Semi Autos to be an NFA item.

[thebishopp]

Such a "ban" would be meaningless and unenforceable. You could ignore it with impunity. It'll never happen. Just a source stirring a pot for attention.

Yep, I'm sure many said the same thing about quite a few of the laws on the books today.


Also... It wouldn't be a "ban". There is no "ban" on machine guns or suppressors or other NFA items. You can still own them, provided you pay the 200.00 tax stamp and jump through all the hoops. If you are lucky it will only be about a month to "approve" the purchase of that NFA semi-auto you took a hankering too! Most likely it will be 6 months, but hey, it's not like you "need" it right now. All perfectly "Constitutional" as the USSC says.

 

[Project972]

and the fun begins. any bets going?

 

[thebishopp]

and the fun begins. any bets going?

Pretty high probability of semi-autos getting added to the NFA list, at least as high as it was getting the original NFA passed. When is just the question.

 

[eric001]

I'll predict OBummer will try this in about 3 years--enough time to get it in place before he leaves office, but maybe not enough time for Congress to get itself ready to impeach him (as if they'd listen to tens of millions of ticked off Americans anyway!) and actually start the process before he could exit on his own terms.

 

[thebishopp]

I'll predict OBummer will try this in about 3 years--enough time to get it in place before he leaves office, but maybe not enough time for Congress to get itself ready to impeach him (as if they'd listen to tens of millions of ticked off Americans anyway!) and actually start the process before he could exit on his own terms.

Impeachement lol. Dude, they didn't impeach the president in 1934 when the original NFA was passed what makes you think they would impeach one for adding semi-autos to the list?

Again, the EXACT same reasons the original NFA got passed are the EXACT same reasons they can cite for adding semi-autos to the list!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Obama-messiah doesn't have to go NFA. All he has to do is follow Bush the First and demand ATF follow the sporting purpose clause of the 1968 GCA. Redefine any firearm he doesn't like as a non-sporting weapon and instant ban as violating the 1968 GCA.

Now enforcing it would be interesting.

The sporting clause is for imports and for calibers over .50". Would not effect domestic firearms with a bore smaller than 1/2 an inch.

Simply adding it in would suffice.

ATF Online - Firearms - National Firearms Act (NFA)

It's acknowledged that the underlying reason for the NFA were more than just Congress exercising it's power to tax.

As far as how it would be done... well that's answered in the ATF's little factoid about the NFA:

"Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934."

So, because the use of semi-autos pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime (take your pick - virigina tech, columbine, batman premiere, etc. etc.) adding them to the NFA list and imposing an additional 200.00 tax and extra paperwork and registration procedures should be severe and adequate enough to carry out Congress's purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions of these firearms.

The exact same logic used to create the NFA holds true to adding semi-autos to the list.

BTW the Supreme Court finds the NFA totally Constitutional now that "the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register was removed."

It would still take congress to add in the language of the new classification, even bureaucratic federal infringements cannot just make new laws they "interpret" exisiting ones and can make administrative rules within their jurisdiction.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Yep, I'm sure many said the same thing about quite a few of the laws on the books today.


Also... It wouldn't be a "ban". There is no "ban" on machine guns or suppressors or other NFA items. You can still own them, provided you pay the 200.00 tax stamp and jump through all the hoops. If you are lucky it will only be about a month to "approve" the purchase of that NFA semi-auto you took a hankering too! Most likely it will be 6 months, but hey, it's not like you "need" it right now. All perfectly "Constitutional" as the USSC says.

The volume of semi autos alone would completely overwhelm the system. Right now there are several states that do not allow their subjects to own NFA weapons- like the SBS ban right here at home.

If they didn't completely overhual and expand the NFA branch there would be years to wait instead of months. You would then have an easy case for a TRUE (in the eyes of SCOTUS) infringement on the 2A any way you cut it.

Pretty high probability of semi-autos getting added to the NFA list, at least as high as it was getting the original NFA passed. When is just the question.

It won't happen, certainly not this quick. We are twenty years of Obama and Obama like government from any truly significant bans towards guns outright like this.

It will be more restrictions on WHO can own them, not WHAT you can own. This will pass the muster of Repubs who want to feel superior to scum like felons and the mentally ill.

 

[downzero]

Impeachement lol. Dude, they didn't impeach the president in 1934 when the original NFA was passed what makes you think they would impeach one for adding semi-autos to the list?

