Posted on 05/07/2005 12:40:33 PM PDT by Richard-SIA
How is registering anything good?
+++
Amen.
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
Please read my post 36. Thanks so much.
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?
See # 85
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
O.K. I'll take your word for it. The legislation is too complicated for me to understand.
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.