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 previous 1-5051-98 last
To: Darksheare
They should simply DUMP the previous bills they're supposedly reforming with this instead.

Now that would be the right thing to do, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. The only way those laws are going away in our lifetimes is for the Supreme Court to get off it's a$$, hear a case involving the National Firearms Act and declare the whole shebang to be the violation of the second amendment that it clearly is. However that's not much more likely than Congress and a President doing it.

51 posted on 05/07/2005 10:06:27 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
They should dump the previous bills before even attempting this one.

Which shows that you still don't understand the situation. If they dropped the "previous bills", that is the 1934 National Firearms Act, and the provision of the Firearms Owners Protection Act (slipped in at literally the last moment) which banned further registrations of newly manufactured or imported machine guns, there would be no need for this bill. And Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others might stop spinning in their graves. (I've heard tell that Philadelphia gets a good proportion of it's electricity from Franklin's twirling).

52 posted on 05/07/2005 10:13:01 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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

My father brought back a Japanese rifle from Guadalcanal in 1945, if he wills it to me and it is not registered, what may happen?

53 posted on 05/08/2005 11:26:45 AM PDT by RightWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NFA

Welcome to FR.
No, this is NOT a good thing.
It will be 'reinterpreted', just like all the other bills measures and addendums.
Wanna try to tell me OTHERWISE?


54 posted on 05/08/2005 11:32:18 AM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RightWinger

If it is a machinegun or has a barrel shorter than 16 inches, if you get caught with it, you will go to FEDERAL PRISON and lose your right to vote and to own any kind of firearm.

If it is not fully automatic or has a barrel 16" or longer, then nothing, no big deal.


55 posted on 05/08/2005 1:09:51 PM PDT by doktorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Look, before Richard explained what the bill did, you were railing against it and had *NO IDEA WHAT IT DID*. Not only no idea, but you believed it did something almost completely opposite of what it DOES do.

Our rights were taken away by incrementialism (Fabianism) and that is OUR BEST STRATEGY for getting them back.

THE BILL IS A GOOD THING. Of course I'd love to see the machinegun registry re-opened to EVERYONE but every little thing we can do is good. This bill was written by OUR SIDE, FOR US.


56 posted on 05/08/2005 1:12:09 PM PDT by doktorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: doktorno

Say again?
Exqueeze me?

I read it, and it has lots of qiggle room.
Gun laws by nature are not a good idea, and this one has holes in it.
Take anotehr look, if you can't see them, you're blind.


57 posted on 05/08/2005 1:27:06 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: doktorno

Welcome to FR by the way.


58 posted on 05/08/2005 1:27:24 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

You clearly still do not understand the CONTEXT of the bill, which self limits it's scope.

It is an EXCELLENT bill, not nearly as open and far reaching as I would like, but a great start of cleaning up the NFRTR mess.


59 posted on 05/08/2005 2:12:58 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 54 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Perhaps we are blind.

Please explain the wiggle room, point-by-point.

Regards


60 posted on 05/08/2005 2:17:27 PM PDT by doktorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Darksheare, your position on this issue screams how little you actually know.

THIS IS AN *A M N E S T Y* allowing people who are in posession of machineguns that are already illegal to register them in accordance with the NFA.

You haven't made a single compelling argument yet.
All you do is scream the sky is falling with your "It Will Be Reinterpreted" nonsense when you don't understand what it means.

Tell ya what.
Explain to me how this bill might be somehow used against gun owners.
Explain to me- using the details of the law and the existing amnesty- how this might be...

You won't, because you can't. Because you don't understand this law, and instead of admiting that you were incorrect when you first commented on it (due to your own poor comprehension skills) you are carrying on, saying that this bill which is a GOOD THING isn't.

I own rifles, I own shotguns, I own pistols and revolvers, I own fully-automatic weapons that most people on this board wouldn't even believe are legal, even if I showed them my paperwork.
I am as pro-gun as they come, and I support this bill because I *understand* this bill, which you are apparently too stupid to do.


61 posted on 05/08/2005 2:50:13 PM PDT by NFA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: doktorno

Thanks!


62 posted on 05/08/2005 3:42:48 PM PDT by RightWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

So what if the NFA weapon they are trying to register is actually property of the US government?


63 posted on 05/08/2005 3:44:05 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Not Elected Pope Since 4/19/2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
It would be allowed to be registered.

There are a number of "US Property" weapons (machinegun and otherwise) that are in lawful civilian possession.
Therein lies the whole point of an "amnesty".
64 posted on 05/08/2005 5:17:03 PM PDT by NFA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

That depends on a couple of things.

