Jump to content

Hypothetical SBR/NFA Scenario


tbirdsc
 Share

Recommended Posts

I believe there was also talk of a substantial increase the cost of the tax stamp too. That is another reason why I am thinking of getting the process going just to have all the bases covered in that arena.

Because the cost of an AR15 SBR is relatively insignificant compared to a class 3 M16 if you seriously want one I'd lock one down now. Screw $200.

Colt just ended civilian production of AR15s.

The semi-auto versions have been sold out at wholesalers.

Prices are climbing.

Colt SBRs are still under the radar.

Repeat; LOCK ONE UP NOW !!!

 

PS who knows what goes on in the minds of AOC, Beto and the Democrats in power at the time / flavor of the day..

 

I have a third million + and a fair percentage of my retirement savings in class 3 and am trying to read the tea leaves.

Let me know if you have a vision one night. ;)

Edited by lightguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I saw the other day that Biden's gun plan includes classification of semi-auto AR-15's (and other similar "assault" rifles) as needing to be included in the NFA:

 

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

 

"Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act."

 

"Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act."

 

If Biden were elected I believe you would see these proposals.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regard to Biden's plan, there are two ways to bring semiautomatics ("assault weapons") under the NFA: either create a new category (a stand-alone category like machine guns, destructive devices, suppressors, SBR's, etc.) or redefine machine guns as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading,"

 

If the second approach is used, that would necessarily involve the suspension or repeal of the Hughes Amendment, to allow all existing machine guns (as newly redefined) to be registered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regard to Biden's plan, there are two ways to bring semiautomatics ("assault weapons") under the NFA: either create a new category (a stand-alone category like machine guns, destructive devices, suppressors, SBR's, etc.) or redefine machine guns as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading,"

 

If the second approach is used, that would necessarily involve the suspension or repeal of the Hughes Amendment, to allow all existing machine guns (as newly redefined) to be registered.

 

I think he mentioned in his plan that he would seek legislation, so I believe the plan involves proposed legislation to amend the NFA (your first option). Trump should have done the same with bump stocks, which would have been an easy to pass legislation. Instead, he did it by executive order (contrary to previous BATF rulings) and the first thing the Democrats did was state that when they were back in charge they would do the same thing to ban semi-autos (Trump opened the door for this kind of abuse going forward).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either approach (creating a new NFA category, or redefining machine guns) would require legislation. However, certain semiautomatic guns (notably, AR-15's) could be deemed to be machine guns by ATF ruling, or a change in regulations. That's because of the "readily converted" language in the GCA '68. The bump stock ban established the precedent that longstanding ATF positions could be overturned.

 

If a Democratic administration did this, existing AR's, like bump stocks, would be contraband, with no way to register them. That's because of the Hughes Amendment 1986 cutoff date. At that point, repeal of the Hughes Amendment would be an easy legislative fix that would have bipartisan support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't take any legislation to redefine bump stocks as machine guns. One person, Trump, decided it. Shorty thereafter, Pelosi said they would do the same to AR-15s when back in power.

 

Here's some info on the legal challenges to the bump stock ban, which I knew there was some legal challenges but hadn't keep up with them:

 

https://johnpierceesq.com/status-of-the-bump-fire-stock-ban/

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is food for thought on how sticky legal loopholes can get with the atf.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

 

I read through the article, and this kind of logic appears more and more common from judges in California. To the contrary, no reasonable person could conclude that you could take an unregulated 80% lower, put it in a CNC machine and push a button to turn it into a fully functional receiver, assemble all parts needed to be a firearm, and that not be manufacturing a firearm. That completely defies logic. This kind of "left coast" thinking is at the root of a lot of problems.

 

On the other hand, I think Congress could easily pass a law that would remedy the situation (along with bump stocks). If anyone wants to do some "common sense" gun legislation this case would be an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No loophole at all. It's been common knowledge for decades that an AR lower (a copy of a Johnson LMG effectively since Johnson was actively involved with the design of the AR) is not actually a receiver by definition.

The remedy to the situation is to prosecute and incarcerate criminals, not the tools that they use. Liberals refuse to do this, thus the decline of society in general with of course the added benefit of criminalizing firearms that could hinder the next socialist dictator's regime.

 

There is no such thing at common sense gun legislation since guns are inanimate. If guns were an actual threat, I'd have been shot by one of mine a long time ago, but mine just mostly sit there and look pretty.

 

On 11/23 over 500K people will go out in the woods and fields with guns in WI and not one person will be shot intentionally, yet in two zip codes in the city, several people will be shot intentionally where a much smaller number of guns are present per square mile. Scientific fact, crime has nothing to do with guns, it's about behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...