how many supporters?

[chadbag]

Originally Posted by khc3

"And pecuniary gain." Remember, one of the words being defined in the paragraph I posted is "livelihood." Defining a word by itself doesn't exactly clear things up. Also, pecuniary gain doesn't even need to be the only reason for selling a gun in order to meet the criteria in that paragraph, it only needs to be a "predominant" intent.

I don't see "livelihood" defined at all. It says "AND pecuniary gain." AND usually means in addition to. Not in definition of.

I agree 100% that proving intent is a hard challenge, and that repeated instances would make an easier case than just one.

But I mainly disagreed with your statement:



"Intent" is the key here, and I see nothing in the law that says that buying/selling guns, with the intent to profit, without a license is OK, if you only do it a little bit.



You've misread this.

I did? It is pretty clear. It says that it must be for livelihood and that in the case of terrorism or criminal intent you don't need to have repeated and frequent sales, ergo, for non terrorism or criminal intent prosecution you DO have to have repeated sales -- a pattern.

Intent of profit alone is not sufficient.

You seem to be the one who has misread this.

[SHIVAN]

At one point had two M16's. I would have immediately signed on to sunset the GCA and NFA acts. If I have the money for two M16's, I have the money to buy 10 more, or the jigs to do it myself if they were legal again.

[geminidglocker]

I support machineguns for everybody, so long as they are of sound mind and spirit, pass backround check, etc;
In Switzerland, the citizens are allowed to keep there service issue rifle, even though it gets downgraded to Semi-auto, They don' t have much gun violence there from what I hear.

[khc3]

Originally Posted by eguns-com

I don't see "livelihood" defined at all. It says "AND pecuniary gain." AND usually means in addition to. Not in definition of.



I did? It is pretty clear. It says that it must be for livelihood and that in the case of terrorism or criminal intent you don't need to have repeated and frequent sales, ergo, for non terrorism or criminal intent prosecution you DO have to have repeated sales -- a pattern.

Intent of profit alone is not sufficient.

You seem to be the one who has misread this.

I don't think so, but we'll have to agree to see things differently on this.

[rwp096]

I think that there could be a slim ray of hope of the law being overturned, even if more of the public became aware of MG's, I mean given our country's track record on voting the past decade it still baffels me on how certain laws get passed and how certain officals become elected, so who knows something unexpected wouldn't be unusal . The main proponent would be for the government to stop infringing and taking away citizen's rights, which might get more supporters than saying let private citizens make MG's again.

[JoshNC]

Originally Posted by rwp096

lets say that in the near future someone proposed that the machine gun ban be overturned and civilains could once again make their own/buy new machine guns while sitll paying the tax's and doing the same paper work. How many people would support it? How many current nfa machine gun owners would support it, because for the most part their investments will drop drastically.

I would gladly take a tremendous hit in the value of my transferable machineguns in order to legally be able to register new ones and purchase newly manufactured machineguns.

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by Cameron

The 1986 NFA is in violation of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. It also violates the fundamental human rights to self determination and self defense, it should be repealed immediately. So I think it would be great if this ever happened.

Cameron

Just to make you aware, it is the 1934 NFA and FOPA 1986. And you most certainly do NOT want to repeal FOPA 1986 aka Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

[Greg Bell]

I would saw my M16 in half and throw it in a lake if it would help get the ban overturned. Like somebody here said, despite what we tell our wives, we are in it for the guns, not the investment.

[chadbag]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

Just to make you aware, it is the 1934 NFA and FOPA 1986. And you most certainly do NOT want to repeal FOPA 1986 aka Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Correct, just the part about machine guns in the FOPA

[NinjaMedic]

I think the only realistic way to get rid of the MG Ban is through the judicial branch not the legislative. Even then it would be unlikely. I think the best chance that we have would be for a state governor to sign a paper saying that members of the militia within that governors state should carry X rifle (say an M16A1) in the interests of ensuring the "well regulated militia" and their ability to serve as such. Then someone sues the federal government for preventing them from fulfilling their obligation to serve in the militia. That would lead to the repeal of the 86 MG ban while leaving alone the NFA and FOPA with little political impact and secure the other half of the 2nd amendment that DC vs Heller didnt have to consider.

[Savior 6]

Originally Posted by rwp096

lets say that in the near future someone proposed that the machine gun ban be overturned and civilains could once again make their own/buy new machine guns while sitll paying the tax's and doing the same paper work. How many people would support it? How many current nfa machine gun owners would support it, because for the most part their investments will drop drastically.

Brother, I'd be in all the way. It would be a dream for me, as a firearms supporter and enthusiast, to be able have just about any MG be affordable for my collection.
Even if they came in yearly limited quantities it would be better than having to pay small salaries to afford quality MGs. Would love to see the same apply for imports as well.

[Savior 6]

Originally Posted by Greg Bell

I would saw my M16 in half and throw it in a lake if it would help get the ban overturned. Like somebody here said, despite what we tell our wives, we are in it for the guns, not the investment.

Now that's the spirit!

[chadbag]

The other thing to go along with it is the 89 BUSH ban... (which gave us all that 922(r) crap)

[SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted by eguns-com

Correct, just the part about machine guns in the FOPA

Yep, and that is why we need to get rid of the "sporter clause" in the 1968 GCA. It is that and that alone which gives ATF the discretion to decide some guns are bad and some guns are good.

Without the sporter clause, all guns become simply "arms" and that is exactly how the second amendment was intended. It didn't have jack shit to do with "sporting."

[chadbag]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

Yep, and that is why we need to get rid of the "sporter clause" in the 1968 GCA. It is that and that alone which gives ATF the discretion to decide some guns are bad and some guns are good.

Without the sporter clause, all guns become simply "arms" and that is exactly how the second amendment was intended. It didn't have jack shit to do with "sporting."

Agreed 100%

[TY44934]

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

Yep, and that is why we need to get rid of the "sporter clause" in the 1968 GCA. It is that and that alone which gives ATF the discretion to decide some guns are bad and some guns are good.

Without the sporter clause, all guns become simply "arms" and that is exactly how the second amendment was intended. It didn't have jack shit to do with "sporting."

Correct. AND, Heller indicates that the 2nd's intent was not to protect "sporting" purposes, but rather all traditional uses including personal protection in the home.

The danger of allowing the GCA68's "sporting clause" to go unchallenged is that it could easily be abused the way it was in 1994, to declare the USAS-12 shotgun to be a "destructive device" even though it is simply a semi-auto 12 gauge, because it was not "sporting enough" for the administration at that time (plus, they added in the NFA's limit on bore diameter over 0.50 inch).

But, back to 922(o). I still believe the only hope is to challenge 922(o) in the courts - again & again until we defeat it.

[dbrowne1]

Originally Posted by TY44934

Correct. AND, Heller indicates that the 2nd's intent was not to protect "sporting" purposes, but rather all traditional uses including personal protection in the home.

The danger of allowing the GCA68's "sporting clause" to go unchallenged is that it could easily be abused the way it was in 1994, to declare the USAS-12 shotgun to be a "destructive device" even though it is simply a semi-auto 12 gauge, because it was not "sporting enough" for the administration at that time (plus, they added in the NFA's limit on bore diameter over 0.50 inch).

But, back to 922(o). I still believe the only hope is to challenge 922(o) in the courts - again & again until we defeat it.

Unfortunately, the Court in Heller all but threw machineguns and the Miller opinion under the bus:

Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.... We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns....

In other words, the Heller court engaged in rather circular reasoning in saying that NFA weapons are not commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and thus not protected ... but of course the reason, at least in part, that such weapons are less common is because of the NFA and the machinegun moratorium of 1986.

The Helleropinion was hailed as a great victory for gun rights - and in many ways it is - but it did not do us any favors on the "evil-looking" gun front.