“We won! Repeal NFA Now!”

I have seen some around the Internet demanding to waste the future Republican (and allegedly Pro-Gun) Congress on repealing the National Firearms Act.

As sexy as this could be, it would be an enormous waste of federal political capital with little to show as return on the investment.  Full auto is a very small percentage of the firearms in civilian hands and we cannot make the same mistake that Opposition is making: Focus on the object and not on the people.

Where would I like to see congress go for? Three things: National Reciprocity without attachments. Simply stated if you can carry in your state, you can carry in the rest of the country. In fact, we are at a great moment for this now that every state in the union and even DC have carry laws.

Second: Institute the Coburn Amendment as law for “Universal Background Checks” and allow citizens access to NICS. For once, I don’t mind having a tool to make sure I can sell a gun to a person that is not prohibited, but this would also occupy the space that the Gun Control Groups feel needs to be covered to make us “safe.”  It would weaken them in their demands for a draconian UBC both at the Federal Level and at State level.

Third: Reinforcing FOPA by allowing to penalize violators with fines and/or jail time plus lawsuits for violation of civil rights. This has to go alongside National Reciprocity as I can almost smell places like NY or NJ abusing Gun Owners that may have more than one firearm with them while they travel.  I can see some New Jersey Trooper arresting not the person with the CCW but a spouse or friend because there is a spare gun and obviously (according to them) you are not gonna two handguns.  Yes, it is harassment and yes, it will eventually be thrown out in court, but the idea is to stop the BS before it happens.

That is my opinion on what we should try to achieve at the Federal Level. Your mileage may vary.

28 Replies to ““We won! Repeal NFA Now!””

  1. “Second: Institute the Coburn Amendment as law for “Universal Background Checks” and allow citizens access to NICS.”

    The problem with this, aside from background checks not deterring criminals – at all – is that it just opens the door to ramping it up later into something else. Getting the camel’s nose under the tent, as it were. “Clearly this NICS thing doesn’t do what we need to do to fight crime/save the children/fight TERRA/whatever, so we need to have it save info about the guns being transferred too. I mean, everyone is already doing the background checks anyway.” Then you get the idiot gun owners saying the same thing: “Eh, I’m already doing a background check on every transfer and I don’t have anything to hide anyway..”

    Let’s not try to give ourselves enough rope to hang ourselves.




    0



    0
    1. I am gonna disagree with you on this matter. As long as we maintain the “no record keeping” already in place, we should be golden. First thing, no ATF 4473 form, no bound book and no way for the government to find out which gun did you owned and sold or bought. It would simply be input name, address & social (optional) and get a Yes-Delayed-No answer.
      It is more enticing to fill an empty space than trying to vacate one that is already occupied.




      0



      0
      1. Sorry Miguel, but I agree with htuser and disagree with you on two points.
        First, who’s to say that we would be able to keep the “no record keeping” clause in place? We might get it out of the gates, but one could just as easily imagine it revoked down the line, leading to a registry.
        Second, “INPUT name, address and social”? Really?! Given the nature of electronic records and computer logs, that’s a de facto registry! There must be no INPUT!
        If the gov’t really wanted to provide a useful service to all gun sellers (private or commercial), it would provide a comprehensive online list of felons (by name alphabetically, with DOB).
        A seller could then pull up the list to see if the buyer’s name and DOB is on it. If it doesn’t appear, then all clear. If instead it does appear, then the seller shouldn’t sell (and would be breaking the law if he did). Of course, the seller could decide to break the law and sell to the felon regardless, but the truth is that such a seller would likely sell to a felon anyhow!
        And THAT’s the ultimate flaw of a background check… it is useless because the very people it is supposed to prevent from selling or buying guns will steer well clear of it.




        0



        0
        1. First, who’s to say that we would be able to keep the “no record keeping” clause in place? We might get it out of the gates, but one could just as easily imagine it revoked down the line, leading to a registry.

          Then the bill dies. I am not talking suicide pact here. The opposition will try to do that as poison pill, but I doubt it will get any traction with this congress.

