2nd Amendment limitations...

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3235457
I thought the National Firearms Act of 1934 made clas III illegal to own without the tax stamp/registration with the NFA. The way I understand the 1986 law, they were willing to give amnesty to register and tax all the machine guns out in peoples' garages and attics.
If your brother still has that class III Thompson, he's in trouble unless he amnesty registered it in 1986. He's not being very responsible is he?
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights. However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.
Trust me, every weapon my brother owns is legal. Although he doesn't have a gun shop any longer, he still maintains his FFL license. I believe he has a Type 3 license, which designates him as a Licensed collector of Curio & Relic firearms. He also has a Class 3 Tax Stamp. Some of his best friends are Houston and Harris County cops, and they come to him anytime they want to update their weapons.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235466
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights. However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000.
Trust me, every weapon my brother owns is legal. Although he doesn't have a gun shop any longer, he still maintains his FFL license. I believe he has a Type 3 license, which designates him as a Licensed collector of Curio & Relic firearms. He also has a Class 3 Tax Stamp. Some of his best friends are Houston and Harris County cops, and they come to him anytime they want to update their weapons.
Yup, the 1986 law really helped those who already owned the said firearms. Like you said add a "0" to the price.
I wish I'd have invested in some at the time, I could sell them and retire.
You did make it sound like your brother had a non registered class III firearm.
 

yearofthenick

Active Member
Man, Bionic and DarthTang... you guys always get into pissing matches...
I'd love to get you two in the same room, hang a limbo pole and have you duke it out like real men.
 

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3235468
They didn't convert, they purchased....but the preface for your statement is the same.
http://blog.robballen.com/2009/03/30...full-auto.post
Ok, why did they purchase a fully automatic weapon? Oh wait... Because they can....

Actually, my statement wouldn't necessarily be directed at them. I said individuals who MODIFY
semi-autos to autos are doing it for the sole purpose of using them in a crime. If someone has a license or the required paperwork to purchase a firearm that's already a full auto, it's highly unlikely they would use it for criminal activity, since the Feds keep track of individuals who make those types of purchases. You could still use it in a crime, but you'd be a prime candiadate for the Annual Darwin Award if you did.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3235491
Man, Bionic and DarthTang... you guys always get into pissing matches...
I'd love to get you two in the same room, hang a limbo pole and have you duke it out like real men.
We're planning on meeting at some remote bar in the desert, drink until we can't stand up, then see who can drive a car the furthest before running into a cactus or running over a ratllesnake.
 

yearofthenick

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235494
We're planning on meeting at some remote bar in the desert, drink until we can't stand up, then see who can drive a car the furthest before running into a cactus or running over a ratllesnake.
I've got one better. Let's both get you in front f semi-automatic assault rifles and see who can make them fully automatic the fastest.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235459
What '50% of my positions' are shown wrong? I haven't dealt with guns for over 30 years. I'm just stating my experiences I had back when I did mess with them. Sorry I don't look up every little useless statistic to back up what I state. Most of your replies are just subjective statements based on your personal beliefs.

My whole point is way back when the laws and regulations were way different, yet you are approaching the subject and commentting using 30 year old data that isn't relevant. May as well be using repeater rifle information to describe an ak-47. That is my whole point.
Originally Posted by bionicarm

http:///forum/post/3235459
The only justification for banning any weapon is based on the trust the American people have with people today being responsible enough to own them. If you could guaranteee that every owner of ANY gun, regardless if it's an assault weapon or not, would maintain and use that weapon in a responsible and safe manner, then there would be no reason whatsoever to ban them. The problem is you can't do that.
So you are saying ALL guns should be banned? After all, we can't guarantee every owner of EVERY gun.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235494
We're planning on meeting at some remote bar in the desert, drink until we can't stand up, then see who can drive a car the furthest before running into a cactus or running over a ratllesnake.

