Jump to content

NFA market values and the NFA act

Recommended Posts

I hate to use that old saying, but it's as true as the day is long;


It's worth as much as you want to pay for it.


Especially now, given that - what, 50% of the US population is un/under-employed or fearing for their employment as our jobs go to the 3rd World? - it's a buyers market now.


Guns are (speaking in matter of fact voice) pretty much a frivolous luxury item, like that Vette, Viper, boat, golf bags, RC tank, cruise, whatever.


When us consumers are leery, our spending on luxuries slows/stops.


We focus on the necessities - food, rent, normal car, tuition bills, etc. Gun purchases and boats are set aside for "someday".


And if your in the business of actually trying to feed your family on sales of high-end guns these days, you might be sweating bullets (pun unintended.) right now.


Yes, we still have folks with money to spend, and they will still buy, but those folks aren't as numerous as say, 6-8 years ago, when the economy was booming and stocks and 401Ks were flying high and 23yr-olds were renting apartments in Redmond for $5K month.


Lot's of buyers back then, with lots of heated competition for NFA - - prices rose accordingly. That was the past.


The only NFA that seems to be climbing today are the "low end", "still affordable" guns - like the MACs. Because they are still pretty much within reach of the remaining buyers in the market, prices are moving up to meet the demand.


All that BS espoused, I'd make the seller an offer that you feel comfortable with paying, and if he really wants to sell - perhaps to help pay his own mortgage - he'll take it or leave it.


Back then, the seller would dictate to YOU, not so today. Not unless he has a recipe to feed his WH to his hungry family or has the wherewithall to "sit" on his WH and wait for the recovery.


Man I sure wish I could be a buyer right now!


Link to comment
Share on other sites



I couldn't imagine a person that has a more incorrect take on the NFA market than you. Like it or not, collectable machine guns are going UP, not down. Junk guns like the Macs wont rise very quickly. They are cheap for a reason.


Anyway, the NFA market has not been a buyers market in years and will never be. There are too many people like me that will NEVER sell. The STOCK market is a very piss poor market and will continue to be until the slumping economy recovers. Clinton's fault.


Folks who are worried about food, rent, ECT... are not MG buyers.


I always make offers, I buy some and I get rejected on 99%. Those that do take the offers might be in the gutter financially, but most just say no.


The MG market will continue to rise, just as it has in the past.


I don’t know where you get your ideas NFAFAN, but you need to rethink them.


Real collectable MG's are going up every year regardless of "market conditions elsewhere." Guns are an excellent investment.


This is not a personal attack on you, but your take is way backwards.



John Jr


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The increase in prices for Colt TSMG's went from $15,000 in 2001 to $22,000+ in 2003. That is not the kind of statisic I would want to base a thesis on how the declining economy effects collectable high end submachine and machine guns. Hell, a guy just ponied up $100K fof the "Midas" gun. There are only a very few transferable decent conditoned Colt TSMG's. Those collectors who have them do not hold K-Mart Blue light Specials. Of course one can make a counter offer on an advertised price. But that does not mean the seller is going to drop his/her pants to make the TSMG go away. I guess Western Firearms has not heard about the depressed NFA market. They are asking and presumably getting, (since these guns are quickly marked sold), $15K for M1's & M1A1's!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I couldn't imagine a person that has a more incorrect take on the >NFA market than you. Like it or not, collectable machine guns are >going UP, not down. Junk guns like the Macs wont rise very >quickly. They are cheap for a reason.


I understand the NFA, GCA, May 19th. I understand that there is a finite pool of transferables that us average civilians (non-gov, non-SOT) can ever hope to buy.

I understand that the high end guns, Brens, BARs, MG42s, M60s, 1921s, 1917s, et al are collectible, desirable, - and very expensive when/if someone wants to part with one. Yes, they are only going to go up, they don't make them any more.


But no, the "junk" - or low-end - guns are climbing too.


Witness the rise in Sten prices (regardless if they are CR or CL2 weld-ups) since the Stenlings came along.