The VHFA "amnesty" only applies to weapons obtained before Dec. 1968.

The weapon being registered had to have been obtained in overseas service.

So if it's an M-16 brought back from 'Nam in early 1968 or before the U.S. Property marking is irrelevant.

If its something from after 1968, like a gun from Desert Storm, it will not be eligible for registration, and will have to be surrendered.


65 posted on 05/08/2005 5:57:43 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 63 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Correction, Oct. 1968.

Not sure why Oct. is the cut-off, the '68 amnesty was in Dec.

I would have expected a Dec. cut-off, for consistency.


66 posted on 05/08/2005 6:00:15 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 63 | View Replies]

To: NFA

Doesn't matter.
They can paint it, and call it a horse, and it'll still be what we DO NOT need more of: Gun laws.
If there are laws that need to be 'reformed', then perhaps those laws should be dumped.

Yes, I read this, and your tone needs to cool it newbie.


67 posted on 05/09/2005 9:24:23 AM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: doktorno

Any time you register YOUR firearms with teh government, you're telling them what you have an dwhere you have it.
What happens when some bored beauracrat gets it in his head to dislike the guns that supposedly have amnesty?
Hmm?


If you actually read the bill, it would be raising hairs on your neck.
Especially if you've read word for word what the 2nd Amendment says.


68 posted on 05/09/2005 9:26:29 AM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

"You clearly still do not understand the CONTEXT "

Ah, context and nuance, right?
John Kerry said no-one understood the context of what he said.
Funny, everyone was spot on about him.


This is a dog, an ugly dog.
If laws need to be 'reformed', start by dumping the laws tis is supposed to reform.


69 posted on 05/09/2005 9:27:52 AM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: NFA; Darksheare; Richard-SIA

I agree whole-heartedly with NFA and Richard-SIA. Darksheare, with respect you don't seem to understand the issue.

There's no new registry proposed, just an attempt to let WWII vets, their wives and their kids make use of property that was brought back from overseas, and to not have these same people go to jail over a very complex (and unjust, and unconstitutional) law.

The benefit to everyone else is that there will probably be tens of thousands of machine guns added to the list of those that can be legally purchased. The registry might go from 200,000 to 250K or 300K, perhaps even more. That means more MGs in the hands of citizens, and perhaps lower prices so that those of us who can't hope to own one now may be able to buy a piece of (very enjoyable) history.

Do I agree with licensing them, or with getting permission to buy them from your local PD? HELL NO! But the reality is that gun control was passed one salami slice at a time, and that's the only way that it'll be eliminated.

I don't own any machine guns (or other NFA weapons), nor do I deal in them. I am simply a citizen who can read the law, and who can understand the implication of this bill. To me, it is about more than prices, or even about helping our vets and their families. To me, the great benefit is to be able to say to the gun-fearing wussies of the world that "these X number of guns have been in civilian hands AND UNREGISTERED for 37+ years, WITHOUT incident. Further, now there are some 250K (or 300K or whatever number) of legal machine guns out there in civilian hands, and only ONCE since 1934 has any such gun been used in a crime (and that by a police officer)".

Darksheare, I sympathize and agree with your view that we shouldn't register guns - except in this case. Here you are quite simply wrong.


70 posted on 05/09/2005 11:14:02 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

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.


71 posted on 05/09/2005 12:05:25 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
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.

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.

72 posted on 05/09/2005 1:17:03 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

I will reiterate: If they want to reform laws, dump the ones this is supposed to reform.


73 posted on 05/09/2005 1:18:37 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

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).


74 posted on 05/09/2005 1:30:29 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

Again:I will reiterate: If they want to reform laws, dump the ones this is supposed to reform.

Schumer and Feinswine should not be in office anywhere regardless of what the office is.


75 posted on 05/09/2005 1:32:47 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
I will reiterate: If they want to reform laws, dump the ones this is supposed to reform.

I will reiterate: It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Better half a loaf (on the way to a whole loaf) than nothing. They destroyed the 2nd Amendment bit-by-bit, and we can only take it back the same way.

No one in politics gets everything that they want - you take what you can get, then try again and again and again to get a little bit more each time. The anti-gun freaks have done this with outstanding success - why don't we imitate that, just in reverse? Your all-or-nothing position would result in us getting nothing - EVER.

