Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Veterans' Heritage Firearms Act of 2005, H.R. 2088
NFA Owners Association, Thomas Register. ^ | 5/7/05 | Richard Brengman

Posted on 05/07/2005 12:40:33 PM PDT by Richard-SIA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
All RKBA supporters please review the list of cosponsors supporting this bill!

If your rep. is listed PLEASE call or fax them with your thanks, even if this is the only time they have ever done the "right" thing for us.

It is as important to reward our reps when they do support us as it is to punish them when they do not.

If they are NOT on the above list please call or fax them with your request that they become a bill supporter ASAP.

Civility is a MUST, even if they respond in a negative manner. Asking for a written reply helps to ensure your request will actually be considered and not ignored.

Additional back round on this issue is posted to the NFAOA site under "Bills in congress". More hints on effective lobbying are available on the NFAOA site under "Activism".

I had a hard time formatting this post for some reason, you may find it easier to read at NFAOA.

1 posted on 05/07/2005 12:40:36 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

Are you saying this is a good bill?

How is registering anything good?


2 posted on 05/07/2005 12:49:35 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (I leave reason and good manners to those that have them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; Travis McGee; Squantos; RKBA Democrat; Dead Corpse; Darksheare; Dawsonville_Doc

?

I can't force myself to wade through the legaleze today... is this a good idea or no?


3 posted on 05/07/2005 12:49:55 PM PDT by King Prout (blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

No.
BAD idea, as it starts a gun registry of any firearms that veterans may have brought home from war.
That way, tehy can 'oops' teh amnesty and confiscate the EEEee-vil 'assault weapons', regardless of them being old WWII vintage 7 or 8 shot bangers.


4 posted on 05/07/2005 12:53:16 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
Good afternoon.

Thanks, but I think I'll pass. The only right thing the .gov can do regarding 2nd amendment issues is to repeal most of the laws passed since 1932.

Registration is a bad idea, no matter what the bill is supposed to accomplish or who the sponsors are.

Michael Frazier
5 posted on 05/07/2005 12:59:55 PM PDT by brazzaville (No surrender,no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I thought the RKBA supporting denizens of this board would be much more familiar with the VHFA, the sorry state of ATFE's existing registration records (NFRTR), and the plight of our veterans in regards to their War Trophy firearms.

To elucidate.

This is an EXCELLENT bill, in fact it's passage may be critical to preserving our RKBA and reforming ATFE abuses of law abiding citizens in the long run.

The ONLY guns to be registered under this bill are real MACHINE GUNS that our veterans who have served overseas brought back as war trophies.
It has no effect on standard Title 1 guns or politically defined "assault weapons".

Many veterans think their trophies are already registered, but ATFE has been very inconsistent on recognizing the War Trophy papers as legal NFA registration documents.
This legislation would allow for re-registration, and registration of previously unregistered trophies, removing any doubt as to the veterans (or heirs) legal ownership of very valuable personal property.

As a dealer in full-auto arms I frequently get request for appraisals of such guns.
It is sickening to have to tell a seriously ill veteran that without proof that his trophy is registered with ATFE I cannot so much as touch it, much less appraise or broker it for him.
These guys risked everything to defend America, now most of them are elderly and ill, yet ATFE continues to seek them out for the purpose of taking their valuable property from them for destruction, and possible prosecution of the veteran.

Perhaps the back round on this issue is too complex for full discussion here.
I suggest visiting the NFAOA site and perusing the many post there for more information.

Bottom line, this is an EXCELLENT bill that will be a great service to our veterans and their heirs, while also making badly needed corrections to the records of ATFE. It would also allow the veterans to 'cash in' on their valuable war trophies, they could buy medical treatment, pay for their kids college tuition, buy a new car, etc, etc.
So it would even help our economy, as collectors would put some of their hoarded cash back into circulation.


6 posted on 05/07/2005 1:24:48 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

It is an EXCELLENT bill.
Unregistered NFA items subject the owner to a fine of $250,000 and ten years in prison.
The veterans or heirs who have these NFA items did no overt criminal acts.
They are risking fines and prison merely for having War Trophy guns they or their husbands and fathers brought back from previous conflicts around the world.
Prior to the emergence of PC anti-gun hysteria our soldiers were encouraged to destroy the enemy, and allowed to keep captured weapons as souvenirs.