The rise in Reising prices, and the MACs going up too.


These low-end guns are going up because many in the market are willing to take the plunge - without taking out a second mortgage.

These make a good settle-for gun for the one who wants a TSMG or an MP40 but just can't take the swing for whatever reason.

For many, the MAC is a great entry-level, 100% factory original MG - with a huge aftermarket in accessories and support.

Thanks to MAC sales, interest in "better" MGs took off, much to the delight of SOTs and "investors".

I only hope that the day I take out my 1927A1 Deluxe - it functions as flawlessly as my PS M10/45 did from Day One.


>Anyway, the NFA market has not been a buyers market in years >and will never be. There are too many people like me that will >NEVER sell. The STOCK market is a very piss poor market and will >continue to be until the slumping economy recovers. Clinton's fault.

>Folks who are worried about food, rent, ECT... are not MG buyers.


You just made my point. Many people ARE worried these days.


True, there will always be a percentage of folks with money to spend regardless of the economy, even during the Depression, there were people with money. And if you were within a mile of any shopping district this weekend, you'd see evidence of folks with money. So yes, you'll always have your Midas buyers.


But when times are tough, people *in general* become vary wary of their discretionary spending habits.


That $4K that was saved up for an MG, boat, whatever - stays squirreled away - just in case.

Any industry that relies on that discretionary spending of a nervous Harry Homeowner these days - is hurting.


>I always make offers, I buy some and I get rejected on 99%. >Those that do take the offers might be in the gutter financially, but >most just say no.


You made my point again - some do take offers, and I'll bet you had to search to find them too.


Those that don't - but should - that's their priority. I'll never forget the CL3 at the one PGCA show, with the table piled high with expensive inventory, and a shoeless kid running around and a wife that looks like she hasn't been out to a dinner since her wedding, but he was firm on his prices. A guy a few tables away was ready willing and able to negotiate.


But as you said, some do take offers. That's why I suggest that the poster just make an offer of what he was willing to pay, what it was of "value" to him personally.


Else, if he really wants it bad, he'll pay the asking price. If not, he moves on like you and I did and keeps looking and offering.


OTOH... if the guy whos selling re-thinks the offer, he may decide that some liquid assets in the bank are more precious during these uncertain times than a not-so-quickly liquidated NFA item.


I have no plans to sell, but if some dimwit wants to give me an outrageous sum for my toys, I'll take it. There are quit a few folks who laughed all the way to the bank when they sold their $900.00 HK94-cum-MP5s for $8K plus.


>The MG market will continue to rise, just as it has in the past.


Agree! But...


I think there is also a wee bit of "baseball card dealing" going on as to MG prices...

That is; if you ever go into a trading card store and ask "what's Joe Blow's rookie card going for?" - you get one price.

But then if you whip out Joe's rookie card and offer to sell him one at that price... well, the value is suddenly very VERY different.


I've always been baffled when inquiring about a price on an MG to buy; "there is no more, ever, this is it, the last one, buy now or it goes up $500 next week, I got 10 buyers calling, don't know when I'll get another", but - if you say "what would you give me for X?"; and suddenly there is this massive NFA wholesale market that appeared and dictates the price the SOT will pay.. "I can get those all day long for $x, I sell 'em for this $ and can't sell them, no one wants them".


>I don’t know where you get your ideas NFAFAN, but you need to >rethink them.


Been around one too many gunshows I guess.


>Real collectable MG's are going up every year regardless of "market >conditions elsewhere." Guns are an excellent investment.


Agree to a point. It's that "value" thing again.


A certain CL2 I know cut and numbered about 6 miles of pipe before May 19th. He adds in a $50.-$100. Sten parts kit - and his labor to weld on that 5cents of pipe - this is not of $3K value - to me. To others, yes, he's still selling them as fast as he can weld.