76 posted on 05/09/2005 1:33:49 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

" It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. "

That's my point.
"Reform" of gun laws usually isn't regardless of how 'good' the intention or context is.
If they wanted to truly reform it, they should first dump the laws this is meant to 'reform.'


77 posted on 05/09/2005 1:35:32 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

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!


78 posted on 05/09/2005 1:37:23 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 71 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
Schumer and Feinswine should not be in office anywhere regardless of what the office is.

I would agree, but that is irrelevant. They ARE in office, and they ARE quite powerful anti-gun Senators. One can discern a lot of information based on what they actually DO (vs. the stream of lies that comes from their mouths).

Please stick to the topic and, more to the point, try working in an effective way to reverse gun control. Railing against current law and dismissing actual US Senators (no matter how awful either of these things are) does about as much good as pi$$ing into the wind. Face facts and deal with them as they are, not as you'd wish them to be - you can't be successful any other way.

79 posted on 05/09/2005 1:37:46 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

"They ARE in office, and they ARE quite powerful anti-gun Senators. "

Hopefully not for much longer.
I have worked to reverse gun control.
Making a registry, no matter the intent, is not a good idea.
The ones that already exist have been used in ways other than their initial intent.
Lists of Class 3 license holders have been snooped over, and people have been harassed.
That is somethig to keep in mind when mulling this over.

There's a road that is paved with good intentions.


80 posted on 05/09/2005 1:43:28 PM PDT by Darksheare (There is a flaw in my surreality, it's totally unrealistic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

How is registering anything good?
+++
Amen.


81 posted on 05/09/2005 1:47:32 PM PDT by lodwick (Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

HOLY CRAP

Darksheare, are you an agent provocateur?

I have read the entire bill, and yes, I understand its implications.

PLEASE listen to us as we try to explain what it is doing. You seem to be deliberately mis-understanding. Please don't feel just because you may have mis-interpreted it in the beginning (that's ok!) that you have backed yourself into a corner and now must defend your position no matter how ridiculous it gets.


FACT: the term "firearm" in the bill refers to machineguns, silencers, "destructive devices", short barrel shotguns and rifles, and a class called AOW which is like pen guns and so forth.

FACT: A registry of the above "firearms" has existed since 1934. This bill creates no new registry and no new category.

FACT: If you possess ANY one of the above listed things right now and it is not in the registry, it is a felony. You will go to jail and you will pay a big fine.

FACT: Many veterans brought back machineguns and did not know or care to register them in the amnesty of 1968. They are now illegally possessed and cannot be sold on the open market.

FACT: No new machineguns have been added to the registry since May 1986.

FACT: This bill will allow veterans and their legal heirs to add these currently illegally possessed machineguns (or whatever) to the registry.

FACT: If they were registered and made legal, the guns sold on the open market would fetch anywhere from $5,000 - $30,000+ depending on the type of gun and condition.

FACT: This bill does not require you to register squat. If you have your granddad's bring back german machinegun in your basement and you wish to keep it unregistered that is UP TO YOU.

FACT: If you tried to register a gun not covered by the above definition of "firearm" (for example, the .22 squirrel rifle you mentioned), the ATF would laugh at you and return the paperwork. ONLY MGs, SILENCERS, SBRs, SBSs, DDs, and AOWs ARE IN THE REGISTRY!


I think every single one of us here agrees that we need to un-do many (all) of the firearms laws we have on the books right now, but needlessly lashing out at legislation that helps us, the good guys out, is counter-productive. The fact is that our rights were stolen from us gradually and that is how we must work to regain them. One small victory at a time.

Please Darksheare and everyone else who does not yet understand the implications of this bill, consider thoughtfully the FACTS I have posted here. if you have more questions, I or any body else would be more than happy to answer them for you, but please don't lash out, post ominous warnings or whatever.
Regards
Jim


82 posted on 05/09/2005 10:15:06 PM PDT by doktorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Please read my post 36. Thanks so much.


83 posted on 05/10/2005 5:19:31 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Also my post #9 questioned the previous contention that only machine guns were covered. Thanks for proving my point. Clearly by your post quoting part of 5845, (the text of which I read prior to my post #9), all 5845 defined firearms are covered. Not a bad thing, just a fact...right?
84 posted on 05/10/2005 5:40:23 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Everybody; Richard-SIA
Some general observations on your support of 'amnesty'. -- Back at post #42 you claimed:

The existing "laws" are not bills, they are "Law of the land".