These souvenirs have become very valuable, and ATFE now denies that many of them which WERE registered via any of several past means are recorded in the NFRTR data-base.

This bill will allow a short "amnesty" to ensure that the veterans or heirs have an opportunity to register their war trophies, thus preventing their unfair prosecution and seizure of their valuable guns.


7 posted on 05/07/2005 1:35:40 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Yep, Bad Idea the way I read it. Looks like anyone owning any firearm for which a federal purchase record cannot be located is in possession of an illegal firearm. Veterans (+heirs)appear to be the only ones who can legally "register" firearms acquired outside the US (or for which proof of purchase within the US cannot be produced, as in most private sales) and only if they do so in the 90 day amnesty period. This puppy smells so fishy it should be DOA and clearly impinges on 2A which contains no mention of where firearms must be acquired before being kept and borne. Neither does it limit itself to the "machine-gun" denominations which are subject to transfer tax and registration.


8 posted on 05/07/2005 1:41:47 PM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
Just curious but how do you interpret this to mean "machine-guns" only???

Qualifying Firearm- (1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, the term `qualifying firearm' means any firearm which was acquired-- (A) before October 31, 1968; and (B) by a veteran, while such veteran was a member of the Armed Forces and was stationed outside the continental United States.

9 posted on 05/07/2005 1:47:17 PM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

The system in place is an ugly dog, but this doesn't read any better.
I read it and ID'd at least three ways it can be interpreted to be confiscatory.


10 posted on 05/07/2005 1:53:02 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables

It sounds like the brain child idea of banning center fire ammunition in as much as the same lame 'thinking' is behind it.

There's at least three ways it can be interpreted to justify confiscations and worse for legally owned firearms.
This is a bad idea.

I'm also willing to bet that the 'amnesty' isn't.


11 posted on 05/07/2005 1:55:28 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Good bill, it gives veterans/heirs the chance to legally keep something of value that is otherwise illegal. Their option, to register or not.


12 posted on 05/07/2005 2:04:04 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

It creates a registry, which is a bad idea.
Then they know who has the 'eeee-vil' assault weapons and where to find them.
I'm willing to bet that it'll be reinterpreted every time the gun grabbers feel like confiscating something.

And, there are firearms that are legally owned that this would require registration on.
The term 'any firearm' is always a tipoff to a broader interpretation in the future, and bad intent.


13 posted on 05/07/2005 2:08:37 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare; diogenes ghost
Good bill, it gives veterans/heirs the chance to legally keep something of value that is otherwise illegal. Their option, to register or not...diogenes ghost It creates a registry, which is a bad idea.

I'd have to agree with darksheare. With the expiration of the assault weapons ban, the most pernicious gun laws are found on the state and local level. Most that I'm aware of have grandfather clauses, which the 1968 acquisition date might help with, but there's nothing to prevent grandfathering from being repealed. In Chicago, for example, handguns are legal only if owned prior to the enactment of their ban, 1982 I believe, and registered with the city. I presume an unregistered handgun registered under this act would become legal, but there's nothing preventing Mayor Daley from repealing the grandfather clause, in which case I suspect you'd get a letter followed by a knock on the door. This isn't a bad thing, but I don't see it as much of a positive. I'd guess the owner of an "assault weapon" in California would be "legal" on a federal level, which he was anyway, and illegal state. It might aid owners of fully auto weapons in states where they're allowed, presuming the get the federal licensing and pay the annual fee, but that's about all.

14 posted on 05/07/2005 2:22:00 PM PDT by SJackson (The first duty of a leader is to make himself be loved without courting love, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Yeah, it just has way too much wiggle room for the gun grabbers.


15 posted on 05/07/2005 2:25:45 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Yeah, it just has way too much wiggle room for the gun grabbers.

I think it's the database they want. In Chicago they've attempted to get the federal list of multiple handgun (that's 2) purchasers within a week, which the government can legally maintain in order to crosscheck for Chicago purchasers. Would they go after this list to check for federal registrants who hadn't registered with the city, and are thus subject to confiscation and charges? IMO, in a heartbeat. I see little or no upside for gunowners in this.

16 posted on 05/07/2005 2:30:26 PM PDT by SJackson (The first duty of a leader is to make himself be loved without courting love, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
Any legislation that does not restore americans constitutional rights under the 2nd amendment is a bad law..