Again, the EXACT same reasons the original NFA got passed are the EXACT same reasons they can cite for adding semi-autos to the list!

Yeah, except the first NFA actually passed a vote in Congress (the same people, by the way, who have the impeachment and removal power). The same would not be true of this act. And I do think that it would result in impeachment.

It is a mistake to think that Congress would not protect its legislative power. Congress would have no reason to exist at all if the President could actually do this.

This thread is headed down a path of conspiracy theory that I am going to start ridiculing if people actually take this seriously.

 

[thebishopp]

The volume of semi autos alone would completely overwhelm the system. Right now there are several states that do not allow their subjects to own NFA weapons- like the SBS ban right here at home.

If they didn't completely overhual and expand the NFA branch there would be years to wait instead of months. You would then have an easy case for a TRUE (in the eyes of SCOTUS) infringement on the 2A any way you cut it.



It won't happen, certainly not this quick. We are twenty years of Obama and Obama like government from any truly significant bans towards guns outright like this.

It will be more restrictions on WHO can own them, not WHAT you can own. This will pass the muster of Repubs who want to feel superior to scum like felons and the mentally ill.

Time is on their side. Doesn't have to happen quick.

Sheer volume wouldn't matter as it would pertain to only new purchases (registration of current owners in the original NFA was deemed "unconstitutional").

It would only pertain to new purchases and what does it matter to them if it takes longer to approve the purchase? Currently six months or longer isn't a problem with SCOTUS. Besides it's not a "ban" and you could still purchase non-semi auto handguns without going through the NFA paperwork.

If anything it justifies hiring even more agents and increasing the size of the ATF.

Again just look at the argument Congress used for passing the original NFA.

Straight from the ATF website:

"Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre."

With all the mass shootings doesn't this sound awfully familiar? And these days it isn't criminals shooting other criminals (ala St. Valentines day), it's "normal" citizens getting gunned down. Heck they have more "reasonable" reason to add semi-autos to the NFA list today then they had for creating the NFA to begin with back in 34 (ignoring the pesky 2nd Amendment which they did back then anyway).

"As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms."

Slow attrition. Reduce the sale of semi-auto handguns because they ..." pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the"... mass shooting in public places by people armed with said weapons.

As far as wanting to feel superior, they already are. Exceptions are made for them already. Why would it be any different if they add semi-autos to the NFA list?

I really hope you are right but history is not leaning in your direction.

 

[thebishopp]

It is a mistake to think that Congress would not protect its legislative power. Congress would have no reason to exist at all if the President could actually do this.

This thread is headed down a path of conspiracy theory that I am going to start ridiculing if people actually take this seriously.

Give up some of it's power? Hmmmm.... Seems like the senate and the house did just that a few months ago.

House Passes Bill Eliminating Senate Approval of Presidential Appointments.

But maybe you don't think giving up one of the "checks" in the system is a big deal as it helps "streamline the system" and "Important positions will be filled faster, government agencies will be more capable of offering valuable services to their constituents, and the overall confirmation process will be more efficient,”

Just like adding semi-autos to the NFA list would reduce crimes caused by semi-autos just it reduced all those crimes committed by gangsters armed with silenced machine guns.

This thread is headed down a path of conspiracy theory that I am going to start ridiculing if people actually take this seriously.

LOL. Yeah, "conspiracy", whatever. Froggie in the pot. Getting warm yet?

 

[Ted]

If, and a mighty big if, semi autos were recategorized to be applicable under NFA for registration/taxation/potential confiscation............

I would predict that NY, IL, CA, MA, HI.......and other such anti states, would enforce for the feds. I suspect that many other states would follow the example of Sheriff Brad Rogers, and institute 10A protections.

I would further predict that said firearms would then also become an imminent threat to a number of Washington D.C. politicians and bureaucrats.

Its more likely that ammunition would become the target of federal takeover via nationalization or taxation....rendering firearms eventually and essentially obsolete.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Bishopp, I'm not saying your argument is invalid nor the reasoning behind it. Those are the only points you seem to be making to me.

Show me a LEGAL precedent for a bureaucratic or even executive branch capability to pass a new law or change an existing one without legislative approval. BATF cannot change the designation or definitions of firearms regulated by the NFA. For a perfect example read their pitiful reasoning behind trying to regulate pistols with a forward vertical grip as AOWs. They say that because the weapon "no longer is designed to be fired from one hand it does not meet the definition of a handgun and therefore falls under the designation of AOW and regulated by the ATF."

