Jump to content

Heritage Firearms Act


james m
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wil be talking to our, new and Conservative Republican, Congressman David Schweikert in the next couple of days and I would like to bring the status of this act up. However, I noted there seemed to be some objection to this act in the past by some of the forum members here. Would those of you who object to this act or support it for that matter please state your opinions so I can get an understanding of what the issues may be before talking to Congressman Schweikert.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Roscoe:

After reading the objections I can see where an new amnesty period is in order and NOT this very limited bill. However I don't know if 90 days would be acceptble. If I remember correctly the amnesty period in 1968 was 30 days with the option of having an additional 30 day amnesty. Maybe this is what we should push for?

Jim

Edited by james m
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a 60 day amnesty (two 30 day amnesties) be preferable to a 90 day amnesty?

The original amnesty held in 1989 was supposed to be for 60 days and was only held for 30 days and additionally was very poorly publicised. I think we have a valid argument that we have another 30 day amnesty owed us and it should be a general amnestry for all unregistered Class III weapons.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we would all like it to be unlimited , it would be a big step if we could get any gun that was made before '86 to be registered. It would be really nice to allow any pre-'86 cut up recievers to be registered as dewats. Then we could work for opening the registry up again , or ruling the '86 ban as to meaning registration is not required ( you can't ban the guns because it's a right , so the law must have been to ban registration) . If we could do the latter , I think the former would come to pass quite quickly.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first priority for me is saving the history and it is the most likely to gain support. Any thing that would allow the registration of any historic nfa item deserves our support, even if it is very limited. If it only saves a small number of WWII guns owned by vets and their families, it is still better than nothing.

 

I'd love to see another amnesty or even reopening the registration, but if all that we can get the votes for is saving a few WWII guns, then I think it should be done while we still have a few WWII vets around.

-wwiifirearms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Section 207(d) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish unlimited numbers of amnesty periods, not to exceed 90 days each, after publication of notice of his intention to do so in the Federal Register. A 30 day amnesty was declared in Nov./Dec., 1968, but none since! BATF has consistently objected to another amnesty - even though multiple amnesties were the specific intent of Congress in 1968! Many people think BATF should have other, more important work to do instead of prosecuting otherwise honest citizens for technical violations and spending time objecting to an amnesty .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats, HJ for being one of the few people online to understand the amnesty. It is UP TO 90 days each - not 90 days total for all eternity. And yes, congress did intend for there to be more - or else why include the provision for them?

 

Up until last summer, ATF actually had a senior manager (now retired) that publicly supported HR 442 - or more accurately, ATF implementing it on their own (minus the historic gun preseravtion aspect which ATF or the AG has no authority to implement). He was a lone voice in the crowd (at that level) but it was nonetheless refreshing to see someone break from the official lawyer endorsed line of "no amnesty, not no way, not no how" and have the spinal column to say so in public.

 

While the AG can make the call any time, don't look for it to happen until at least 2013. If congress mandates it, the lawyer contingent will have no say in the matter except complaining after the fact. If Michael Sullivan could have been ATF director while Ashcroft was AG, maybe so but that is a mystery that will never be answered.

 

While I have read on the net that there are bills that would repeal 922(o) and/or force a general amnesty (and that's why 442 is "bad"; because it is a conspiracy to avoid repealing 922(o), no one has ever been able to cite a number - or any single member of the house or senate who has pledged to vote for said bills even if they did exist. Also lots of alleged limitations about this or that gun, must have captured enemy equipment papers, etc but none of those are - or ever have been part of the bill. All have been manufactured by internet posters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one will admit that I was unaware that the intent was to have an unlimited number of amnestys. Perhaps someone can also explain why the 1st amnesty was curtailed after only 30 days? If it's in fact the AGs call for an additional amnesty why wasn't an attempt me to get Ashcroft to do so while he was in office since he was the most gun owner friendly occupant we've had in years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea on 68 as to why only 30.

 

Can only theorize on Ashcroft - the AG like 99.98% of the population probably doesn't think of the 68 amnesty or old MGs on a regular basis, if at all - ever. The people to bring it up would be @ ATF and throw out a suggestion to authorize one. Right now, the lawyers will fight tooth and nail to frighten or intimidate anyone in the director's chair from doing so. It will take someone with at least a general knowledge of firearms, history, and violent crime coupled with a titanium spinal cord. There are people who fit that description in the agency, but not at the appropriate pay grade and they would never be allowed to present such a bold concept. Despite the gun lobby's badmouthing, Sullivan was the best hope in many years and maybe at any time since 68 of seeing something like that happen.

 

For the forseeable future, congress is the answer. Sad state of affairs when that is the situation, but it is true.

