Brace Ban

[BE Mike]

As short barreled guns and suppressors have a history of rarely being used in crimes, I feel as though the NFA laws serve no useful purpose. When it was decided that no fully auto weapons manufactured after a certain date would be available for purchase by law abiding citizens, that also serves no purpose. Laws are supposed to solve a problem. When the laws are the problem, they need to be eliminated; just like the laws forbidding "switch blade knives" in Indiana. I'd say that crooked FFL's manufacturing prohibited items and selling guns to "improper persons" have been more of a problem than the wrongful use of NFA controlled items. In a former life, I encountered an ATF agent who couldn't tell a non-firearm, i.e. muzzleloader or air gun from a firearm. It seems to me that ATF also bends to the current political winds. They certainly learned some lessons after Waco.

 

[johny5]

I mistyped the Hughes of 1934, I meant the NFA. And if you read the prior posts, I DO agree it should be abolished, I'm just saying its not a huge a hurdle as people make it out to be.

1. The size and impact of the 'hurdle' is subjective. As I stated previously, a $200 fine is more significant to some of us than others.
2. When it first went into effect, the so-called hurdle was substantial - the fee was an order of magnitude higher than the price of most firearms.
3. Both arguments above are moot - any impediment to a constitutionally enumerated right is unacceptable. It is not a matter of degrees.

 

[KLB]

And the personal attacks have started. Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is that making your opinion more valid?

I mistyped the Hughes of 1934, I meant the NFA. And if you read the prior posts, I DO agree it should be abolished, I'm just saying its not a huge a hurdle as people make it out to be.

That was not a personal attack. It was an observation concerning the logic you used for the validity of the NFA. My statement stands. That is precisely the justification used for most every anti-gun law passed. It was no more valid for the NFA than it is for "assault-weapon" bans today.

Why do you feel it should be repealed if there was a valid justification for passing it?

 

[Aszerigan]

It was no more valid for the NFA than it is for "assault-weapon" bans today. Why do you feel it should be repealed if there was a valid justification for passing it?

When you bring a person's political character in play, it becomes personal. And I'm sure you're above that, so stop.

We may not agree on governmental logistics, but I'm sure neither of us were alive when the NFA legislation was originally enacted, so we don't know - from personal experience - the actual circumstances that brought it into play. Wikipedia won't help either side on this argument because we weren't there.

The passing of the NFA was designed to bring additional criminal charges against the "gangsters". Think the RICO act of the 1980's. It wasn't enacted to keep people from owning suppressors. But that's the current byproduct of a well-meaning law that is out of date.

 

[Aszerigan]

I honestly don't care about the "pistol brace" issue that was originally discussed. If you can spend $1000 on a build, you can spend $200 on registering it and making a legal SBR. The butthurt attached to the BATFE's waffling about braces, bump stocks, etc is amazing to me. Everyone wants to *****, and all the money donated doesn't do a thing - i.e. bump stocks and the NRA's lack of support for that fight. It does nothing. What-so-ever. Zip. Nada.

There is no winning dog in this fight excepting (not accepting) the tax stamp that keeps you legal. Until that law changes - which it won't - it's going to cost you $200 per piece to have the toys. That is the reality we live in.

Complain all you want, it's not going to change.

 

[Aszerigan]

As short barreled guns and suppressors have a history of rarely being used in crimes, I feel as though the NFA laws serve no useful purpose. When it was decided that no fully auto weapons manufactured after a certain date would be available for purchase by law abiding citizens, that also serves no purpose. Laws are supposed to solve a problem. When the laws are the problem, they need to be eliminated; just like the laws forbidding "switch blade knives" in Indiana. I'd say that crooked FFL's manufacturing prohibited items and selling guns to "improper persons" have been more of a problem than the wrongful use of NFA controlled items.

You're probably right.

 

[johny5]

I honestly don't care about the "pistol brace" issue that was originally discussed. If you can spend $1000 on a build, you can spend $200 on registering it and making a legal SBR. The butthurt attached to the BATFE's waffling about braces, bump stocks, etc is amazing to me. Everyone wants to *****, and all the money donated doesn't do a thing - i.e. bump stocks and the NRA's lack of support for that fight. It does nothing. What-so-ever. Zip. Nada.

There is no winning dog in this fight excepting (not accepting) the tax stamp that keeps you legal. Until that law changes - which it won't - it'd going to cost you $200 per piece to have the toys. That is the reality we live in.

Complain all you want, it's not going to change.

First - I read KLB's response to you and cannot figure out what was written that could have been construed as a personal attack.

Second - this is an online forum. We come here to discuss ideas, to test assertions, to gauge support. It is not simply 'complaining'. It is dialog - often the first step towards making change.

