Guns you own (5 Viewers)

[Old State]

Thanks, that's a pretty good summary, and a good starting point for more info.

The Second Amendment in the US isn’t about hunting or sports shooting. It is another layer of checks and balances found throughout the US Constitution. It was specifically to forbid the Federal government from infringing on the right of the population to arm themselves against all threats foreign and domestic including (and most importantly to them) their own government. In the 18th century the militia was considered the general population not just an organized group. This is how is was always understood at the ratification of the Amendment in 1791 and up to probably the mid 20th century when you first see a movement to restrict civilian ownership of firearms.
The 1934 National Firearms Act was an attempt at a de facto ban on certain weapons through heavily taxing them and requiring a registration. The authors of the bill realized that any law actually banning things like machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled rifle’s and shotguns, and explosive devices would probably not past constitutional muster if it went to the Supreme Court under a true reading of the second amendment. This law still exists today but the tax isn’t as oppressive because it’s never been adjusted for inflation. Now in relation to machine guns specifically, another law was passed in 1986 banning the future manufacture of machine guns for the civilian population there by making the ones in existence extremely expensive. For example, you can buy AR 15s for $500-1200 but an actual full auto M16 will run you around $20-30K

You actually can own grenades, etc in the US. You just would have to pay a $200 tax for each one, register it with the ATF, and wait several months for an approval.

The term “assault weapon” is not a technical term but is a political one basically meaning guns with cosmetic features that look scary. People that understand how firearms actually work understand this. Those that don’t ...don’t.

If you actually are looking for a historical starting point to research you need to look at primary sources and understand the concept of natural rights and the right of self preservation as it was understood during the “age of enlightenment“ and leading up to the 18th century when the US was founded. You can also read the history of the Bill of Rights in general. You are going to have a very hard time getting an accurate historical and legal understanding with a simple google search as you have to sift through mostly modern political “interpretations“.

This is a great book on the subject

 

[LotsOfChips]

Thanks! I just finished reading an article about the 1934 NFA and the 1986 law, but it didn't have a lot of historical context. Your answer provides some of that, along with additional topics to research.

 

[Old State]

Thanks! I just finished reading an article about the 1934 NFA and the 1986 law, but it didn't have a lot of historical context. Your answer provides some of that, along with additional topics to research.

There hasn’t been a Supreme Court challenge to the NFA surprisingly. I’m thinking that will change at some point.

 

[LotsOfChips]

There hasn’t been a Supreme Court challenge to the NFA surprisingly. I’m thinking that will change at some point.

As @Saoliver points out, I guess discussion of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is better left for the politics section.

 

[BonScot]

Wow. I’m imagining what it would be like if we had those laws over here.

Problem: Neighbour’s music too loud?
Solution: Hand grenade through their letterbox

FIRE IN THE HOLE

Scottish people would become extinct within a week

 

[Old State]

Wow. I’m imagining what it would be like if we had those laws over here.

Problem: Neighbour’s music too loud?
Solution: Hand grenade through their letterbox

FIRE IN THE HOLE

Scottish people would become extinct within a week

Well imagine murder would still be illegal

BTW, I would imagine the amount of legally owned grenades in the US is microscopically small and I would also bet almost all of them are part of historical collections..like privately owned museums.

 

[v1pe]

Don't forget that while you could theoretically own a tank in the US, it would still cost a shit ton on money lol. That's why the vast majority of criminal gun violence that occurs in the US is with handguns (likely many of which are stolen).

 

[BonScot]

Don't forget that while you could theoretically own a tank

That would make parking at work a lot easier

 

[justsomedude]

Whoa...

 

[Sprouty]

Any Marlin collectors out there?

1952 Marlin 336 in 35 Remington

 

[BukNaked36]

You actually can own grenades, etc in the US. You just would have to pay a $200 tax for each one, register it with the ATF, and wait several months for an approval.

lolz that's crazy... I never knew this was possible. Hey man, wanna come check out my grenade collection?

I suppose anyone with bad intentions would just make a pipe bomb instead anyhow.

 

[justsomedude]

If you actually are looking for a historical starting point to research you need to look at primary sources and understand the concept of natural rights and the right of self preservation as it was understood during the “age of enlightenment“ and leading up to the 18th century when the US was founded. You can also read the history of the Bill of Rights in general. You are going to have a very hard time getting an accurate historical and legal understanding with a simple google search as you have to sift through mostly modern political “interpretations“.

And here's a video from TRex on the history of the NFA for those with shorter attention spans. He's coming mostly from the suppressor angle, but he hits a lot of the broad strokes as well.

It's a great 30-minute class on US legislative firearms history/regulation for those who are interested:

 

[Old State]

lolz that's crazy... I never knew this was possible. Hey man, wanna come check out my grenade collection?

I suppose anyone with bad intentions would just make a pipe bomb instead anyhow.

Way way way easier to make a pipe bomb.