Value and worth can be personal takes based on an individual's circumstances and feelings for an item. An item is only worth what one wants to pay for it. Any TSMG of any brand is worth $5-6K to me, but not $10K, I have other things to do with $10K that are more of value to me than another gun. But that's just me.


Guns are an OK investment, MGs are good investments, but not excellent investments IMO. (Exceptions abound of course; maybe you were lucky enough to buy a couple WH's when they were $850.00 - and you just sold one for $9K. Or that HK94 and sear pak you bought years ago for under $2K and someone just paid you $8.5K for it.)


Investments need buyers, the more the potential buyers, the better the investment.

The more the chance that the projected value will be also be agreed to by the potential buyer, then the better the investment.


What I mean is this;

With only , what, about 34 states allowing MG ownership? There's a huge potential client base - gone from the investment market.

Of the 34 states allowing civilian ownership:

* Anti-gun as potential investors - gone.

* Gun owners that have zero interest in MGs whatsoever - gone.

* Gun owners that like them but can't be bothered with the paperwork and loss of anonimity - those investors, gone.

* Gun owners that can't get a CLEO sign-off without moving - those investors are gone.

* Gun owners that can't even bear to think about paying $1,000.00 for a folded sheet metal MAC, let alone $10K+ for a TSMG - gone.

* Gun owners that have no idea thay can even own one - potential.

* MAC owners that want to move up to their dream gun - potential.

* 1927A1 owners that want to move up - potential.


So no, I still say that guns, especially MGs, are a discretionary luxury item that are subject to the whims of the buyers and the state of the economy **as it relates to the buyers personal finances and willingness to trade cash for an item**. Too iffy to be an "excellent" investment in my portfolio. But when my MAC is sold for far FAR more than the $75.00 I paid for it, I'll change my tune.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, It's supply and demand. In my opnion the internet is the BIG factor effecting demand. Those guys, that have the money, can search all over the country (from their living rooms) to find the gun of their dreams. When Joe Blow, who has the cash, sees the Colt TSMG that he has always wanted he buys it.


Also, those of us that are in our mid 50's (and there are a lot of us) are starting to realize that we only have about another 20 years (if we are lucky) and it's time to start getting the toys we always wanted. The kids are grown, the house is almost paid for, the car is in good shape and paid for, the wife has ALMOST everything she wants....it's our turn.


In my case, I bought the Colt 21/28 Navy's because #1 it was a great price based on my searching the net for over two years and #2 I'm sure it will be an item of increaseing value I can pass on to my son.


I can't see any way that an original Colt 1920's prouduction will go down in value. Even if (and I wish it would happen) the laws were changed.


The Chief Deputy with the department that I got my guns from said he couldn't beleive I was paying that much money for those old guns. He's big into bass fishing....I thought to myself that bass boat that you paid $30,000.00 for last year will go down in value each year you own it; the Thompsons I bought will go up in value each year that I own them.


When I first started looking about 4 years ago Colt 21's and 28's were in the $10k to 14k range; they are no longer in that range.


Just some thoughts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce V 21/28 et al, I don't want to 'rain on your parade'. I truly don't, because I too hope to own a Thompson 28 one day. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif However, you state that you, "can't see anyway that a Colt 1920's production will go down in value. Even if (and I wish it would happen) the laws were changed." If you haven't been keeping up with gun control>gun registration>gun confiscation trends around the world in the last few years and decades, perhaps you should think otherwise. I wonder how much, if anything those poor souls in Australia and Britain got for their MG's, or any of their guns, when their governments passed the laws and confiscated them. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif I doubt they got much, if anything, certainly not even 'fair market value' for their valuable investments. If there are any members or guests from OZ or GB, by all means, tell us how your governments treated you and your formerly valuable investments, please! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif I know that there are those of you out there who say it couldn't happen in America. However, you would be wrong. The trend in this great nation is toward greater gun control, gun registration, and ultimately, gun confiscation. Unfortunately, MG's would probably be the first to go, since people like Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and their cronies all over America have and will continue to demonize them as evil, dangerous, and unnecessary. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif So, 'smoke'em if you've got'em', and I'm not talking about cigarettes, either! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif In other words, enjoy them while you still can. And, please become politically involved enough to vote, or our mutual hobby may end up on the ash heap of history. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif Regards, Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter, my refrence to wishing the laws would change was with respect to another amnesty. Even if that happened and all the Colts that wern't registered were registered any price drop would be short lived.