This time Armadillos are fair game....what about Coyotes?
 

yearofthenick

Active Member
Darth, probably my favorite thing you used to do was sign your name and it had some smart-alec remark in parenthesis, like:
Darth (dog grooming is my life's passion) Tang.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3235516
Darth, probably my favorite thing you used to do was sign your name and it had some smart-alec remark in parenthesis, like:
Darth (dog grooming is my life's passion) Tang.
I still do that occasionally. But can't do it all the time...otherwise it would get old.
Darth (Bionicarm's Best friend) Tang
 

darthtang aw

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235492
Ok, why did they purchase a fully automatic weapon? Oh wait... Because they can....

Actually, my statement wouldn't necessarily be directed at them. I said individuals who MODIFY
semi-autos to autos are doing it for the sole purpose of using them in a crime. If someone has a license or the required paperwork to purchase a firearm that's already a full auto, it's highly unlikely they would use it for criminal activity, since the Feds keep track of individuals who make those types of purchases. You could still use it in a crime, but you'd be a prime candiadate for the Annual Darwin Award if you did.
If someone had a gun that was legally purchased, licensed/registered it is equally unlikely they would use it in a crime, even if they modified it...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235422
Dude. People who modify semi-autos to autos aren't considered responsible gun owners these days. Back in the late 70's and early 80's, it wasn't a crime to own them. That changed with the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986. My brother still has an original Army-issued Thompson Machine Gun he purchased from a dealer at a gun show. People who modify semi-autos today are doing it for one purpose - major damage and firepower for a crime.
So when you modified your weapon you were doing it to commit a crime?
 

mastertech

Member
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
How can the "PEOPLE" defend themselves from any other without mass numbers and effective weapons ie.AR's, AK's, H&K's, 1911's, Glocks and the like. There is also a need and constitutional protection that allows the ability for moral law abiding people to obtain class III weapons that would prove to be valuable resources to defend against oppression?
the fact that this question is being asked either indicates the citizen is looking for TRUTH and answers or they are stuck in a little known condition called complacency.
every great civilizations runs this course.
from bondage to spiritual faith
from spiritual faith to great courage
from great courage to strength
from strength to liberty
from liberty to abundance
from abundance to leisure
from leisure to selfishness
from selfishness to complacency
from complacency to apathy
from apathy to dependency
from dependency to weakness
from weakness to bondage
where are you?
 

fishtaco

Active Member
Just to help my head around this Darth, you support the right for private citizens to own their own nukes, but think alcohol should be banned or where you just using that as an example? I'm guessing the founding fathers would have had you in lock and shackles for even mentioning the prohibition of alcohol since at least Washington, Franklin and Jefferson from what I can tell all brewed their own beer and I have what seems to be the original recipe for Franklins and plan on making it soon.
Fishtaco-Darth you will have to pry my micro-brewery from my cold dead hands. LOL
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3235514
This time Armadillos are fair game....what about Coyotes?
Armadillos = Texas Speed Bumps.
Remember when Lone Star used armadillos as their 'campaign mascot' back in the 80's? When we used to find dead armadillos on the side of the road, we'd prop them up with a stick and put an empty Lone Star bottle in their paws.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3235569
So when you modified your weapon you were doing it to commit a crime?
If you call emptying a couple hundred bullets into an abondoned car a crime, then yep.
Back then, you didn't see the gun violence and gun crime you see today. When I was in high school, I kept my shotgun and my .22 rifle hanging up in the back window of my truck. One of my teachers would jump in my truck with me after school, and we'd go dove hunting on his property outside of Houston. The only reason I modified the AR-15 I had was because it was cheaper than buying a lower receiver that was configured for full auto. No one thought about people owning those types of weapons back then.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3234721
The 223 isn't designed to be a kill round where the 45 is. That is why they aren't used for sniper riffles where you are looking to take someone out. The idea of the 223 is you take out the person you shot and cause others to render aid to the wounded soldier. 45 is a close quarters round where you want to kill what you shoot.
Agreed. That's also why the military uses FMJ's rather than hollow points, the idea being wounding an enemy combatant (hopefully severely, but not immediately lethally) takes three soldiers out of combat rather than just the one killed.
 
Top