Never give an inch. -- Gun owners must not accept the NFA of '34 as being a Constitutional "Law of the Land". Thus, to accept 'amnesty' from it is, - in effect -, offering a repugnant 'law' legitimacy.

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.

Everyone posting here understands the intent of the bill, imo. -- But the above principle remains, - if we back the 'amnesty' bill, we in effect give legitimacy to the initial unconstitutional '34 'Act'..

You go on to say:

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.

States & local governments use the 1934 'Act' to legitimize their infringements, and our fed courts refuse to overthrow those unconstitutional local 'laws' on the same basis. Thus, we are trapped in a Fed/State circle of 'lawful' collusion, one where all levels ignore the 2nd Amendment.

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!

That 'amnesty' was rightly ignored by most war trophy owners. - And, -- I'd wager that thousands of people have had their lives seriously affected by the '68 gun 'law'. A number died in Waco, for instance.

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.

We shouldn't be working to "make corrections" to the unconstitutional NFA of '34. We should be working for its repeal.

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!

The incremental approach to ending gun control is not working. We must find a way to force the USSC to hear a definitive 2nd Amendment case that would strike down the NFA of 34. -- A class action suit by all the owners of so called 'illegal war trophies' could do the trick.

Could you agree to such an approach?

85 posted on 05/10/2005 7:00:05 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: NFA; Darksheare; Ancesthntr; El Gato

See # 85



86 posted on 05/10/2005 7:10:58 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: doktorno
I have read the entire bill, and yes, I understand its implications.
PLEASE listen to us as we try to explain what it is doing. You seem to be deliberately mis-understanding.

Read my post a #85, and see if you can understand the concept that accepting an amnesty is in effect accepting the 'law' you receive amnesty from; -- we cannot accept the NFA of '34 as Constitutional law.

FACT: the term "firearm" in the bill refers to machineguns, silencers, "destructive devices", short barrel shotguns and rifles, and a class called AOW which is like pen guns and so forth.

However, this 'fact' does not give Congress the power to infringe upon our right to keep & bear such weapons.

FACT: A registry of the above "firearms" has existed since 1934. This bill creates no new registry and no new category.

This bill concedes that such a 'registry' is Constitutional. It is not.

FACT: If you possess ANY one of the above listed things right now and it is not in the registry, it is a felony. You will go to jail and you will pay a big fine.

And the fact is, you will be jailed unconstitutionally.

FACT: Many veterans brought back machineguns and did not know or care to register them in the amnesty of 1968. They are now illegally possessed and cannot be sold on the open market.

Not true, the laws that say this are unconstitutional.

FACT: No new machineguns have been added to the registry since May 1986.

Fact: another infringement.

FACT: This bill will allow veterans and their legal heirs to add these currently illegally possessed machineguns (or whatever) to the registry.

And, it will allow those who see registration as 'legal', further justification for further efforts.

FACT: If they were registered and made legal, the guns sold on the open market would fetch anywhere from $5,000 - $30,000+ depending on the type of gun and condition.

Fact: The outrageous 'values' are created by the outrageous 'laws'.

FACT: This bill does not require you to register squat. If you have your granddad's bring back german machinegun in your basement and you wish to keep it unregistered that is UP TO YOU.

Fact: the 'law' says you are a criminal for keeping such a weapon. This is not true.

FACT: If you tried to register a gun not covered by the above definition of "firearm" (for example, the .22 squirrel rifle you mentioned), the ATF would laugh at you and return the paperwork.

Saw off the barrel on that 22 rifle, and laugh your way to jail.

ONLY MGs, SILENCERS, SBRs, SBSs, DDs, and AOWs ARE IN THE REGISTRY!

And you approve?

I think every single one of us here agrees that we need to un-do many (all) of the firearms laws we have on the books right now, but needlessly lashing out at legislation that helps us, the good guys out, is counter-productive. The fact is that our rights were stolen from us gradually and that is how we must work to regain them. One small victory at a time. Please Darksheare and everyone else who does not yet understand the implications of this bill, consider thoughtfully the FACTS I have posted here. if you have more questions, I or any body else would be more than happy to answer them for you, but please don't lash out, post ominous warnings or whatever. Regards Jim

Jim, you need to rethink your base assumptions about gun control. Our various levels of government have never been granted the power to regulate arms, -- as they now do..

87 posted on 05/10/2005 7:45:06 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

I have worked on this issue for several years, and THIS is the ONLY approach that stands ANY chance of success without some Billionaire suddenly volunteering to foot the bill!

Do we REALLY trust SCOTUS to get it right, even if we could get a case to them?

