or ballistic fingerprints) are not "reasonable crime fighting tools". They plain don't work. Total waste of taxpayer dollars.
mikem:
80 years of compromise and reasonableness have gotten us into the dire situation we are in today.
Being reasonable gets us nothing.
If the Brady bunch is fighting with us over repealing the NFA, they will not have time to be pushing new registration schemes, or call for bans because a firearm shoots to big a bullet, or too small of one, or whatever new bullshit they can cook up.
The NFA became reasonable because the 1934 version of the NRA was fool enough to roll over at the time.
The fracas at Lexington and Concord was started over John Hancock buying the town militia a pair of cannon. We have fallen quite a ways since then.
Mikem,
From the views you expressed you're nota hardcore gun rights advocate. Maybe compared to someone who wants to ban everything, but unqualified you should use another term to describe how you feel.
The 2nd amendment was to ensure the people had martial arms. It was not about hunting or sport shooting, it was about self defense, not just against unorganized criminals, but against government. In other words the framers wanted to be sure you had an M-16 (shudder - I'm sure they would have preferred M1A's) if the average soldier or cop had one. They probably assumed that self defens eagainst burglars & robbers was so accepted that it didn't need reinforcement through an amendment, or that the 2nd could be viewed in that light as well. But its primary purpose was to make sure that you weren't outgunned by the government. It did this by saying that the people (i.e. individual citizens) would not be disarmed.
So your idea that if the 2nd protects martial arms it must be a collective right is, well, poorly reasoned. Martial arms & indiviaul Rights are not mutually eclusive ideas. In fact the leading court case (which is constantly ignored or twisted) is US v Miller, which fins that arms with a martial use are the objects of protection. & since I know of no firearms that could not have a martial use in a militia capacity I can't say I disagree.
Short barrled shotguns, machine guns, even suppressors have their place in military life. They should not be heavily restricted for civilians.
& suppressors - look, the BS about them being preferred by assasins is simply BS. Can you point to any hit man who didn't have a problem with murder but was afraid to break the law regarding suppressors? Now conversely can you point to any shooters (I mean regular shooters, not once a year for kicks) who never say "huh?" even though you speak clearly? A suppresor is a very useful safety item. Ear protection - why should it be limited to little pieces of foam you insert into an orifice?
Registration, ballistic samples, etc... the arguments against them are too numerous to go into. I will mention this - ever hear of the Slippery Slope theory?
As for not fighting your government (you said "country" but I hope you recognize the distinction) or the cops - you must be real glad you're not in New orleans right now. They've been going house to hous stealing the people's guns. I & a few other folks wouldn't find that "reasonable' at all, so the idea that you'd never be in a position where self defense from your government or its agents is - well it's not veyr realistic. It's not real damn likely that most folks will find themselves in that situation, but it's not implausible either.
So sir, I would submit that if you advocate registration coupled with denying the people martial arms it is you who does a disservice to gun owners, & that you have not learned the lessons that history has provided & the framers tried to point out.
Posted by: Publicola at September 12, 2005 5:36 PMRavenwood,
Maybe I'm just ornery, but I think going for an outright repeal of the NFA would be the best way to go. If nothing else we could make the anti's start compromising into submission. But start at the root instead of fiddling with certain branches.
"So your idea that if the 2nd protects martial arms it must be a collective right is, well, poorly reasoned."
Maybe, maybe not. But it sure fits in with the gun grabber's point of view. Clearly a reading of the "right to bear arms" as refering to martial (war making) arms comes down on the side of a "militia" view. I am not as "hardcore" as you, obviously. But I believe that 'reasonable' gun banning, like in my neighboring Washington DC, is not only unresaonable, considering the crime rate, but blatantly unconstitutional. On the other hand, registration and samples don't bother me because I am a law and order type guy also. Red Dawn scenarios where registration lists are used to round up patriots is too far fetched for me and most Americans.(Don't even bring up NO. It didn't happen. They confiscated [wrongly] what arms they saw and not off a list.)
The right to own the means to quickly kill another person, and from a good distance at that, carries the obligation to be reasonable about law and order issues that prevent the bad guys from misusing our individual rights. That, more than claiming a right to war making arms and sinister craftwork like silencers, will preserve our rights. If anything you provide the grabbers with their own logical version of the slippery slope. ("Let them keep arms and they'll demand guns and tanks!")