Edited by The Lone Ranger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a shoot this weekend and a few members of the local PD came. Last week the widow of a Viet Nam vet turned in 2 mgs she found in the garage after his death. One was an original M 2 carbine and the other was a completely sterile Swedish K, correct green enamal finish with NO markings of any type. It seems a shame that the widow could not have sold them. I am not sure but I think an original K would bring a pretty nice price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a shoot this weekend and a few members of the local PD came. Last week the widow of a Viet Nam vet turned in 2 mgs she found in the garage after his death. One was an original M 2 carbine and the other was a completely sterile Swedish K, correct green enamal finish with NO markings of any type. It seems a shame that the widow could not have sold them. I am not sure but I think an original K would bring a pretty nice price.

 

 

Did anyone bother to call NFA Branch to see if these firearms were in the registry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a shoot this weekend and a few members of the local PD came. Last week the widow of a Viet Nam vet turned in 2 mgs she found in the garage after his death. One was an original M 2 carbine and the other was a completely sterile Swedish K, correct green enamal finish with NO markings of any type. It seems a shame that the widow could not have sold them. I am not sure but I think an original K would bring a pretty nice price.

 

 

Did anyone bother to call NFA Branch to see if these firearms were in the registry?

 

 

Roscoe:

I think if you re-read the above you'll see that these were ONLY the magazines that were turned in but this bring up a point. I'm always asking if anyone has anything military they would like to get rid of and you should hear the responses I get. Occasionally I run across someone that's just getting ready to turn whatever they have over to the police department and I can usually convience them that I'll make sure that the items are handled properly! :rolleyes:

I've come up with untold free boxes of (usually partail) ammunition this way.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a shoot this weekend and a few members of the local PD came. Last week the widow of a Viet Nam vet turned in 2 mgs she found in the garage after his death. One was an original M 2 carbine and the other was a completely sterile Swedish K, correct green enamal finish with NO markings of any type. It seems a shame that the widow could not have sold them. I am not sure but I think an original K would bring a pretty nice price.

 

 

Did anyone bother to call NFA Branch to see if these firearms were in the registry?

 

 

Roscoe:

I think if you re-read the above you'll see that these were ONLY the magazines that were turned in but this bring up a point. I'm always asking if anyone has anything military they would like to get rid of and you should hear the responses I get. Occasionally I run across someone that's just getting ready to turn whatever they have over to the police department and I can usually convience them that I'll make sure that the items are handled properly! :rolleyes:

I've come up with untold free boxes of (usually partail) ammunition this way.

Jim

 

 

Sorry, I read "2 mgs" to mean two machineguns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wil be talking to our, new and Conservative Republican, Congressman David Schweikert in the next couple of days and I would like to bring the status of this act up. However, I noted there seemed to be some objection to this act in the past by some of the forum members here. Would those of you who object to this act or support it for that matter please state your opinions so I can get an understanding of what the issues may be before talking to Congressman Schweikert.

Jim

 

James, how did your conversation go with the Congressman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wil be talking to our, new and Conservative Republican, Congressman David Schweikert in the next couple of days and I would like to bring the status of this act up. However, I noted there seemed to be some objection to this act in the past by some of the forum members here. Would those of you who object to this act or support it for that matter please state your opinions so I can get an understanding of what the issues may be before talking to Congressman Schweikert.

Jim

 

James, how did your conversation go with the Congressman?

 

I haven't had a chance to talk to him yet. He's obviously very busy at this time and frankly so am I. Additionally this isn't a high priority item as we're going to have to have an change in administration to get anything done. The BATF takes their instruction from the Sec. of the Treasury and he's of course an Obama man.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wil be talking to our, new and Conservative Republican, Congressman David Schweikert in the next couple of days and I would like to bring the status of this act up. However, I noted there seemed to be some objection to this act in the past by some of the forum members here. Would those of you who object to this act or support it for that matter please state your opinions so I can get an understanding of what the issues may be before talking to Congressman Schweikert.

Jim

 

James, how did your conversation go with the Congressman?

 

I haven't had a chance to talk to him yet. He's obviously very busy at this time and frankly so am I. Additionally this isn't a high priority item as we're going to have to have an change in administration to get anything done. The BATF takes their instruction from the Sec. of the Treasury and he's of course an Obama man.

Jim

 

thanks for your time on this topic. i'm not sure political party is the answer, as both have been in and out of power in the executive and legislative since 1986. i'm more inclined to believe neither party wants more mg's in the U.S., no matter what the argument for them.

obviously, i hope i am wrong on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it matters, but does the BATF still fall under treasury? I thought they were under Justice now, (since they stopped bothering to pretend that the whole NFA was constitutional because it is just a tax.)

-wwiifirearms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TD, if that's true, it's a matter of time before the shoe drops.

Mr. Soro's minoans have a plan I'm sure.

-Darryl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATF is now under the Department of Justice. I assume they report to the Attorney General of the United States.

 

 

The move to Justice was in 2003. The move gives the tin foil hat crowd something to talk about.

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...