I follow very closley the world of gun control and try and be as pro-active as possible. Of course, if the anti-gun/anti-self defense nuts win, that would be the exception to my theory on prices. Hopefully (with as many of us as possible taking a pro-active stance) that won't happen.


We will never win if we continue to take a defensive position. I have written a proposal with respect to class III and would be glad to email you a copy for your suggestions and thoughts. At some point in time I hope to meet someone who knows someone that could "put it in the right hands".........Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce V 21/28, I understood you the first time and know that most, if not all, of the members of this board are on the same side and the same page. However, I feel that there are too many gun owners out there with their heads in the sand. If you have read some of my other posts on this board, you know that, ultimately, I would like to see all anti-gun legislation, going back to and including the infamous 1934 NFA Act, repealed. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif We are up against fanatics who would love to see every gun in this nation confiscated, ultimately. So, we must be no less fanatical, no less tenacious, and no less resourceful, if we are to have any meaningful success. I live in N.Y., which has become nothing less than a nest of vipers (liberal politicians), bent on devouring every gun in sight. There are very few Second Amendment advocates in N.Y. politics. It is very sad. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif I will gladly look at any proposal you have. Send it to my email address from this board. I would suggest that you send any serious ideas to your own local, state and national representatives (also, Sen. Frist, Rep. Hastert and the President). http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif Regards,Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites


We should get down on our hands and knees and thank the powers that be that the 1934 Act did not abolish automatic weapons throughout the United States under any circumstances. All it did was to regulate these items, levy a tax, and leave it up to individual states to decide if residents could own them. I see nothing wrong with the type of regulation now in place for these weapons. If buyers could pony up the $200 to ATF back when that amount greatly exceeded the price of the actual weapon, we should not be complaining today. The background check on potential buyers is not intrusive either. The urban myth that the government compiles this record of buyers and sellers in order to confiscate the weapons at a later date was the straw man argument conceived back in 34.


There are conservatively 300 million firearms out in the hands of American citizens. Some registered. Most not. These guns are not coming back. Any attempt to try to gather them would be folly. Even these pinhead politicans realize that. There will always be several states like New York, California, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia that are never going to embrace gun ownership. If the residents of those states were principally interested in changing the existing laws they would have voted out the offending politican standing in their way. Maybe residents in those states should petition for a law concerning the right to recall their state governor. It seems to be working in Cal.


Now it is true that the NRA's support for machinegun owners is not even on their radar screen. They prefer to represent hunters and cheap Saturday Night Specials. But it may be to our benefit that most people, including politicians, believe that full auto weapons are illegal to own. The fact that politicians and police chiefs do not routinely elaborate on the process an individual goes through, in states that allow them, keeps the spotlight off the subject.


The 1934 law is not our enemy. It is our ally. Let's not screw it up for the sake of fanning the fires of paranoia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(This topic had digressed somewhat from the original post asking about West Hurley values, and had evolved into a very interesting topic on its own. For future reference, I split the topic so we can continue the thread).


