Illegal machine Gun Manufacturer Gets Federal Time

[rvb]

surprised (and happy) to see the concensus of the thread is "meh, they shouldn't be illegal anyway." Changing the NFA/Hughes has always been an uphill battle amongst fellow gun owners. I would love to see that tide shift so we could make progress towards repealing hughes and at least modifying NFA. But gun owners have to be largely united before we can take on the anti's.

For those complaining about the FOPA'86, realize it is the Hughes amendment to that bill you want repealed, not all of FOPA. FOPA is largely positive for gun owners.

As to the idea that "MG's are illegal, and we have to enforce/support the laws on the book," well... first MG's, then "assault weapons," then "high-cap" mags, then semi-autos, then "sniper rifles." Not hard to see the slippery slope here. We are collectively proud of the folks in CT and NY for not registering and complying w/ their new laws, but we should celebrate when someone gets nabbed with a MG? If "assault weapons" or "high-cap" mags are ever banned, then NFA shows us that given 80 yrs of status-quo, gun-owners will happily turn on gun-owners for posession of these items... and they'll feel they did themselves some sort of favor for doing so (can't have grandpa w/ that 20 round mag giving us "good" gun owners a "bad name.").

The only reason I would support that person's arrest related to the MG is if he used it in the commission of a crime or made/sold it knowing it would be used for criminal activity (making him an accessory of sorts).

Part of the problem of change is people want all or nothing. We need to learn from the anti's and work in baby steps. We'll never be successful if we demand NFA/hughes be repealed outright. A great first step would be a compromise repealing Hughes but raising the registration tax on MG's and increasing penalties for their use in crimes, as an example. Perhaps at the same time move silencers to title 1 status. Just ramblings, but I would love to see positive change happen.

-rvb

 

[ilikeguns]

Depends on how you define "right". Slavery was not not a constitutionally protected or enshrined right. If it was, the northern states could not have abolished it. Rather, it was a matter left to the state governments to decide.

Just because the constitution doesn't prohibit something, does not mean it makes it a right. It just means it leaves the matter to another authority to address.

At the time it was almost universally accepted,North and South, that it WAS constitutionally protected. As horrible as it was Slaves WERE peoples property. Bought and paid for. Under the beliefs and logic of the times confiscating,or freeing, slaves was no different than confiscating our guns today. It is hard to wrap our minds around this concept but it was just accepted then. Lincoln himself stated many times,before and at the beginning of the war, that he and congress did not have the authority or legal means under the Constitution to interfere with slavery where it already existed. The Northern states were only able to abolish it(Emancipation Proclamation) because they were in the middle of a war with a hostile "foreign Nation". When you secede from the United States the United States Constitution no longer protects you. The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY freed slaves in hostile territory. If they were in a Northern occupied territory or in a border State that did not secede they were NOT freed specifically because it was believed the owners who were still loyal to the Federal Government were protected under the Constitution. The North could abolish slavery all it wanted during the war but it really meant nothing as long as they were still at war because the South did not recognize the authority of the federal government of the United States. It really,at the time, was just a way to breathe new life and garner more support for the war at a time when Northern enthusiasm was waning and enlistments were down. After the war,as a conquered entity,the South was reentering a Union with a CHANGED constitution(the addition of the thirteenth amendment which outlawed slavery everywhere within the United States.)

 

[Squirt239]

You're the one being selective. The is no incarceration requirement listed in the Constitution to deny one their rights. The only limitation is that they must be convicted via a trial. So if we're going to follow the letter, let's not get creative with interpretations.

I guess I'm missing your argument here. I feel we are saying the same thing, but arguing semantics. My feeling is that if someone commits a felony (whatever the case may be), they are tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, sentenced, time completed and released, are they or are they not a free citizen? With that, if they are a free citizen why are their rights no longer rights? There shouldn't be this state of judicial "purgatory" in which a person is "ok" to be returned to society, but not "ok" to have all their rights returned to them. Either a person is reformed, or they aren't. While I agree with your point there is no incarceration requirement, that is not the overall point I was making.

 

[BrewerGeorge]

...
As to the idea that "MG's are illegal, and we have to enforce/support the laws on the book," well... first MG's, then "assault weapons," then "high-cap" mags, then semi-autos, then "sniper rifles." Not hard to see the slippery slope here. We are collectively proud of the folks in CT and NY for not registering and complying w/ their new laws, but we should celebrate when someone gets nabbed with a MG? If "assault weapons" or "high-cap" mags are ever banned, then NFA shows us that given 80 yrs of status-quo, gun-owners will happily turn on gun-owners for posession of these items... and they'll feel they did themselves some sort of favor for doing so (can't have grandpa w/ that 20 round mag giving us "good" gun owners a "bad name.").

The only reason I would support that person's arrest related to the MG is if he used it in the commission of a crime or made/sold it knowing it would be used for criminal activity (making him an accessory of sorts).

...

I don't think we're very far apart. As I said, one guy 'caught' with an MG and made into a felon by possessing it is a very different situation than a guy who's gone into business making and selling MG's.

But I have trouble crediting the 'slippery slope' argument when we've had nothing but gains in firearms freedom over the last 40 years - excepting crazy California and nutty New York.

 

[j706]

surprised (and happy) to see the concensus of the thread is "meh, they shouldn't be illegal anyway." Changing the NFA/Hughes has always been an uphill battle amongst fellow gun owners. I would love to see that tide shift so we could make progress towards repealing hughes and at least modifying NFA. But gun owners have to be largely united before we can take on the anti's.

For those complaining about the FOPA'86, realize it is the Hughes amendment to that bill you want repealed, not all of FOPA. FOPA is largely positive for gun owners.

As to the idea that "MG's are illegal, and we have to enforce/support the laws on the book," well... first MG's, then "assault weapons," then "high-cap" mags, then semi-autos, then "sniper rifles." Not hard to see the slippery slope here. We are collectively proud of the folks in CT and NY for not registering and complying w/ their new laws, but we should celebrate when someone gets nabbed with a MG? If "assault weapons" or "high-cap" mags are ever banned, then NFA shows us that given 80 yrs of status-quo, gun-owners will happily turn on gun-owners for posession of these items... and they'll feel they did themselves some sort of favor for doing so (can't have grandpa w/ that 20 round mag giving us "good" gun owners a "bad name.").

The only reason I would support that person's arrest related to the MG is if he used it in the commission of a crime or made/sold it knowing it would be used for criminal activity (making him an accessory of sorts).

Part of the problem of change is people want all or nothing. We need to learn from the anti's and work in baby steps. We'll never be successful if we demand NFA/hughes be repealed outright. A great first step would be a compromise repealing Hughes but raising the registration tax on MG's and increasing penalties for their use in crimes, as an example. Perhaps at the same time move silencers to title 1 status. Just ramblings, but I would love to see positive change happen.

-rvb

I agree 100% with you. This guys girlfriend said he was real cozy with the white supremacists types. He supposedly got hooked up with them while doing his last federal prison time for making select fire weapons. I have no idea if she was right but that was her claim. There is no doubt in my mind the guy was making and selling them. Otherwise you would not have 12 to 15 select fire sten guns that were identical to each other. Oh and BTW, this guy was a big dude and his girlfriend or wife whatever she is/was looked like she went three or four rounds with Mike Tyson.

 

[j706]

I guess I'm missing your argument here. I feel we are saying the same thing, but arguing semantics. My feeling is that if someone commits a felony (whatever the case may be), they are tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, sentenced, time completed and released, are they or are they not a free citizen? With that, if they are a free citizen why are their rights no longer rights? There shouldn't be this state of judicial "purgatory" in which a person is "ok" to be returned to society, but not "ok" to have all their rights returned to them. Either a person is reformed, or they aren't. While I agree with your point there is no incarceration requirement, that is not the overall point I was making.

But don't you think that the life long title of felon is just more motivation to not become one. I mean almost everyone knows that if convicted of a felony that you may loose certain rights for life. With some of our current laws ect. I believe some things that are now felony's should not carry life long rights restrictions but some felony's I am glad that they do

 

[rvb]

But I have trouble crediting the 'slippery slope' argument when we've had nothing but gains in firearms freedom over the last 40 years

In the last 40 years?
Hughes amendment
'89 import bans
Brady bill / NICS
We were VERY close to mag capacity limits and an assault weapons ban just 1 year ago.

What federal gains are you refering to? FOPA is all I can come up with (shipping ammo, interstate travel, interstate sales of long guns). And FOPA really only eased some of the pain of the GCA of '68, which falls out of your 40 yr window, I guess; but I consider that a net loss. (GCA of course establishing FFLs, regulating interstate sales, banning Sat night specials, etc). The sunset of the AWB is a wash since, well, we had an AWB. How are we not sliding down a slippery slope?