Yes, there is some cathartic airing of grievances and people will, to one degree or another, commiserate.

Hope I am not overstepping here, but I am genuinely confused.

 

[Aszerigan]

It seems to me that ATF also bends to the current political winds. They certainly learned some lessons after Waco.

Uh..... no, they didn't, and no they don't. Prove this with actual factual examples.

 

[jamil]

And the personal attacks have started. Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is that making your opinion more valid?

I mistyped the Hughes of 1934, I meant the NFA. And if you read the prior posts, I DO agree it should be abolished, I'm just saying its not a huge a hurdle as people make it out to be.

I want to buy a fully automatic M16. What are the hurdles? Or. How about I want to go out and buy a spanky new M4 with the fun switch? What are the hurdles for that?

Say I have physical issues which make it difficult to wear hearing protection. So I want to use a suppressor. But say I’m poor. What are the hurdles?

If you think NFA isn’t burdensome, you might be privileged.

 

[Aszerigan]

I want to buy a fully automatic M16. What are the hurdles? Or. How about I want to go out and buy a spanky new M4 with the fun switch? What are the hurdles for that?

Say I have physical issues which make it difficult to wear hearing protection. So I want to use a suppressor. But say I’m poor. What are the hurdles?

If you think NFA isn’t burdensome, you might be privileged.

You want to buy a FA M16? The hurdles are a couple of fingerprint cards and a $200 tax stamp. Same thing for your "spanky new" M4 with a fun switch, although I'm sure you can't by a NEW M4 with a fun switch without being an FFL/SOT, but good on ya. Want to buy a suppressor? If you can buy a "spanky new" M4, pretty sure you can afford a can to go with it.

Again - the personal attack. I'm not rich, but I am practical, and when I know I want to buy a new suppressor, I figure in the $200 inconvenience tax to the cost of said can.

 

[Gluemanz28]

I want to buy a fully automatic M16. What are the hurdles? Or. How about I want to go out and buy a spanky new M4 with the fun switch? What are the hurdles for that?

Say I have physical issues which make it difficult to wear hearing protection. So I want to use a suppressor. But say I’m poor. What are the hurdles?

If you think NFA isn’t burdensome, you might be privileged.

I was curious about the cost of a fully auto M16 so I googled it.

https://otbfirearms.com/colt-m-16-model-639-5-56mm-with-registered-moderator/

$44K is probably really high for a M16, I didn’t google the M4 but I’m betting it’s pretty expensive. I have four suppressors two of them were $200 each but the other two were $850 each. I wasn’t happy about buying the stamp but I’m not sure I agree it any more of a burden that the high price of the items. If you can’t afford the stamp I don’t see how you could afford the item unless a great uncle gifted it to you.

 

[Aszerigan]

I was curious about the cost of a fully auto M16 so I googled it.

https://otbfirearms.com/colt-m-16-model-639-5-56mm-with-registered-moderator/

$44K is probably really high for a M16, I didn’t google the M4 but I’m betting it’s pretty expensive. I have four suppressors two of them were $200 each but the other two were $850 each. I wasn’t happy about buying the stamp but I’m not sure I agree it any more of a burden that the high price of the items. If you can’t afford the stamp I don’t see how you could afford the item unless a great uncle gifted it to you.

Hey, Gluemanz28, missed seeing you around. :-)

$35-40k is about right for a transferable M16. M4 FA's are pretty much dealer sample only.

And thank you, suppressors should't be as expensive as they are, but that extra $200 shouldn't be a make or break deal.

 

[johny5]

I was curious about the cost of a fully auto M16 so I googled it.

https://otbfirearms.com/colt-m-16-model-639-5-56mm-with-registered-moderator/

$44K is probably really high for a M16, I didn’t google the M4 but I’m betting it’s pretty expensive. I have four suppressors two of them were $200 each but the other two were $850 each. I wasn’t happy about buying the stamp but I’m not sure I agree it any more of a burden that the high price of the items. If you can’t afford the stamp I don’t see how you could afford the item unless a great uncle gifted it to you.

You have a good point on relative cost, based on the current environment. Here's the wrench in the works: The current cost of NFA items is substantially higher than it would otherwise be due to ----- the NFA.

Without the NFA (and I want to be CRYSTAL CLEAR here, I am not in any way advocating non-compliance with the NFA) a passable suppressor could be built in an afternoon with parts sourced from a hardware store.

Were the NFA not in existence, what reason is there to believe that a full-auto AR15 would cost materially more than a current AR (which can be had for less than $400)?

The prices are outrageous precisely because of the burdensome/intrusive requirements for NFA items.