I agree with Arthur. The NFA act is our friend and we need not muck it up or draw too much attention to it. At the very least, be thankful the rate of inflation since 1934 hasn't affected the cost of the transfer. For if it had, we'd be shelling out 8k for a Thompson and nearly 3k for the stamp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur and Rust, of course, you are both right. The transfer tax, in and of itself, is not very onerous (considering potential inflation adjustments). You are also both right that none of us, including yours truly, want to fan the flames of the anti-gunners or alert the political pinheads in N.Y., CA., HI, etc. However, it really irritates my sense of The Constitution (certainly The Constitution and the original 10 Amendments) being inviolable, sacred, not to be tinkered with frivolously,etc. Now, I don't dispute the value of being able to amend the constitution, as times change. For example, the 13th., 14th., and 15th., and many others before and since, have made the lives of many people better. The Supreme Court recognized the 2nd. Amendment, as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers (that the 'Militia' was all able-bodied men who were not known criminals and that the right to keep and bear arms was inviolable) up until the early part of the 20th. Century. I can't remember the exact case (perhaps one of our attorneys will chime in). However, the point is that the legislative bodies in this country (local, state and national) began tinkering with The Constitution, since early in the 20th. Century by infringing upon, compromising, and adulterating (diluting the power of the 2nd; Amendment) unconstitutionally. Afterall, there is a recognized formula for amending The Constitution (by ratification of 3/4 of the state legislatures and approval of2/3 of both houses of Congress); It is a difficult process, and should be. Oh, Arthur, by the way,"the powers that be" in our nation are "the people" and not our elected or appointed officials. They are known as our "public servants," and for good reason. They serve the needs of the people, at their (our) pleasure. When elected or appointed officials fail to serve the will of the people, they can, and should, be removed from office by election, impeachment, recall, etc. Even a Supreme Court Justice can be removed for incompetence, notwithstanding the fact that he/she has been appointed for life. So, please excuse me if I don't "bow down on hands and knees" to you other powers that be, all board members, indeed, all of the American people, since, I too, am one of the, "Sovereign Powers that be." I am merely stating that 'we the people' are all sovereign owners of this nation and need not be afraid to participate, vote, initiate legislation, take the reigns, etc. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Be well and regards, Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, I would like to point out that the second amendment is infact not in the consitution, but it is however in the bill of rights. The fact that the NFA of 1934 was passed for "good reasons" i.e. criminal use etc. does not make it right to say that the govenment should impose a tax (of any amount!) or controls on privately owned items of any kind albeit machine guns etc. I personally do not like the fact that the average person thinks that the government should be thanked for taking rights away! what i mean is have a discussion with the average person on machine gun ownership..ultimately they will conclude that the "powers that be" did the right thing when they passed the NFA. infact most would say they did not far enough. before 1934, the average person would have still had a hard enough time buying a Thompson (or any machine gun for the matter) as the prices where fairly high at the time (for the new ones) also, certain states like washington state had passed "anti-machine gun laws" as far back as 1921, but that of course didn't stop criminals from obtaining Thompsons etc. regulating anything has never stopped people who desire something badly enough. witness the ATFE's reluctance to offer another amnasty "due to the possibility of newly manufactured machine guns" being registered. (among other reasons) truly what does the government do for us by regulating the possesion of these items? protect us? ensure that no one steals them? clean them,oil them and replace worn parts? no, all they do is regulate them, register them and finaly confiscate them when the time comes. As for the "anti-gunners" anti-rights people is more like it, these people will never be satisfied they want every single gun that you and I own (the cap guns too!) they won't stop their attacks on us ever.why should we be "afraid to stir them up" are they the majority? or is the truth that the gun owners in the USA are afraid to speak out against the up-chuck shumers, teddy kennedys, klintons, bradys etall? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif sorry about the rant, but these things stir me up
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had to add my 2 cent....


For the Class III items that fall under the collector's list (i.e Thompson) these prices will never come down.


My wife knows, if we both loose our jobs and the house, I will still have my Thompson. Won't being pawning it off too quickly just to pay for a meal.


Back in the late 80s, I read a book entitle The Great Depression of 1990 (supposed to be a prediction). Then still in the late 80s, while visiting the Trump tower on a sightseeing tour, I meet Mr. Trump (got his book signed) and asked about the validity of this other book titled The Great Depression of 1990. Mr. Trump stated that there are too many wealthy people in this country to have it happen.


Ok, so why did I tell you that… Because the fact there are so many doctors, lawyers, CEO who will always be pulling millions of $$$ a year, there will always be people around who can afford any type of Collectible item and enjoy purchasing collectible items.