I'm ignoring state changes and talking federal here. The states vary too widely for quick analysis.

-rvb

 

[BrewerGeorge]

In the last 40 years?
Hughes amendment
'89 import bans
Brady bill / NICS
We were VERY close to mag capacity limits and an assault weapons ban just 1 year ago.

What federal gains are you refering to? ...

I don't mind NICS at all. I think it works fine - better than the hodgepodge background checks individual states had before - as long as there is no database of information gathered.

You're right, though, I was thinking mostly of state level freedoms, not federal.

Now thinking federally, I'd list things like Tiahrt, D.C. v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, etc.

To me, it feels like we're winning, not sliding back.

 

[rvb]

I don't mind NICS at all. I think it works fine - better than the hodgepodge background checks individual states had before - as long as there is no database of information gathered.

While Brady replaced many state/local BG checks, I don't consider giving up power/control to a higher level of government and forcing BG checks on folks in states that didn't have them a win, but that's just me... Many states now just have two levels of BG checks to deal with; it's still hodgepodge.

Now thinking federally, I'd list things like Tiahrt, D.C. v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, etc.

To me, it feels like we're winning, not sliding back.

Heller/McDonald aren't bad examples, but show me one federal law they have changed/trumped. Yes, many other folks benefited at the state/district level and it's good to have your rights confirmed, but I see no improvement in my day-2-day 2A rights. And Heller leaves the door open for many restrictions. Over-all a positive ruling though, as if prevents some future federal/state legislation.... but I see no improvement or "winning" as a result. The same federal laws were in effect after Heller as before.

IMO, we seem to still be loosing, just slower than previous decades. While the previous AWB sunsetted and we blocked the AWB/mag-limit, we lost some ground w/ exec orders related to medical reporting to nics and changes to trust rules for NFA registrations.

-rvb

 

[indiucky]

It'll probably be a fellow Christian of all people to report you.

And do it with a kiss on the cheek....I watched a neat "Secrets of the Dead" from PBS the other night on the Bible...The episode was called "The Battle for the Bible" and three men who risked it all to translate from Latin, Hebrew, and Greek into English the Holy Bible...I know Tynedale was burned at the stake and his accusers, judges, and executers were all way up in the Catholoc Church...

Can't let the common folk know God loves them now can we? Can't let slaves read Exodus now can we? And most importantly...We can't let anyone know that you can't pay a stipend to the Church and get a free pass to Heaven!!!!

That would be a bit problmatic.....

 

[88GT]

I'm a bit new here, but I'll go on record with a pat on the back for the OP.

I would be elated if select-fire weapons were allowed for everyone, but until they are I certainly don't want to have to defend myself against them on the street. If these laws weren't enforced, we would still not have them because of the risk of consequences, but criminals have nothing to lose. People like this need to be stopped from creating the illicit supply to the criminals.

You don't seriously believe that the prohibition of these firearms is what keeps them out of the hands of criminals, do you?

Slavery was never a constitutional Right. I do not understand your logic.

Putting aside the issues already addressed, it would be good to remind everyone here that the rights an individual had claim to were not limited by the enumeration of particular ones in the Constitution.

No, AR's are the most common rifle bought today, and they have no functional difference between many other semi-autos that are NOT illegal. If criminals choose to flout that law and use AR's anyway, I can defend against them at par level with many other weapons that are legal for me to own. Automatic weapons are uncommon

They are uncommon because the legislation you champion made them so.

AND functionally different.

Not really.

Letting criminals have them gives an unfair advantage against US.

Lord have mercy, did you read this before you posted? Who is arguing to let only the criminal have access to the automatic firearms? If they were legal we'd ALL have them and the good guys would be equally armed and capable of meeting a threat from them.

 

[arthrimus]

You don't seriously believe that the prohibition of these firearms is what keeps them out of the hands of criminals, do you?


Putting aside the issues already addressed, it would be good to remind everyone here that the rights an individual had claim to were not limited by the enumeration of particular ones in the Constitution.


They are uncommon because the legislation you champion made them so.


Not really.


Lord have mercy, did you read this before you posted? Who is arguing to let only the criminal have access to the automatic firearms? If they were legal we'd ALL have them and the good guys would be equally armed and capable of meeting a threat from them.

THIS.