Mike M,
Confiscation has already occured several times in this country. California and New York have both used registration lists to later confiscate firearms. California recently classified a previously acceptable .22 handgun an "assault weapon" and advised owners to either modify or dispossess the gun or face confiscation.
Cook County Illinois is currently mulling "assault weapon" legislation that's not only tougher than the federal ban that expired, but calls for the confiscation of guns currently owned by law-abiding citizens of Cook County, Illinois. What's more, Chicago has already used expired FOID records to show up at people's homes and confiscate their guns because they let their registration lapse.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 12, 2005 7:39 PMI have no doubt that your examples are true, given your reputation. But they are not Red Dawn scenarios or even NO. They are examples of municipalities using registration to implement unconstitutional or bad laws. That doesn't make registration itself improper or anti- "gun rights". Just ask the American people who generally support gun rights but also gun registration.
Posted by: mikem at September 12, 2005 7:54 PMAnd they are disarming the citizens of New Orleans so why are the forcing them out of their homes? is this americas gaza?
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 12, 2005 10:37 PMI refuse to ask fools their opinions about anything important to me.
Registration serves no use except to harrass citizens. It is certainly useless for the purpose of preventing criminals from arming themselves.
Repeal all gun control laws i mean all of them and that includes the GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 and the BRADY GUN LAW we dont need any gun control laws just politician control laws
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 13, 2005 4:26 PMOn Registration:
Actually, criminals cannot be compelled to register. Since it is already illegal for convicts to own guns, making them register is a violation of their Fifth Amendment protection.
So, by definition only law abiding citizens are required to register.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 13, 2005 4:58 PMWe gotta be reasonable, people. The tide is on our side. Now is not the time to demand the right to arm ourselves as soldiers and militia. That just scares the hell out of people and plays right into gungrabber's hands. It will just start the swing back the other way.
I don't want my neighbor to own the means to start a war against my government. I do want him or her to have the means to defend themselves against criminals. Work on changing existing gun bans, like in DC, and you will be doing a greater service to gun rights.
mikem,
I think you read too much into the NFA.
First, it is my assertion that automatic firearms are not sufficient to wage a war against the government.
Second, assuming you disagree with that and still consider automatic firearms to be "weapons of war", the NFA already provides a legal means to own them. If you can afford the gun, pay the tax, fill out the paperwork, and wait 4 to 6 months, you too can own an NFA firearm. So even with the NFA in full force, you still have the ability to "start a war" against the government.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 13, 2005 6:21 PMI use that, means to wage war (your weapons of war), because 'you guys' specifically used "martial arms" and the ability to outfight a respressive government's armed forces as the real meaning of the 2nd. It is you guys that dragged that whole 'war fighting civilians' capability into this discussion and it seems ironic that I am now charged with being over the top for citing it several times.
I have no problems with licensed dealers owning fully automatic weapons. I never have. That doesn't mean I must be OK with everyone being free to own them to not be a hypocrite.
mikem,
Like I said, all law abiding citizens (people who haven't lost their rights) are already free to own NFA firearms. There is just a huge paperwork mess and price/supply meddling going on by the .gov, which purposely discourages ownership.
So I don't have to be a licensed dealer to own machine guns? (I'm not familiar with NFA.) Has that changed in recent years? Or is the 'paperwork' part of the process of becoming a licensed dealer?
Posted by: mikem at September 13, 2005 7:17 PMNo, you do not have to be a licensed dealer.
When the gun is sold, you must apply for a $200 transfer tax stamp which takes about 6 months to process. It is a one-time tax payable per firearm (or per suppressor), and is non transferrable. If you sell the gun, the buyer must pay the tax again. If you buy more than one gun, you must pay the tax on each gun and process them individually. Furthermore, you take possession of the gun after the paperwork comes back.
Anyone with a clean record that is willing to go through all that, and can afford it, can legally own an NFA class 3 transferrable firearm.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 13, 2005 7:31 PMWow, did not know that. But I wonder what they accept as "legal neccessity". (I googled nfa class 3 firearm since you mentioned suppresser and gun, and saw the legal necessity requirement).
Posted by: mikem at September 13, 2005 9:30 PM
Any lawful purpose will do. There is no real justification requirement.
Posted by: Ravenwood at September 13, 2005 10:02 PMWhen I made a Galil into a full auto back in 1984 on a BATF From 1, the reason I put down was "Recreation".
Posted by: Kristopher at September 14, 2005 2:10 PMRegester politicians not guns start by registering that bald jackass nagin to see if he has a backbone and any brains
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 18, 2005 2:35 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