The Internet has opened many doors and you get these people with money who are just finding out they can own a Thompson. Now, they have cash and not too concerned about price, but rather more concerned with just wanting to own one of these beauties. (Who wouldn’t???) So, they search the Internet find a price and pay it not knowing its about 3K above market price. I tend to research prices for just about any item I plan on purchasing. (Guns, TVs, Lawnmowers… ) so I can be an educated consumer and get a fair price, but you can bet if I win the lottery this weekend, it will stop and I will be happy to pay the sticker price for any item to avoid taking the time to become educated.


Now here is my take on market prices. I have sold a few items on E-Bay. Lets say I purchase an item at a store for X dollars. Place this same item on E-Bay and it sells for $13. So, is the market value now $13 just because someone paid $13? What if I only paid $5 or $7 for this item. Is the fact that maybe an uneducated consumer make a purchase that it’s the basis for defining market price???? (That’s the question of the day.)


On a side note, remember, just a few more years, these Colts will be 100 years old, watch prices skyrocket on its birthday.


***Note: The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily that of a sober person.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

mp40, I agree with most of what you wrote; Your sentiments are closely in line with mine. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif I did not mention that the first ten amendments to The U.S. Constitution are known as The Bill of Rights, since I thought most Americans knew that. If you look at the wording of The Bill of Rights you will find that it is in fact an addition/ correction to the Constitution, guaranteeing certain rights which many of the Founding Fathers felt were left out of the original draft of the Constitution. Most likely, The Constitution, as we know it, would not have been accepted and ratified without these 10 additions, known as The Bill of Rights, and the United States would not exist as we know it. It was a pivotal moment in history, creating what we now know as a 'living document', unique in the history of the world, The United States Constitution. It is called a 'living document' because it is possible to amend it (add to/ improve). This is a difficult process, usually requiring years of effort, the ratification of (approval of) 3/4 of the state legislatures and approval of 2/3 of both houses of Congress. What I disaprove of is county, state and the national legislatures circumventing this constitutional process, essentially doing an end run around The Constitution, in order to undermine some aspect of it: namely, the 2nd. Amendment to the Constitution. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif Regards, Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jr., you crack me up! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif


Regards, Walter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to chime in...there will always be people willing to pay the prices for these guns. A couple years ago, I had a minty and rare machine gun with a cool history for sale. I had it priced at about the same price as what a transferable MP-5 would sell for at the time. I got so many people who kicked tires, jacked me around, backed out on deals, etc. After about six months of dealing with this frustration (any other MG I ever sold went within a week at my asking price), I took the gun off the market. I didn't need to sell it, I was just bored with it. A month later, I reposted it on the same sales boards under a new email name and raised the price $1000 over my old asking price. It sold within a week at the new asking price, no haggling. Go figure.


I've bought several guns that I've always wanted and I paid what they were asking, no haggling. If it's a peach of a piece (condition counts), it will get sold out from under you if you try to haggle too much. The guns have always gone up in value and I've never regretted it. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but there are doctors, lawyers, dentists, CEO's, engineers, etc. who appreciate these items also and who don't bat an eye at dropping $10,000-20,000 on a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif The class 3 dealer I bought my WH M1 Thompson told me of a local doctor that sold his stocks & bonds & bought a "DOZEN" Thompsons for an investments (I feel lucky to have the one I got, after PK fixed it of course). Whata investment! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter, Please send me your email address. I would like to send you the document we wrote about in an earlier post. I am seeking additional input. The document started out as a mental exersize, but I showed it to some friends and they thought I should follow up with it.