Semi autos and Full autos have very few mechanical differences, and often times semi's require only a couple of crudely filed pieces of steel in order to be converted to full auto. If they were all that practical for criminal use, criminals would be manufacturing and using them by the boatload. The fact is that they're not all that useful for day to day crime, so they don't get used all that often, not because the current laws in any way make it difficult to produce them.

 

[hornadylnl]

And do it with a kiss on the cheek....I watched a neat "Secrets of the Dead" from PBS the other night on the Bible...The episode was called "The Battle for the Bible" and three men who risked it all to translate from Latin, Hebrew, and Greek into English the Holy Bible...I know Tynedale was burned at the stake and his accusers, judges, and executers were all way up in the Catholoc Church...

Can't let the common folk know God loves them now can we? Can't let slaves read Exodus now can we? And most importantly...We can't let anyone know that you can't pay a stipend to the Church and get a free pass to Heaven!!!!

That would be a bit problmatic.....

If I want to protect my right to pray, I have to report all illegal bibles. If I don't, they'll come after the right to pray.

 

[BrewerGeorge]

You don't seriously believe that the prohibition of these firearms is what keeps them out of the hands of criminals, do you?

...

They are uncommon because the legislation you champion made them so.

...

Lord have mercy, did you read this before you posted? Who is arguing to let only the criminal have access to the automatic firearms? If they were legal we'd ALL have them and the good guys would be equally armed and capable of meeting a threat from them.

I guess I'm not being as clear as I'd hoped. Your last sentence is exactly the stance I'm trying to convey. IF they were legal, we would all have them and good guys would be capable of meeting a threat. Definitely yes. But they are NOT currently legal so good guys don't have them and we CAN'T defend ourselves equally. I am far from 'championing' the law; I recognize the law as the problem to be fixed. Fixing the law means repealing or changing it so its fair to everyone, NOT ignoring enforcement for those who willfully break it. Only ignoring enforcement for violators has the de facto effect that only criminals have them.

 

[xM3RC1L3SS1x]

I hope they don't let him out early due to overcrowded jails.

It's sad that people would wonder that, but that is a good point

 

[BrewerGeorge]

THIS.

Semi autos and Full autos have very few mechanical differences, and often times semi's require only a couple of crudely filed pieces of steel in order to be converted to full auto. If they were all that practical for criminal use, criminals would be manufacturing and using them by the boatload. The fact is that they're not all that useful for day to day crime, so they don't get used all that often, not because the current laws in any way make it difficult to produce them.

I don't care what's inside them. By functionally different, I'm talking about the fact that they function demonstrably differently. One trigger pull sends multiple rounds downrange. This is the other side of the coin to the argument that we all make about AR's NOT being functionally different from many other semi-autos. Instead of a cosmetic description or brand name, one can rightfully say "These weapons do this differently."

 

[Bunnykid68]

Of course there aren't many - because the laws against them are being enforced. They are rare. But many of you are saying that the law should not be enforced for this guy, the natural corollary being that they should not be enforced for anyone. If anybody could make these and sell them without fear of consequences they would no longer be rare. Making guns isn't that hard with a machine shop, and modifying existing guns for full-auto is even easier.

If this one one guy practicing civil disobedience by owning an unlicensed fully automatic weapon because he thought it was his Constitutional Right to do so, I would be much more sympathetic. But this situation isn't that. It's a guy running a criminal business for profit, not for principle.

How often are rifles in general used then, they are everywhere? Hardly ever, but if it stops just one criminal..............

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't think we're very far apart. As I said, one guy 'caught' with an MG and made into a felon by possessing it is a very different situation than a guy who's gone into business making and selling MG's.

But I have trouble crediting the 'slippery slope' argument when we've had nothing but gains in firearms freedom over the last 40 years - excepting crazy California and nutty New York.

You conveniently left out Connecticut which banned a lot of stuff and New Jersey which is trying to ban even some .22 rifles. Yep all rights concerning guns have been only getting better.

 

[TTravis]

How often are rifles in general used then, they are everywhere? Hardly ever, but if it stops just one criminal..............

I was watching the news coverage of those three people that got shot at 2300 block of Lasalle in Indy the other day. They showed the shell casings lying on the ground. Those looked like .223 or some other similar rifle casings to me. Anyone else notice this? It would be interesting to hear more details. It's been a while since I've heard of anyone in Indy using an AR or AK that way.

 

[Destro]

there is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the united states, not an individual right to manufacture and sell.