What's new
By:
Filters

NFA headed for the chopping block ?

BDK said:
Well placed shots beat spray and pray in most scenarios, but its a step in the right "shall not be infringed" direction.

I could see a .22LR full auto for giggles, but ammo is just too expensive for anything else. It would be cool to have a M240 or M60 in the safe for dealing with multiple hostiles....but not for recreational use.

I would definitely build a SBR AR if the NFA goes away.
Click to expand...
I want an american 180 really really bad....
 
I partially retract my last post. A short barreled M4 with 3 round burst capability would be a outstanding truck gun or home defense weapon.

Especially if nobody knew you have it.... SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKER(S)!!!! Or YOU PICKED THE WRONG REC ROOM!!!
 
DWT said:
All the people that dropped 50k or better for pre 1986 full autos are gonna be pissed if it stands. :laughing:
Click to expand...

That was exactly my concern when I looked into them as an investment 15 years ago.
 
BDK said:
I partially retract my last post. A short barreled M4 with 3 round burst capability would be a outstanding truck gun or home defense weapon.

Especially if nobody knew you have it.... SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKER(S)!!!! Or YOU PICKED THE WRONG REC ROOM!!!
Click to expand...
burst triggers suck on ARs

AN94 however? sign me the fuck up
 
tenor-3.gif
 
Was this ruling not stayed for 30 days to give the government time to appeal? Same as how every time California loses another, they get a ruling and a stay, and they get to drag the game out for eternity?
If it wasn't stayed, as I understand it, whatever district that court encompasses, just legalized full auto via case law. I suppose it doesn't address the tax stamp aspect, but a savvy resident of that district should promptly file a Form 1 for a new build MG with a copy of that ruling stapled to it, if for no other reason than to establish legal standing when the ATF denies it.

And like many in this thread already, while I don't want to use it regularly (or in some calibers, at all), if suddenly the government was told to stuff the NFA, we're actually reading "shall not be infringed" at its intended face value, I'd be pretty busy drilling third holes just because.
 
Second Amendment:

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.


I should work for the courts, I could have saved a lot of time, it is right there plain as day
 
rockmup said:
While there will be an uptick, they have that now. All of it.

It also bodes well for SBR/SBS and suppressors.
Click to expand...
Even if every NFA gun law was repealed, I don't think they'll give up suppressors. Only on the basis that they are not firearms per definition. They are accessories so do not fall under any firearm related appeal. Can't give up that tax stamp money you know.
 
ScottRS said:
Was this ruling not stayed for 30 days to give the government time to appeal? Same as how every time California loses another, they get a ruling and a stay, and they get to drag the game out for eternity?
If it wasn't stayed, as I understand it, whatever district that court encompasses, just legalized full auto via case law. I suppose it doesn't address the tax stamp aspect, but a savvy resident of that district should promptly file a Form 1 for a new build MG with a copy of that ruling stapled to it, if for no other reason than to establish legal standing when the ATF denies it.

And like many in this thread already, while I don't want to use it regularly (or in some calibers, at all), if suddenly the government was told to stuff the NFA, we're actually reading "shall not be infringed" at its intended face value, I'd be pretty busy drilling third holes just because.
Click to expand...
This was a criminal case. There is no stay. By dismissing the case, the judge decided there isn't enough evidence to procede to trial. This case is important because the judge dismissed charges, not because there wasn't enough evidence to convict, but because the law was invalid. That's what I got from reading the article.
 
ScottRS said:
Was this ruling not stayed for 30 days to give the government time to appeal? Same as how every time California loses another, they get a ruling and a stay, and they get to drag the game out for eternity?
If it wasn't stayed, as I understand it, whatever district that court encompasses, just legalized full auto via case law. I suppose it doesn't address the tax stamp aspect, but a savvy resident of that district should promptly file a Form 1 for a new build MG with a copy of that ruling stapled to it, if for no other reason than to establish legal standing when the ATF denies it.

And like many in this thread already, while I don't want to use it regularly (or in some calibers, at all), if suddenly the government was told to stuff the NFA, we're actually reading "shall not be infringed" at its intended face value, I'd be pretty busy drilling third holes just because.
Click to expand...
Isn't it already legal to build FA for personal use? NFA applies to manufacturers and inter state transfers, it doesn't apply to personal use and in state.

Which is why CA runs afoul of CA laws and why CO should figure out a way to join the rest of the mountain states with "made in xyz" and personal use, no feds required, rather than their lame ass coastal state style ban
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
Everyone but law the abiding citizen has a fucking machine gun. Kids are even making switches in shop class these days and hooking up their fellow gang bangers. Gun violence won't go up if the playing field is evened out and may actually drop.
Click to expand...
Highshool and college machine shops have been spewing auto sears since forever.
 
BDK said:
I partially retract my last post. A short barreled M4 with 3 round burst capability would be a outstanding truck gun or home defense weapon.

Especially if nobody knew you have it.... SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKER(S)!!!! Or YOU PICKED THE WRONG REC ROOM!!!
Click to expand...
Do they make green tips for the 5.7? P90 would be pretty tits too.
 
Provience said:
Isn't it already legal to build FA for personal use? NFA applies to manufacturers and inter state transfers, it doesn't apply to personal use and in state.

Which is why CA runs afoul of CA laws and why CO should figure out a way to join the rest of the mountain states with "made in xyz" and personal use, no feds required, rather than their lame ass coastal state style ban
Click to expand...
You can’t own anything FA built after 1986 (Hughes amendment to the firearm owners protection act)

Certain FFLs with the proper endorsements can build new ones, but they don’t own them and must give them up after they stop paying for the privilege.

You can get permission to own new suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns but not full auto.
 
Void_of_Light said:
You can’t own anything FA built after 1986 (Hughes amendment to the firearm owners protection act)

Certain FFLs with the proper endorsements can build new ones, but they don’t own them and must give them up after they stop paying for the privilege.

You can get permission to own new suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns but not full auto.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20240823_053116_Chrome.jpg



Don't use 10 or more imported parts :flipoff2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh