I like the idea of those reforms with one addition. Allow new full auto weapons to enter the market even if you keep the 200 dollar transfer tax. It would bring the price for them down to affordable levels and allow many of the older and wearing out guns to be retired to historical conversation pieces.
At best I see about 3 or 4 NFA reforms being possible at this time.
1- Getting rid of the local LE sign off to obtain an NFA item, in favor of a NICS check. Remember that at the time NFA was writen we did not have anything close to NICS.
2- Reducing the shotgun barrel length requirement to 14". This is a commanly used length from LE agentcies and personal protective teams. This change would reduce the paperwork load for both LE agentcies and for the ATF as well.
3- Reclassifying Sound supressors as AOW, thus reducing the transfer tax to $5 instead of $200.
4- Changing the definition of handgun to allow for a .600 Linebaugh or 28ga. revolver. Currently both are defined as a destructive device due to a bore diameter over 1/2 inch.
These reforms are I admit rather minor, but incrementalism can be an effective strategy. Getting one of these reforms passed would be a victory IMHO.
The real question is why you wouldn’t want to own them. They are an absolute blast to shoot. I don’t need a reason to want one other then the 2nd entities you to own them. And to give a general answer to all the questions think about this. IF the CCW laws were never challenged how many states would have right to carry today. Washington State where I live is about as liberal as you can get but we just loosened the laws here on using silencers. Either you work toward restoring your rights or you passively wait for them to take more.
Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think automatic weapons were around in 1791.
Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think automatic weapons were around in 1791.
Well by that line of thinking there were not any double barrels, revolvers or semi-auto around either. In fact not even percussion weapons were around yet. The 2nd applies to any currently use military weapon which would include machine guns and suppressors. A common misconception is it was about hunting and that is untrue. It was plainly about being able to defeat the government in a civil war. There is no justifiable reason to restrict class three weapons at this point from any law abiding citizen. In fact I would say the need of civilians to own such weapons is going up each year.
Exactly, but at some point a line has to be drawn. The military uses Grenade Launchers, Uranium Tank Piercing Rounds, Nuclear bombs etc.. I just don't think the public needs to have these types of weapons. Now don't get me wrong, I have fired Autos before and loved it, when I have the chance to purchase one, I plan on it. But I can see being somewhat restrictive in who gets them. I am not for more government, but I do understand the need for the government to draw the line somewhere when it comes to weapons that can cause some serious destruction.
Exactly, but at some point a line has to be drawn. The military uses Grenade Launchers, Uranium Tank Piercing Rounds, Nuclear bombs etc.. I just don't think the public needs to have these types of weapons. Now don't get me wrong, I have fired Autos before and loved it, when I have the chance to purchase one, I plan on it. But I can see being somewhat restrictive in who gets them. I am not for more government, but I do understand the need for the government to draw the line somewhere when it comes to weapons that can cause some serious destruction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?