That's all I have to say..

Oh, Yeah..
" Cold, Dead, Fingers "...

17 posted on 05/07/2005 2:41:38 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

From my cold and .............


18 posted on 05/07/2005 2:46:24 PM PDT by ANGGAPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables

Title one arms are not required to be registered in the NFRTR, NFA Weapons are.
The bill's intent is to register NFA arms.

So machine guns, DD shotguns, AOW's, etc. would be registered under the bill, allowing their ownership to become fully legal.

By example, a P-08 Luger semi-auto pistol brought back from Europe does not require any registration, with or without this bill.
But a Thompson or MP-40 already does per the NFA-34 act.

I realize that the NFA world is not familiar to many Americans, but it is the area ATFE likes to abuse most as an excuse for their continued existence.

I never said the language is perfect, but in order to be amended with improvements it has to get out of committee. Our support can give it a fair hearing and allow the necessary adjustments before passage.


19 posted on 05/07/2005 2:54:09 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Any database is a bad idea.
They've been trying for such a thing for years, and the intent has been obvious from the start on that.
This bill seems tailor made to at the very least poot the foot in the door for the creation of just such an intrusive database.
But the way it reads leaves me to believe that it refers to such a database.


20 posted on 05/07/2005 2:55:18 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ANGGAPO

Exactly.


21 posted on 05/07/2005 2:57:13 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

This bill is a start on reforming the current system.

The NFRTR is a shambles, ATFE routinely commits perjury is support of the current flawed system rather than admit it's many problems.

Congress found it necessary to appropriate $100,000 for corrective efforts, but ATFE did not use the money as directed.

This bill provides an opening for additional relief, emphasizing relief for our veterans.

The only other means of relief is to force an general amnesty for all, which would be much more difficult to achieve, even though it is warranted.


22 posted on 05/07/2005 3:00:58 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

It does not "Start" any gun registry!

It allows for corrections to the badly flawed existing NFRTR registry.


23 posted on 05/07/2005 3:02:22 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

(a) Registration- Subject to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, the applicable veteran or a member of such a veteran's family, who owns and possesses a qualifying firearm, may register such firearm in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (described in section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) during the amnesty period.


24 posted on 05/07/2005 3:04:04 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

I guess this bill is OK for those who wish to use it, I doubt if I would though.


25 posted on 05/07/2005 3:06:34 PM PDT by RightWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I am disappointed that so many here are going negative without fully understanding the bill or it's intent.

This is the third time this bill has been introduced, I would have thought that many here would have some familiarity with it, and the many reasons to support it.

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.


26 posted on 05/07/2005 3:06:50 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

It's intent is the same as every other gun registry bill before it.
They can dress up a pug as apoodle, but it's still a pug in snobby clothing.
They should simply DUMP the previous bills they're supposedly reforming with this instead.


27 posted on 05/07/2005 3:10:51 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

It does NOT "create a registry". (NFRTR)

That registry already exist, and has since 1934.

This bill attempts to allow the registry to be corrected, while protecting our veterans and their heirs from unjust prosecution and seizure of their very valuable property.

The genuine intent here is one of the most honest and commendable to come out of congress in decades!


28 posted on 05/07/2005 3:11:36 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

No. it's not.

The bill addresses very specific issues, and is based entirely on existing legal precedent.

I am disappointed that so many here are having trouble understanding it.


29 posted on 05/07/2005 3:14:47 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

To reiterate, this bill does NOT create ANY new data-base!

It has nothing to do with normal run of the mill firearms as are owned by the majority of Americans.
It IS intended to allow legislative relief to our veterans and their heirs who have war trophy NFA arms they obtained prior to Dec. 1968.

NFA Arms are legal in most states, so long as they are properly registered in the NFRTR data-base.
ATFE has screwed up the NFRTR, innocent Americans are at risk of prosecution this very minute.
Our veterans are at particular risk as a greater percent of them own NFA arms they brought back as souvenirs.
They are dying off at a rapid rate, the NFA arms are being found by heirs who do not know their legal status, and have no idea how to deal with the regulations and flawed NFRTR.


30 posted on 05/07/2005 3:22:01 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

This bill DOES restore a measure of our 2nd. Amend. Rights, at least to our veterans and their heirs!

The subject data-base already exist, but is full of errors.
This bill would allow a means of making at least some correction to that flawed record.


31 posted on 05/07/2005 3:25:54 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

Sorry, I do not buy it.


I'm disappointed that you don't see the obvious bad idea in there.


32 posted on 05/07/2005 3:27:24 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

"a qualifying firearm," = an NFA item, which is already required to be registered under penalty of ten years in prison and a fine of $250,00.

The section 922.(o) amendment to FOPA-86 closed off all opportunity for such arms to be registered without a new "amnesty" being declared.

This bill creates that amnesty opportunity, but only for qualified veterans.


33 posted on 05/07/2005 3:31:09 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 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 owners of fully automatic weapons, who can now register, pay the annual fee, and keep them as long as they don't live in a state which outlaws fully automatic weapons. That's a good thing, though I don't know how many that effects.

--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.

--"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.

There's no doubt in my mind that localities will access the records. I'd certainly not suggest that people violate gun laws. But this seem to have very little practical impact.

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.

34 posted on 05/07/2005 3:31:20 PM PDT by SJackson (The first duty of a leader is to make himself be loved without courting love, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

Oops, my mistake, i saw the 1968 legal transfer date, but missed the fact that they had to enter pre-1968.


35 posted on 05/07/2005 3:33:17 PM PDT by SJackson (The first duty of a leader is to make himself be loved without courting love, Andre Malraux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
After reading 5845 I agree this bill is not a dragon in disguise. Though, I'm not sure it is of great importance either and protecting Vets who own war trophies is not the most important constraint that needs to be placed on BATF. As an incremental step I can support it but I fear it will lack serious follow through. Also it's amnesty provisions should apply to any "described" firearm no matter where or by whom acquired.
36 posted on 05/07/2005 3:33:35 PM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightWinger

Unless you are a veteran who brought back war trophy NFA arms prior to Dec. 1968 it would not apply to you.

If you are such a veteran, and did not take advantage of it, you would remain at risk of losing your trophy by confiscation, and serving ten years in prison.

Given the chance, anyone who qualifies would be foolish not to take advantage of the opportunity.


37 posted on 05/07/2005 3:34:53 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I would LOVE to see the NFA-34 "Dumped"!

But the fact is our RKBA has been reduced one bill at a time, and will have to be restored the same way.

This bill is a start on that effort.


38 posted on 05/07/2005 3:37:22 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

I have worked for several years to get a bill similar to this one introduced, my only disappointment is that it does not provide an "amnesty" for everyone, but is limited to veterans only.

I have worked with and encouraged congressman Gibbons to introduce this bill.
I realize that the issues it addresses are arcane to most Americans, but that is no reason to not support it.

Flaws in language can be corrected, if you are expert enough to do so please post the improved language and I will send sit to the congressman.


39 posted on 05/07/2005 3:44:53 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

They should dump the previous bills before even attempting this one.
THAT would show good intent, and would also go a ways to keeping this from being a precursor to confiscation.
If there is any wiggle room for them at all, either by simply re-reading it a different way and taking the same sentence to mean differing things as they always do, it's not a good idea ot try this.


40 posted on 05/07/2005 3:52:12 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

"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.


41 posted on 05/07/2005 3:56:14 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

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


42 posted on 05/07/2005 4:02:23 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

The ban on Chicago residents owning handguns for example.
A dog of legislation in itself.


43 posted on 05/07/2005 4:04:16 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

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.


44 posted on 05/07/2005 4:05:56 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

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.


45 posted on 05/07/2005 4:10:09 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

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.


46 posted on 05/07/2005 6:14:54 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

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


47 posted on 05/07/2005 9:45:40 PM PDT by NFA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables
Qualifying Firearm- (1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, the term `qualifying firearm' means any firearm which was acquired-- (A) before October 31, 1968; and (B) by a veteran, while such veteran was a member of the Armed Forces and was stationed outside the continental United States.

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.

48 posted on 05/07/2005 9:53:33 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
(a) Registration- Subject to such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, the applicable veteran or a member of such a veteran's family, who owns and possesses a qualifying firearm, may register such firearm in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (described in section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) during the amnesty period.

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.

49 posted on 05/07/2005 9:59:02 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
I'm disappointed that you don't see the obvious bad idea in there.

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.

50 posted on 05/07/2005 10:02:21 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson