'nough said.

It's been discussed at length for some time now. The concensus for the last few presidential terms is that the political climate was hostile to the idea. In a worse case scenario, it could do more harm than good. Like let sleeping dogs lie. Also, NFA folks are a very tiny minority. There are much larger groups which have a lot more influence on politicians, and other concerns.

I’m curious what you have in mind. Do you believe there are really that many unregistered machine guns hidden away out there, and if not, what would an amnesty be likely to cover?

During the 80s, I was at Knob Creek during one of the shoots. I was shooting the breeze with a well known dealer with whom I had a friendly relationship. Over a couple of toddies, I asked if he thought there was a lot of unpapered NFL hardware out there. He told me he was tired of being approached very often about buying, selling, or repairing contraband guns. He said his estimate was that there were 10 unpapered guns out there for every legal one. We exchanged looks and then changed the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
He said his estimate was that there were 10 unpapered guns out there for every legal one. We exchanged looks and then changed the subject.

Interesting. Thanks for that insight.

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
He said his estimate was that there were 10 unpapered guns out there for every legal one. We exchanged looks and then changed the subject.

I'd have to agree ... they are out there.

They would be valuable if they were registered, on the other hand, I guess some are worth 10 years and/or $10,000

I haven't bothered to do any real research, but I doubt any future amnesty would cover machineguns.

The amendments to the NFA, which allowed for amnesty periods, were passed in 1968. 18USC922(o), often referred as the "Hughes Amendment," was passed in 1896, and makes it illegal to transfer or possess any machineguns that were not registered prior to the date 922(o) took effect, with the exception of a "transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

^^^1896 or 1996^^^??

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
^^^1896 or 1996^^^??

Neither; that was an obvious typo, and the correct year is 1986.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
^^^1896 or 1996^^^??

Neither; that was an obvious typo, and the correct year is 1986.

Hands typing over ran brain.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:
I haven't bothered to do any real research, but I doubt any future amnesty would cover machineguns.

The amendments to the NFA, which allowed for amnesty periods, were passed in 1968. 18USC922(o), often referred as the "Hughes Amendment," was passed in 1986, and makes it illegal to transfer or possess any machineguns that were not registered prior to the date 922(o) took effect, with the exception of a "transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

I hadn't thought about that ... but if it didn't applied to new production? I know there must be hundreds if not thousands of un-registered DIAS and Lightning links out there, not to mention all of the "grandpa's guns" ... I would support not allowing people to drill that 3rd hole and register their new production AK's and AR's ... all complete weapons would have to be verified by maker and serial number, but I don't believe the "pre-ban" otto-sear's, DIAS and LL's have serial numbers unless they were registered.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
^^^1896 or 1996^^^??

Neither; that was an obvious typo, and the correct year is 1986.

Hands typing over ran brain.

Yes it was a typo, but my hands over running my brain is testament to both the speed and carelessness of my hands, and slowness of my brain!

Just my days as a teacher surfacing. Im not trying to be a PIA, just getting it straight for me and anyone else who needs clarification. Sometimes my enthusiasm causes me to trip over my own feet.

quote:

Originally posted by greco:
Im not trying to be a PIA . . .

No worries from me. I call people out for spelling/grammar mistakes all the time. So if I make a typo, I expect to be called on it, whether it's a search for legitimate clarification, or simple just to give me grief for making such a stupid error.

Man, I wish. I get a phone call a week from someone who has a priceless piece of history. This week an individual called me about a 50's model H&R M-14 in mint condition.

quote:

Originally posted by kimberkid:
I would support not allowing people to drill that 3rd hole and register their new production AK's and AR's ...

No flame-why not? Do you have a lot of money tied up in guns and would lose a substantial amount?

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

quote:

Originally posted by kimberkid:
I would support not allowing people to drill that 3rd hole and register their new production AK's and AR's ...

No flame-why not? Do you have a lot of money tied up in guns and would lose a substantial amount?

I was directing that comment to DMF's comment ... IF we could at least convert the guns, DIAS, sear packs & lightning links manufactured before the Hughes Amendment, that would be a huge step forward, however DIAS, sear packs & lightning links, if they weren't registered wouldn't have a serial number so I don't know how you would prove they were "pre-Hughes". But even a small step forward would be a step forward.

To answer your question, I have an M16 and a registered HK sear and I would imaging they would loose some value ... especially the sear, but I'd be OK with it, I've had the benefit of playing with it for years ... I'm sure there are others out there that would have much more to "loose" if such a bill passed. But it you think about it, their value is artificially inflated in the first place ... if they were bought for investment, just like any other investment, it's a chance you take.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:
I haven't bothered to do any real research, but I doubt any future amnesty would cover machineguns.

The amendments to the NFA, which allowed for amnesty periods, were passed in 1968. 18USC922(o), often referred as the "Hughes Amendment," was passed in 1896, and makes it illegal to transfer or possess any machineguns that were not registered prior to the date 922(o) took effect, with the exception of a "transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kimberkid,

quote:

Originally posted by kimberkid:
... if we could at least convert the guns, DIAS, sear packs & lightning links manufactured before the Hughes Amendment, that would be a huge step forward, however DIAS, sear packs & lightning links, if they weren't registered wouldn't have a serial number so I don't know how you would prove they were "pre-Hughes". But even a small step forward would be a step forward.

The problem as I see it, is the wording of 18USC922(o) makes it illegal to possess machineguns that were not registered prior to the statute taking effect in 1986 ( ), so unless the firearm were properly registered and transferable, prior to the 18USC922(o), I don't see anyway to register it now.

Here is the text of the 18USC922(o):
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

Perhaps no one here who has an already-registered machine gun would object to an amnesty that would suddenly increase the supply by several-fold. I cannot imagine, though, that many such other owners wouldn’t pale at the thought of their highly desirable guns losing their desirability—and much of their value—overnight. But if we are unlikely to see the passage of even the Hearing Protection Act, anything making machine guns more available is a fantasy, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by kimberkid:
... IF we could at least convert the guns, DIAS, sear packs & lightning links manufactured before the Hughes Amendment, that would be a huge step forward, however DIAS, sear packs & lightning links, if they weren't registered wouldn't have a serial number so I don't know how you would prove they were "pre-Hughes". But even a small step forward would be a step forward.

The problem as I see it, is the wording of 18USC922(o) makes it illegal to possess machineguns that were not registered prior to the statute taking effect in 1986 ( ), so unless the firearm were properly registered and transferable, prior to the 18USC922(o), I don't see anyway to register it now.

Here is the text of the 18USC922(o):
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

I understand what the law says ... but laws are made to be changed ... I should have used Capitals, Bold and Italics IF ... because it is a big IF