There are other issues with ATFE that may end up in court, some of them fairly soon, but THIS issue is long overdue for settlement. It is clear that congress is our only PRACTICAL means of getting the relief we seek, as ATFE will not admit that there is any problem, much less make ANY legitimate effort at correction.

Failure to heed NFA-34 will land you in Fed. prison for ten years + $250,000 fine, and to date no attempt to challenge it's constitutionality has been successful, so that is NOT a winning strategy!

Many people here may understand that many of our "law's" are unconstitutional, but to prevail we HAVE to work with reality, and reality is that most most Americans accept whatever Gov. Org. tells them and abides by it.
In order to succeed we have to work within the current reality, working only from lofty constitutionalist purity will not get us anywhere we want to go.


88 posted on 05/10/2005 9:38:47 AM 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 85 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

I can't figure out if this is good or bad.

If you are a veteran and you "liberated" an enemy firearm, you acquired it without purchase, so no laws restricting purchase of the same should apply, it would seem to me.

So what are they giving away with this bill?

I think somebody should check out the sponsors. If they are all or mainly Democrat, we know its bad.


89 posted on 05/10/2005 9:45:37 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

If the Constitution meant what it said, there would be no laws pertaining to what kind of weapons one could own in the first place.


90 posted on 05/10/2005 10:25:05 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (I leave reason and good manners to those that have them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

You're right.

If it meant what it said, we wouldn't need judges to tell us how they think its meaning changed - in their minds.


91 posted on 05/10/2005 10:27:51 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
olly olly oxen free....

I'm with you. If I had one of these and had managed to keep it quiet, I'm not sure I would want to be on the list.

Then all the Gubmint has to do is change the rules and round them up.

Better yet to repeal the NFA of '34 and related statutes and do away with the restrictions altogether.

92 posted on 05/10/2005 10:34:26 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
For starters, some new here, some not, are just not getting your point.

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.

93 posted on 05/10/2005 11:02:29 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Grant no power to government you would not want your worst enemies to wield against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
The incremental approach to ending gun control is not working. We must find a way to force the USSC to hear a definitive 2nd Amendment case that would strike down the NFA of 34. -- A class action suit by all the owners of so called 'illegal war trophies' could do the trick.
Could you agree to such an approach?

I have worked on this issue for several years, and THIS is the ONLY approach that stands ANY chance of success without some Billionaire suddenly volunteering to foot the bill!

Class suits are financed by large groups. -- I've been actively working since the mid '60s to repeal unreasonable gun laws, and your incremental approach [the NRA 'way'] is a demonstrable failure.

Do we REALLY trust SCOTUS to get it right, even if we could get a case to them?

A flat rejection, by SCOTUS, of our RKBA's would be as good as a complete win. Such an unacceptable 'ruling' would precipitate a Constitutional crisis that would resolve the issue, or the republic would fall. Rest assured it will not fall.

There are other issues with ATFE that may end up in court, some of them fairly soon, but THIS issue is long overdue for settlement. It is clear that congress is our only PRACTICAL means of getting the relief we seek, as ATFE will not admit that there is any problem, much less make ANY legitimate effort at correction.

I think the Congress approach is a loser. The power of a State to reject unconstitutional law is a much better bet. -- Either Alaska, Montana, or New Hampshire could start the rejection movement rolling, and once started, imo, it would not stop.

  Failure to heed NFA-34 will land you in Fed. prison for ten years + $250,000 fine, and to date no attempt to challenge it's constitutionality has been successful, so that is NOT a winning strategy!

Catch 22, the USSC refuses to hear such challenges. A State could make an unrefusable challenge, simply by rejecting the 'power' that Congress gave itself in the NFA-34.

Many people here may understand that many of our "law's" are unconstitutional, but to prevail we HAVE to work with reality, and reality is that most most Americans accept whatever Gov. Org. tells them and abides by it.

Your acceptance of that idea as 'reality' is indeed the problem.

In order to succeed we have to work within the current reality, working only from lofty constitutionalist purity will not get us anywhere we want to go.

That has been the NRA's position since it backed the GCA of '68. -- I submit to you the outcome, -- you are arguing that we should comply with an unconstitutional amnesty, and complaining that my "lofty constitutionalist purity will not get us anywhere".. I suggest you go look in a mirror to see where we are.

94 posted on 05/10/2005 3:41:44 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Class suits are financed by large groups. -- I've been actively working since the mid '60s to repeal unreasonable gun laws, and your incremental approach [the NRA 'way'] is a demonstrable failure.