 

[Gluemanz28]

Hey, Gluemanz28, missed seeing you around. :-)

$35-40k is about right for a transferable M16. M4 FA's are pretty much dealer sample only.

And thank you, suppressors should't be as expensive as they are, but that extra $200 shouldn't be a make or break deal.

Its good to be back. I always enjoy reading your post. You were always helpful when I stopped by your shop.

 

[Leadeye]

I think everybody agrees that they would like to be able to buy FA, SBR, suppressors, etc without the hassle of the NFA, but it's a law. You change laws by voting in people who will change it or buying legislators for the same purpose. That's how it's done. Having been involved in NFA stuff since the early days you have to remember that the purpose was to place a really high tax on these items to reduce commerce in them. Two Benjamins were worth a lot more in 1934 than they are today. This is where things begin in the 70s, as gun owners realized that you could pay $250 for a Mac-10 and $200 for the stamp and that was equivalent to the price of a new python. By continuous printing of inflationary money the government had undone the purpose of the tax. This really got the NFA business going, and by the late 70s and early 80s cottage industries had sprung up making new machine guns and refurbishing overseas guns into transferable ones. All of this results in the Hughs amendment which while not banning machine guns, fixes the amount forever. Suppressors and other NFA items remain.

 

[Trigger Time]

And the personal attacks have started. Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is that making your opinion more valid?

I mistyped the Hughes of 1934, I meant the NFA. And if you read the prior posts, I DO agree it should be abolished, I'm just saying its not a huge a hurdle as people make it out to be.

He didn't make a personal attack. He simply questioned how far your submission to uncle sam goes.
I'm kind of shocked to read what all you've said in this thread. I never figured you'd stand up for more infringing of the 2nd amendment. Especially the way the government treated you in the not so distant past.
If that wasn't your intention then I misunderstood. But **** anymore oppression of the 2nd amendment. Confiscation or backdoor laws of accessories, ammo, parts IS an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. And I dont care if someone is a fan of guns or not, of they work towards enforcing those things then they are just as guilty as the ones who passed or dictated them.

 

[Gluemanz28]

You have a good point on relative cost, based on the current environment. Here's the wrench in the works: The current cost of NFA items is substantially higher than it would otherwise be due to ----- the NFA.

Without the NFA (and I want to be CRYSTAL CLEAR here, I am not in any way advocating non-compliance with the NFA) a passable suppressor could be built in an afternoon with parts sourced from a hardware store.

Were the NFA not in existence, what reason is there to believe that a full-auto AR15 would cost materially more than a current AR (which can be had for less than $400)?

The prices are outrageous precisely because of the burdensome/intrusive requirements for NFA items.

You make a great point on inflated prices but I’m not sure any AR’s are under $400 right now. I’m also under the impression that any full auto sear would cost more than a $200 stamp. Heck the Franklin Armory Binary trigger is $429.

My opinion is that I’m not for the NFA at all and agree they are unnecessary, intrusive, burdensome and the list could go on and on, but they currently exist. Where I completely agree with Andrew is that the extra $200 is part of the build cost. I just can’t agree that $200 is a hardship considering the cost of equipment and pew pew pills. Does it suck, yes it does. In fact it sucks like a straw factory.

 

[Trigger Time]

I honestly don't care about the "pistol brace" issue that was originally discussed. If you can spend $1000 on a build, you can spend $200 on registering it and making a legal SBR. The butthurt attached to the BATFE's waffling about braces, bump stocks, etc is amazing to me. Everyone wants to *****, and all the money donated doesn't do a thing - i.e. bump stocks and the NRA's lack of support for that fight. It does nothing. What-so-ever. Zip. Nada.

There is no winning dog in this fight excepting (not accepting) the tax stamp that keeps you legal. Until that law changes - which it won't - it's going to cost you $200 per piece to have the toys. That is the reality we live in.

Complain all you want, it's not going to change.

I remember people saying the same thing about constitutional carry. "Its never going to happen", " it will never change".

Well it has in many states and it will in Indiana too hopefully next session. Constitutional carry is happening.
We CAN get unconstitutional laws and regulations changed but not if we give up before we start.

 

[EOD Guy]

You change laws by voting in people who will change it or buying legislators for the same purpose. That's how it's done.

This was not the case bump stocks...the law was changed by bureaucrats with a simple rewording of a definition...a constant problem with our system.

 

[Aszerigan]

The prices are outrageous precisely because of the burdensome/intrusive requirements for NFA items.

Correct. They're overpriced because they're over-priced. Same reason you can't buy a Ferrari for Ford pricing. They're different animals. They both get you A to B. But one is more fun. Ultimately, they do exactly the same thing. The ... exact... same thing.