          Second, “INPUT name, address and social”? Really?! Given the nature of electronic records and computer logs, that’s a de facto registry! There must be no INPUT!

          Same as when you buy a gun at a store, the use of SSN is optional.

          If the gov’t really wanted to provide a useful service to all gun sellers (private or commercial), it would provide a comprehensive online list of felons (by name alphabetically, with DOB).

          And you should have that already in your state, I know Florida has an Offender database. The issue we have remaining is those people who are dangerous because of mental health problems and the domestic violence offenders. That is the Coburn Amendment.




          0



          0
  2. I agree that a flat out repeal of the NFA is a non-starter, but I sure would love to see suppressors delisted, and the CLEO signature completely done away with.




    0



    0
    1. You could never get rid of the NFA, I agree. BUT, you could pull some of it’s teeth. Deregulated full auto would be a media nightmare, so would deregulated suppressors.

      However, I think you could get away with deregulating SBRs and SBSs without much of a problem. The people who hate assault rifles will always hate assault rifles, there is no winning over them.

      But a lot of people are more logical than that. Show them a Tavor or AUG which is legal and an AR15 with an 11.5″ barrel which is not, or a Kel-Tec KSG and an 870 with a 14 inch barrel. Reason would suggest that the ready availability of bullpups makes the barrel length issue obsolete.

      If I were to slyly get rid of the SBR/SBS, I would make it legal to buy/own an SBR/SBS through a normal 4473, or assembly your own from OEM parts, or have a licensed gunsmith cut it down.

      That way, the media can’t show the clip of Travis from Taxi Driver cutting his shotgun with a hack saw and say that it legal. But if you buy a 14 inch barrel from Remington for your 870 or an 11 inch AR upper from MidwayUSA, you can put it on yourself without a problem. It is just a replacement part.

      The other thing I would change is allowing handgun sales across state lines. If you can pass a 4473 in one state, you can pass it in the 49 others.




      0



      0
      1. J, the reason I suggest silencers before the short barreled stuff, is that it’s much easier to debunk the built up hollywood myths. You can just straight up demonstrate for people that they don’t sound like they do in movies. Adding onto that you also have the easily demonstrated safety and being a good neighbor aspects.

        You can probably also go with the fact that they are massively popular and delisting them would free up the ATF’s NFA branch to process the other NFA items in a timely fashion. You never know, maybe a few of those millionaires/billionaires might appreciate getting their MGs sooner.

        Versus with SBS and SBRs, ultimately it comes down to having people just believe us that it’s no big deal in terms of added danger. Sure we all know it, but the lawmakers don’t and we’d have to convince them to expend that political capital.

        Also, by bringing bullpups into it you only give the anti’s another target. The initial AWB was about banning a class of firearms that weren’t yet wildly popular, now that every gun safe in America holds an AR or two that ship has sailed, bringing up bullpups as equals to SBR/SBSs only gives them another class of not (yet) wildly popular class of firearms to target.




        0



        0
    2. Delist silencers, SBRs and SBSs. As far as full auto goes, only the rich can afford them, so repeal the Hughes Amendment to FOPA and then we can all afford new select fire weapons. If they want us to pay the $200 Tax, that’s fine, most of us can afford that, but NOT the $15,000 or more for the limited number of machine guns in circulation.




      0



      0
      1. Geoff, as much as I’d love the Hughes Amendment go away, I can only imagine how many rich, powerful, and well connected people have substantial investments, and they do view them as investments, in MGs that would overnight lose most of their value if the Hughes Amendment went away. Which ultimately means they will not allow the Hughes Amendment to be repealed.




        0



        0
  3. I’m all over an NFA repeal and hope that it is once again legal for ordinary citizens to own full-auto-capable firearms within my lifetime, but that’s not going to happen without an AWFUL lot of social restructuring going on first.

    Between 30 and 50% of US voters are currently not comfortable with the idea of law-abiding citizens being given access to firearms without draconic government measures in place. We need to change these peoples’ minds first.




    0



    0
    1. I can see where you are coming from but none of these legislations came to be with public approval to start with. Why do we suddenly need massive support to correct the issue. Permission is not need to do the right thing, that’s why it is right. Especially when you are moving in re-alignment with the constitution. I would rather someone bulldoze liberty through the Congress instead of Obama-care.




      0



      0
  4. The federal government does not have the authority to determine concealed carry rights (expansion or diminishment) nor should we be idiotic enough to allow that power to aggregate into the federal realm, nevertheless support it.




    0



    0
  5. If the feds control national reciprocity it will be but a matter of time before it morphs from “you can carry anywhere as long as you obey the laws of the state you ae carrying in” to “you need to obey the laws of the state PLUS these pretty federal laws too”.

    Thank you nut no thank you. I’ll fight the reciprocity battle on the state level. I know not everybody can decide not to go somewhere because of the carry laws – usually because work sends them there. If that’s the case and you find yourself being sent there frequently, find and support the local gun-rights organizations.

    Just remember, your driver’s license is good in all the other states because they agreed it would be. Not because the feds told them they had to.

    stay safe.




    0



    0
    1. ^this

      Accept federal power over concealed carry rights for a gain now, and you’ll just lose all footing for stopping them from stripping the right completely later.

      Don’t let power aggregate where it should not be for temporary gain.




      0



      0
      1. Maybe I am missing something here. We are talking about having CWP being recognized in every state just as drivers licenses. As far as I know, DLs are determined and controlled by the States and not by the Feds. Do you have to get a new DL for every state you plan on driving on? Do you need to re-marry every time you cross state lines?
        I do not like Federal power on licenses, but this is not even close to what we are talking about here but simply the application of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

        The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” This clause protects fundamental rights of individual citizens and restrains state efforts to discriminate against out-of-state citizens. However, the Privileges and Immunities Clause extends not to all commercial activity, but only to fundamental rights.
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause




        0



        0
        1. Miguel, did you not state that this is what you want done with the newly formed *pro-gun Congress*? That would mean having that (federal) congress pass law on the issue.

          For it to simply start being recognized as a fundamental right and protected would be a court issue striking down laws to the contrary. Having federal congress simply pass a law overriding state laws for reciprocity is NOT the same as recognizing it as a right…in fact, it’s the opposite, it’s recognizing it as a privilege that the federal government may to determine via statute. A privilege we would have for a while, which would be cool…but at the cost of it being a privilege, not a right. If congress can pass law giving it to you, then congress can pass law taking it from you. Asking them for a law on the books to recognize your rights is backwards concept.

          We have enough of our rights already being trampled by shortsighted works that did exactly that, trying to implement a right via statue. It doesn’t work, it only allows more power to aggregate in positions where it’s not supposed to be. That power then eventually turns against it and diminishes it instead of expanding it.




          0



          0
          1. For it to simply start being recognized as a fundamental right and protected would be a court issue striking down laws to the contrary. Having federal congress simply pass a law overriding state laws for reciprocity is NOT the same as recognizing it as a right…in fact, it’s the opposite, it’s recognizing it as a privilege that the federal government may to determine via statute. A privilege we would have for a while, which would be cool…but at the cost of it being a privilege, not a right.

            Congress already recognized in 1982 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Later they went ahead and passsed AWB anyway.

            What we need to understand and the opposition does very well is that we do not fight in the clean fields of Academia Thought but in Realpolitik. If there is a reason why I-594 passed in Washington, that is it.
            I think people got their expectation out of whack with Heller. Somehow the idea that the case just happened and we got some sort of super fast Law and Order dramatic courtroom finale is appealing to many…but it is the farthest thing from the truth: The preparation for Heller started some 35 years ago when scholars realized not one single law school or any other organization carried studies regarding the Second Amendment. And even if we did, we had no Supreme Court that would accept a case like that, much less give a favorable decision.
            So basically a major research enterprise had to be created and a major push to change the color of first Congress and then SCOTUS to achieve Heller. Yes, it too over three decades and it was the result of gaining many small battles till we turned the battlefield in our favor.