 

[v1pe]

And here's a video from TRex on the history of the NFA for those with shorter attention spans. He's coming mostly from the suppressor angle, but he hits a lot of the broad strokes as well.

It's a great 30-minute class on US legislative firearms history/regulation for those who are interested:

This is a good video, I'd seen it before but not thought about posting in response to the questions asked.

The basis on which the NFA regulates things like SBRs/SBSs/Suppressors really grinds my gears.

 

[Old State]

And here's a video from TRex on the history of the NFA for those with shorter attention spans. He's coming mostly from the suppressor angle, but he hits a lot of the broad strokes as well.

It's a great 30-minute class on US legislative firearms history/regulation for those who are interested:

Most people don’t realize suppressors were added because of poaching during the Depression. Also most don’t understand just how loud rifles are even when suppressed. They just quiet a rifle down to ear ringing levels rather than eardrum bleeding/permanent hearing lose levels since it’s impossible to suppress the sonic boom of a bullet. That’s why they are perfect for home defense

And another point most also don’t realize they are legal to buy over the counter in many European countries...even those with strict gun laws. Some ranges there actually require them. The short barreled rifle piece is just stupid as all hell...especially because they can be classified as a pistol.

 

[justsomedude]

Most people don’t realize suppressors were added because of poaching during the Depression. Also most don’t understand just how loud rifles are even when suppressed. They just quiet a rifle down to ear ringing levels rather than eardrum bleeding/permanent hearing lose levels since it’s impossible to suppress the sonic boom of a bullet.

That's what these are for...

 

[Old State]

That's what these are for...

View attachment 547123
View attachment 547135
View attachment 547124

View attachment 547127

Haha, yes I’m going to build a 300 BLK after a get a suppressor (my first will be .30) but basically you have a .45 with a bit more muzzle velocity. I mainly want one to to hear how quiet it is. But for HD the 5.56 is vastly superior in numerous ways...including less over penetration through walls etc
Been wanting a suppressed .22 for a groundhog gun for a long long time though

 

[Old State]

This guy probably owns the majority of transferable explosives and machine guns in the US! He also runs a very famous Harley Davidson customization business

 

[v1pe]

Haha, yes I’m going to build a 300 BLK after a get a suppressor (my first will be .30) but basically you have a .45 with a bit more muzzle velocity. I mainly want one to to hear how quiet it is. But for HD the 5.56 is vastly superior in numerous ways...including less over penetration through walls etc
Been wanting a suppressed .22 for a groundhog gun for a long long time though

I really want a suppressor, but I hate the idea of paying a boat load for one and then having to wait 12 months to take possession!

 

[Old State]

I really want a suppressor, but I hate the idea of paying a boat load for one and then having to wait 12 months to take possession!

Form 1s for SBRs have been getting approved in a few weeks and I’ve heard the Form 4s for suppressors are picking up. Some reporting 6 months. They are a lot of money for what they are but suppressor technology advances very slowly and they last forever for the average civilian. I created a trust and have been waiting more than a year to get my wife and best friend notarized. Otherwise I would have one by now.

 

[v1pe]

Form 1s for SBRs have been getting approved in a few weeks and I’ve heard the Form 4s for suppressors are picking up. Some reporting 6 months. They are a lot of money for what they are but suppressor technology advances very slowly and they last forever for the average civilian. I created a trust and have been waiting more than a year to get my wife and best friend notarized. Otherwise I would have one by now.

Only a week? Wow, that's much better than I had expected. I am still new to buying guns, but I had it in my mind that any NFA item was going to take 9-12 months to process.

How does it work with SBRs? If I want to convert the rifle I have already built into an SBR, can I purchase a new upper, apply for the tax stamp, and then just hold onto the shorter upper until I get my stamp? I originally was thinking of building an SBR but I didn't want to wait for months and months to take possession of the gun.

 

[Old State]

Only a week? Wow, that's much better than I had expected. I am still new to buying guns, but I had it in my mind that any NFA item was going to take 9-12 months to process.

How does it work with SBRs? If I want to convert the rifle I have already built into an SBR, can I purchase a new upper, apply for the tax stamp, and then just hold onto the shorter upper until I get my stamp? I originally was thinking of building an SBR but I didn't want to wait for months and months to take possession of the gun.

For a gun you already own that was built as a rifle, I would advise you wait until you get the stamp approved before buying the upper as some say possession of an SBR upper without a SBR lower is not looked at kindly by the ATF.

the better option is to buy a stripped lower, build it as a pistol with a brace then send the paperwork in allowing you to use the shorty upper until you get it back. That said it’s seems to only be a few weeks turn around so it’s not a big deal either way

 

[v1pe]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a...-barrel-rifle-issues-cease-and-desist-letter/

Interesting development, I wonder where this leads to.

It looks like a special telescoping brace? I wonder if it extends further than a normal SBA brace and that's why they are going after it.

 

[Old State]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/a...-barrel-rifle-issues-cease-and-desist-letter/

Interesting development, I wonder where this leads to.

It looks like a special telescoping brace? I wonder if it extends further than a normal SBA brace and that's why they are going after it.

This has to do with the overall length of the barrel

 

[Old State]

@v1pe

 

[justsomedude]

@v1pe

Saw that blowing up on Twitter last night... if the ATF uses this as a foot in the door to hammer all makes/models of pistol braces, they'll instantaneously turn millions of legal gun owners into felons.

This is going to be a shit show.

It looks like a special telescoping brace? I wonder if it extends further than a normal SBA brace and that's why they are going after it.

@Old State nailed it... it has to do with the length of the barrel, and it's not a simple thing to comprehend because, ATF.

I will try to simplify the long and meandering background, and I'm going to fail miserably:

Back in the 1930's, the National Firearms Act (NFA) regulated rifles under 16". The gov't was concerned about shorter weapons being concealed, making them easier to use in nefarious gangland crime. So... gov't says less than 16" = bad. So less than 16" = bad. There is also some bizarre language about "shouldering" a weapon that created different classes of firearms. Thus, short gun not intended to be shouldered = pistol, short gun "intended" to be shouldered = Short Barreled Rifle (SBR).

Pistols are not heavily regulated (so long as you don't put a forward grip on it - that's another ATF discussion for another day), SBRs require a $200 tax stamp to the ATF, forms, fingerprints, photos, your name added to a federal list, etc. etc.

The simple version... if you put a stock on a pistol and shoulder it without filing the proper paper work, you are a felon. Take the stock off and fire the pistol with two hands or one hand, and you are a law abiding citizen.

Fast forward almost 80 years with ADA laws and all kinds of new attention being paid to minority and disabled groups, and some one realized that pistols were very difficult to be fired and controlled one-handed by some disabled Americans (who, due to their disability, could not wield a weapon with two hands). So, some clever guy designed the "pistol stabilizing brace," an attachment to the back end of the pistol (note, where a stock would normally go) that helps stabilize the pistol in one-handed use. Image below.

The ATF originally approved of these devices for one-handed use.

Of course, clever gun owners who liked to build pistols <16" in length, and who did not want to go through the mess of filing the Form 1 SBR paperwork with the ATF, but who still wanted the convenience of shouldering their pistols, realized that pistol braces could be shouldered when in the closed position. The pistol brace was not technically a stock. And a stock is definitely not a pistol brace. Thus, they sketchy loophole to the NFA for shouldering pistols was born.

For years there was ambiguity surrounding the legality of pistol braces in closed and shouldered use. Pistol braces obviously did not exist when the NFA was written, and the ATF really had no clear guidance on the product outside its originally intended use. There are well known ATF letters addressing the subject of braces in shouldered use, one in 2012 and one in 2015, that didn't seem to help matters much. And then in 2017, the ATF issued an "open letter" stating that pistols with braces could be shouldered legally, so long as the brace was not permanently altered or "redesigned" from its originally manufactured state.

With this 2017 interpretation from the ATF, the "pistol with brace" became a booming business with millions of units being sold, and with the ATF seemingly authorizing a workaround to the NFA/SBR less-than-16"-barrel-length-while-being-shouldered-with-stock regulation.

Now, with this recent (August 2020) letter, it looks like the ATF is backtracking on its 2017 letter, and moving towards re-defining "pistol braces" as "stocks" under the NFA. This will instantaneously make anyone a felon with a pistol brace on their pistol. Erm... shorter than 16" rifle. Erm... Short Barreled Rifle. Fuck, I give up.

 

[Old State]

So far the ATF is only targeting Q and this particular gun. Q LLC just posted this on their FB page. Seems to be a length of pull measurement issue. Evidently they have big law firm on board but are currently offering a $200 rebate to any customer who decides to SBR their Honey Badger.

Clarence Thomas says he wants the SCOTUS to hear more gun cases and deliberate on arbitrary laws (which are almost all of them). The NFA is very arbitrary as are things like magazine capacity and bans on cosmetic features. Questions to be considered are “how was 16”s decided on and can they prove that this law substantially benefits the public safety?” Same for 10 rounds with magazines and suppressors. Why 10 rounds vs 9 or 11? How do flash suppressors, adjustable stocks, and bayonet lugs increase the lethality of a weapon? What data did they look at to come to these conclusions (none is the answer)? It is impossible for anyone to show any reason or logic with these laws and they surely can’t point to any data showing they reduced crime because the data simply doesn’t show it.

The only thing they may be successful in arguing to keep regulated is be machine guns

 

[Old State]

 

[justsomedude]

Looks like this is all just a foot in the door to ban all braces.

For anyone interested in this issue, check out the two new videos Colion just posted.

One is with Q owner/founder, and one is with SBA owner/founder. Both of these dudes are livid, and also incredibly informative...

 

[Old State]

https://www.primaryarms.com/aero-pr...m_term=SLOT_9&utm_campaign=20_10_AD09_InStock

lowers is stock as of today