Well it doesn't look like you've had much success with your "get rid of them all at once" plan, either... AND FWIW the "NRA way" as you call it has nothing to do with this; NFA gun owners are the red-headed stepchild of American gun-owners. The NRA does not support us.

you are arguing that we should comply with an unconstitutional amnesty,

NO, we are arguing that an amnesty should be made available. If you don't wish to register your machinegun THEN DON'T REGISTER IT! NOT hard to understand. I'll say it again: if you believe that going along with the amnesty will give credibility to the NFA, or that they'll later confiscate your gun, then DO NOT REGISTER IT. I don't care what you do, but for many veterans and their families, they would like to become legal. The ultimate goal of opening the registry is to impress upon people that NFA weapons are not a threat.

SWEET CHRIST you people are unreal. I believe just as strongly as you that the NFA and the GCA are 100% unconstitutional. You seem to be arguing that we then should "just ignore it." Alright, good luck with that, do whatever you want.

95 posted on 05/10/2005 4:03:20 PM PDT by doktorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: doktorno
doktorno wrote:

PLEASE listen to us as we try to explain what it is doing. You seem to be deliberately mis-understanding.

Read my post a #85, and see if you can understand the concept that accepting an amnesty is in effect accepting the 'law' you receive amnesty from; -- we cannot accept the NFA of '34 as Constitutional law.

I think every single one of us here agrees that we need to un-do many (all) of the firearms laws we have on the books right now, but needlessly lashing out at legislation that helps us, the good guys out, is counter-productive. The fact is that our rights were stolen from us gradually and that is how we must work to regain them. One small victory at a time.
Regards Jim

Jim, you need to rethink your base assumptions about gun control. Our various levels of government have never been granted the power to regulate arms, -- as they now do.

-- I've been actively working since the mid '60s to repeal unreasonable gun laws, and your incremental approach [the NRA 'way'] is a demonstrable failure.

Well it doesn't look like you've had much success with your "get rid of them all at once" plan, either...

Montana has a bill pending to allow the sale of certain types of NFA-34 arms, within the State. This is the type of challenge needed to break the back of Fed gun control.

____________________________________


Instead -- you are arguing that we should comply with an unconstitutional amnesty, --

NO, we are arguing that an amnesty should be made available. If you don't wish to register your machinegun THEN DON'T REGISTER IT! NOT hard to understand.

Nor is my reasoning "hard to understand". -- Accepting an amnesty is in effect accepting the 'law' you receive amnesty from; -- we cannot accept the NFA of '34 as Constitutional law.

I'll say it again: if you believe that going along with the amnesty will give credibility to the NFA, or that they'll later confiscate your gun, then DO NOT REGISTER IT. I don't care what you do, but for many veterans and their families, they would like to become legal.

And you are urging them to agree to an illegal, unconstitutional law in order to "become legal".

The ultimate goal of opening the registry is to impress upon people that NFA weapons are not a threat.

The goal of the registry on NFA weapons is control. You are fooling yourself to say otherwise.

SWEET CHRIST you people are unreal. I believe just as strongly as you that the NFA and the GCA are 100% unconstitutional.

Yet here you are, urging us to "become legal". Sweet lord indeed.

You seem to be arguing that we then should "just ignore it." Alright, good luck with that, do whatever you want.

I'm urging that we fight the NFA-'34 on a local & State level. -- You want to accept amnesty from it.

96 posted on 05/10/2005 4:46:06 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sponsor is Jim Gibbons (R-NV), the ONE current congressman I have been proud to hold up as an example of a truly honorable member of congress!

The cosponsors are bipartisan, even many lib's are smart enough to recognize the injustice of the current situation!

This thread HAS been very educational, doing an excellent job of illustrating what sort of issues, real and imagined, we will have to overcome in congress to pass this bill.

This is an EXCELLENT bill, our veterans are dying off rapidly, it would be very good to relieve those still alive, and their heirs, as well as the heirs of those who have already died, of the worries ATFE's lousy records are causing.

The full back round on this is very complex, for those who want to make the effort to learn more FACTS I suggest you read the "references" and "resources" sections at http://www.nfaoa.org
The "resources" are PDF files of congressional documents which PROVE the NFRTR is a mess.


97 posted on 05/10/2005 11:13:33 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 89 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

O.K. I'll take your word for it. The legislation is too complicated for me to understand.


98 posted on 05/11/2005 6:31:18 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


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