BTW guys In our "modern" "regulated" society I think too many of US forget the people in government ARE OUR SERVENTS. The bigger problem is that the SERVENTS have forgotten.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta add my two pennies worth,


On the topic of the Constitution (history, government, political science teacher hat "on") you must remember that it was to apply only to the Federal or Central Government. The Constitution of 1787 -- actually a carry over of the old Articles of Confederation -- was in actuality only a treaty between thirteen independent, sovereign States (think European Union for example). The Constitution did not affect the citizens -- there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States -- it only affected the relationship of the Federal Government to the various State Governments. In short, the Bill of Rights was added in order to get it ratified by the requisite nine States and thus abolish the "Perpetual Union" established by the old Articles. (As an aside, this gave legal precedence to the act of secession, but that's a whole other lecture.) Keep in mind that the founder's had just led a long and bloody revolution to overthrow a repressive and intolerant government. They had no intention of setting up the same thing. The Central Government was only to be the agent for the several States. In other words, in dealings within the continental United States the States themselves were supreme. The Central Government was there to show a force of unity only when dealing with other nations around the world. The States were so afraid of centralizing power that they insisted on the inclusion of certain "Amendments" (10 to be exact) to prevent the overthrow of their power. Although 1 and 2 are/were important the really important ones were numbers 9 and 10. All that to say this, the States can, and do, make their own laws regarding gun control and it's still legal and Constitutionally valid. So, re-read the Bill of Rights, but in the light that it is referring only to the limitation of the Central Government and it will shed an entirely new light on the subject. And, as I end any class -- questions?, comments? rebuttals?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the 10th amendment is very important. But it is also the most abused. The Feds routinely get around the 10th with the carrot and stick approach. Latest example - States you can have any alcohol limit you want in your Driving while under the influence law but if you don't pass the federal suggested limit of .08 or lower then we (the federal government) will withold trillions of dollars in road money we take from your citizens and then send part back to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Rick V, where do you teach and at what level (just curious)? The preamble to The Constitution states, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And Benjamin Franklin stated, upon emerging from the meeting which ratified The Constitution,"You have a republic, if you can keep it." Franklin was speaking to a woman in the streets of Philadelphia (certainly not an elite Founding Father) and republics usually contain citizens, not subjects, as in a kingdom or dictatorship. At any rate, the words, "We, the people of the United States," and the words, "our posterity," refer to people and you can't separate people from government. What would be the point! For, as Lincoln understood, and stated in his Gettysburg Address,"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Further, under Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution, it states that, Congress shall have power 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; 5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof,..." You state that The Constitution is, "only a treaty between thirteen independent, sovereign states." It would appear that it is something more, based on the above quotes from Franklin, The Constitution itself, and Lincoln. For, if the states were established as sovereigns, then how is it that the national Congress is given the power to coin money, establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and many other powers, over all the states. Therefore, the states cannot establish laws which are contrary to those of The Constitution and the national Congress. To wit, such laws can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. That is why I believe that state and local laws infringing upon, or dilluting the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights are unconstitutional, and should be declared thus. As to the 1934 NFA Act, it may not be unconstitutional, but I think it was illadvised and probably unconstitutional, since it seems to directly contradict the Second Amendment to The Constitution of The United States of America. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif Regards, Walter


P.S. As regards the Tenth Amendment, do not ignore the key clause, or to the People. I think that leaves a little 'wiggle room' for the people, since this is a government, "of the people, by the people and for the people." At least we Second Amendment advocates are not trying to create a 'constitutional right' the way the liberal pinheads, like Hillary Clinton, NOW, and some Supreme Court Justices believe they did with the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision, allowing women to legally murder their own unborn children, for the first time in U.S. history, thirty years ago. And what did the Supreme Court Justices base their decision upon? They based this supposed constitutional right on the ethereal notion of a 'right to privacy' never once mentioned in The Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights. So how constitutional is a 'woman's right to choose'? I think, not at all! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif Well, they are women and liberals; So, what can you expect? I like the line by the character played by Jack Nicholson in, As Good As it Gets, "When I write about women, I think of a man and then I remove reason and responsibility." http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif But, I digress. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hawksnest, I totally agree with you on the Federal Government's abuse of the Tenth Amendment. It is disgusting. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif
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

  • Create New...