Why would they have to quote the definitions written by CONGRESS in the original 1934 NFA if they could make up regulations on the spot? In the story it acts like the designation of the "street sweeper" was precedent but it has a bore over .50 caliber and did not meet the sporting clause laid out by the 1934 NFA and enhanced by the 1968 GCA for importation and regulation of destructive devices. They did NOT make a new designation nor regulate it because it was a common tool of criminals.

The wait times associated with NFA registration does not matter to Congress or the SCOTUS because of a SCOTUS decision "Miller vs USA" where they deemed a SBS as a weapon not fit for military combat and therefore not protected by the 2A.

Why no one has used that decision lately to argue that ALL NFA weapons are "suitable for military combat" by using examples in our current military is beyond me.

 

[madeuce50]

I would be happy to pay an extra tax as long as I can add some parts to all my A/R's. If the Prez wants to NFA my semi then it should be ok for me to make a few alterations. I always understood once a M/G always a M/g regardless of barrel length,feed capacity,etc.

 

[jgreiner]

yeah right, the President would be impeached and removed inside of a week if he pulled some stunt like this.

Don't bet on it. I have far less confidence in the American public after the last election.

 

[jgreiner]

Bishopp, I'm not saying your argument is invalid nor the reasoning behind it. Those are the only points you seem to be making to me.

Show me a LEGAL precedent for a bureaucratic or even executive branch capability to pass a new law or change an existing one without legislative approval. BATF cannot change the designation or definitions of firearms regulated by the NFA. For a perfect example read their pitiful reasoning behind trying to regulate pistols with a forward vertical grip as AOWs. They say that because the weapon "no longer is designed to be fired from one hand it does not meet the definition of a handgun and therefore falls under the designation of AOW and regulated by the ATF."

Why would they have to quote the definitions written by CONGRESS in the original 1934 NFA if they could make up regulations on the spot? In the story it acts like the designation of the "street sweeper" was precedent but it has a bore over .50 caliber and did not meet the sporting clause laid out by the 1934 NFA and enhanced by the 1968 GCA for importation and regulation of destructive devices. They did NOT make a new designation nor regulate it because it was a common tool of criminals.

The wait times associated with NFA registration does not matter to Congress or the SCOTUS because of a SCOTUS decision "Miller vs USA" where they deemed a SBS as a weapon not fit for military combat and therefore not protected by the 2A.

Why no one has used that decision lately to argue that ALL NFA weapons are "suitable for military combat" by using examples in our current military is beyond me.

I will give you two:

DOMA: Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land. Yet with an executive order, Obama has nullified it.

Dream Act: Obama has declared defacto amnesty for illegals, even though we have laws on the books in regards to illegal immigration.

Never underestimate the amount of power this president BELIEVES he has.

 

[Ted]

I will give you two:

DOMA: Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land. Yet with an executive order, Obama has nullified it.

Dream Act: Obama has declared defacto amnesty for illegals, even though we have laws on the books in regards to illegal immigration.

Never underestimate the amount of power this president BELIEVES he has.

Case in Point:
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
~President Andrew Jackson. IN RE: Worcester v. Georgia

 

[Titanium_Frost]

BAAAAH, BAAAAAH

Sorry, I couldn't hear you for all the bleating in the background from some pitiful sheep.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I will give you two:

DOMA: Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land. Yet with an executive order, Obama has nullified it.

Dream Act: Obama has declared defacto amnesty for illegals, even though we have laws on the books in regards to illegal immigration.

Never underestimate the amount of power this president BELIEVES he has.

But at any time congress or SCOTUS can step in, just because they don't does not mean that this is the way it works.

Just like a cop letting you go 5mph over the speed limit or dumping a potheads stash out and letting him go does not mean that they are not still illegal and can be enforced at any time.

Right now congress haas no balls, they pander to the executive branch and let SCOTUS walk all over them at times. I would like to put our GA in as subs for Congress one day and see what **** storm they create. Just look at SB1 for an example of how the legislative branch is SUPPOSED to work when the courts on the laws they laid out.

Same should happen to the president. We should have impeached half of them but congress is the worst branch of them all.

 

[Ted]

Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment that sets the stage for a trial, to remove an individual from the office to which they were elected.

It doesn't mean a thing without a conviction.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment that sets the stage for a trial, to remove an individual from the office to which they were elected.

It doesn't mean a thing without a conviction.

And? Impeachment is as far as congress goes, it is their responsibility to start the process, just like with Clinton.