            We work at an accelerated speed now. But that does not mean we do it stupid. It does not mean we demand the “No Compromise” load of bull when we know historically it achieves nothing. We understand we will take losses but we learn from them and counter-attack.

            Now yu are afraid of Federal intervention, let me ask you this: The first 2 years of this administration congress was firmly in the hands of the Democrats. They could have passed a new AWB with the same ease as they did Obamacare and have it signed before the printer cooled off, why it didn’t? How many states that now have CWP have reverted to May Issue or No Issue even though legislature and governors changed to less favorable to the Second Amendment? Because one freedom is tasted, People like it and do not want it removed.

            Why National Reciprocity? because it would be the equivalent of a biological attack on those remainng states like NY, NJ and California that make it almost impossible for their citizens to carry. It would infect the normal folks with the dangerous idea of “Hey, how come this podunk from Montana can carry in my frigging city and I can’t even buy a Guns and Ammo magazine? We need to have our laws changed goddamint!” Double or triple that if Mr. Podunk happens to successfully defends himself with his gun. You will literally hear the howls of outrage coming from the defenseless citizen of that state.
            And then we have created a true Grassroots, one that will pester the crap out of their politicians and demand the laws be changed in favor of Concealed Carry and not just May Issue but Shall Issue. And once they get that, they want to get rid of Duty To Retreat and their local versions of AWB and so on. It will be a contagious shit.
            Right now we fear the use of Bloomberg’s money and rightfully so. Bloomberg is scared shitless of National Reciprocity and was active killing it when it popped last time because he knows it will put one big ass nail in the Gun Control coffin. He is out as major of NYC and DeBlasio hates him so there is a rift that can be exploited in our favor.
            Unfortunately, chest thumping only achieves coughing. Ours is a war of attrition and grandstanding gets you killed.




            0



            0
  6. Anything less than giving the other side nothing is treason. No background checks on anyone. Never. And to deny anyone, and I mean anyone, the right to bear arms is also treason. Anyone suggesting either should be run out of our ranks.

    We are absolutists and we need to remember that.




    0



    0
    1. Now you are adding Federal crap on it and that is not the idea. It simply directs states to recognize each other’s states CWP, plain and simple. no sugar or preservative added.




      0



      0
  7. Second: Institute the Coburn Amendment as law for “Universal Background Checks” and allow citizens access to NICS. For once, I don’t mind having a tool to make sure I can sell a gun to a person that is not prohibited, but this would also occupy the space that the Gun Control Groups feel needs to be covered to make us “safe.” It would weaken them in their demands for a draconian UBC both at the Federal Level and at State level.

    No.

    No no no.

    You do not “compromise” with anti-gun loons. Compromise to them means “give us something and we’ll give you nothing in return, and we’ll be back for more next year”.

    They will never stop pushing. There is no reasonable middle ground here.

    We need to be as extreme as possible. Push national CCW and NFA repeal. Push everything and get what we can. No less.




    0



    0
    1. It is not a compromise, it is filling a vacuum. It is an artificial one but one anyway.
      We get their song and dance shut down in a very imaginative way. What is their chant? A way to make sure felons and the mentally unstable do not get guns, right? They don’t want to take our guns, not register them, right?: “You said you wanted BG Checks on private sales? Here’s the tool. What else do you want? Going thru an FFL? Why? Why do you need an FFL? The only thing to accomplish with an FFL is to have some sort of registration, so you are contradiction yourself there.”
      And that is the beauty of the Coburn Amendment. It covers that hole and any protestation they make comes back as Gun Registration which is no palatable to voters. It kills UBCs for good or at least a couple of decades. And the beauty is that it may also influence stuff like I-594 “Why do you want to impose onerous BG checks on our state when we already have Coburn at Federal level?”
      And sure they can try via state by state, but it is hard, slow, expensive and now they will be facing another hurdle. And our side has basically gave nothing away.




      0



      0
  8. For sure get rid of the SBR and SBS provisions of NFA. It is easy to point out that all a criminal needs is a hacksaw to convert any legal rifle or shotgun into an illegal SBR or SBS. Dumb law.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .