Poll: Trade some "rights" for some "rights?"

[The B]

I'm not at all suggesting this... but it does seem like the kind of compromise that could be negotiated. So, for argument sake, hypothetically..

Would you be willing to entertain the compromise of putting all "assault rifles" on the NFA registry if the goobermint would repeal the manufacturing for private transfer clause of the FOPA for "machineguns?"

For arguments sake, let us also reduce the tax to $50/weapon and require the ATF to process all applications within 6 months. Weapons possessed at the time of enactment are grandfathered- still need to be registered, but tax-exempt, and you retain possession during filing.

If no, but not SO no, what additional concessions would you want?

Read More

 

[Swedish K]

I'm guessing that the current full auto owners would not be in favor as it would greatly reduce the value of their collections...
As I am in a state that currently will not allow new ownership of full auto it would do me no good. I do like the idea of if you voluntarily put your weapon on the registry at no cost you could convert it though.

 

[The B]

This would be a pretty huge bargaining chip. You might even be able to negotiate for things like federal preemption- states cannot ban NFA weapons, etc.

 

[Benihaus]

I would be happy with it ... but it can't happen, they will give us nothing, there is no bargaining with them.

 

[mkwerx]

"Hell No" to listing semis on the NFA. I don't care if they repealed the FOPA 86 and the GCA of 68 in return. Registration is not something I'm willing to consider. It does absolutely no good. I will agree with universal background checks in return for no semi auto ban or mag capacity limits. I would agree to fund research into ways to stop violence (not just "gun violence") - there's worse way the goobermint can use our money - if there's no semi/mag ban. But registration and turning my already lawfully owned semis into NFA weapons is a no-go for me.

 

[The B]

I would be happy with it ... but it can't happen, they will give us nothing, there is no bargaining with them.

I disagree. They're NOT going to get "assault rifles" on the NFA, at least not in the near future, and would absolutely salivate at the opportunity. I think they'd give a lot for it.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Anything that begins with mandatory registration is a non-starter.

Even if that weren't so, it still wouldnt appeal to me.

All I have to do is give the government control over my ar15 and in exchange I could pay extra taxes, wait 6 months, and buy a weapon that's kinda like my ar15 but can shoot through $20 of ammo in 3 seconds?

In no way is that appealing to me.

 

[timac]

Compromise is how all this started. NO MORE DEALS OR COMPROMISE.

 

[Toxic6]

"well, you should be willing to meet us part way and agree to...." NO, no, no, no, no.........no more part way, no more illusory "reaching for the stars" whilst plotting for the earth. No more control over our lives, no more freedoms given in exchange for lies and poison, no more asking the individual to give for "the group" (while leading "the group" - how convenient).

 

[fourwinds]

A double minded man recives NOTHING from GOD.
NO Compromising, No waivering, This Is the Time to STAND.
Let Your Yes Be Yes ,and Your NO be NO.
Choose what side of history you will be on.

 

[Mark W.]

Assault Rifles are already NFA weapons.

Are you talking about Semi auto rifles? Like my M1 carbine or Remington 750? How on earth is the ATF going to deal with registering 20 million semi auto rifles? There has to be over a million M1 carbines alone in the USA. How many Ruger 10-22's are there?

Or are you suggesting we only NFA the nasty black ones?

This is a silly waste of time.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

No thank you.

 

[nwdrifter]

If they get anything they will start on the next thing soon after. They will not stop at just sporting rifles. If we give them an inch they will smell the blood in the water and come after semi auto handguns next. If you are ok with a spoting rifle ban and you get it know that your semi auto handguns are next, right now handguns are safe because there is something worse out there to be the target. Without sporting rifles you are the target. You would also be setting a precedent for registration, making it easier for them to say "ok now lets add handguns"

They want to divide and conquer, weather you own a sporting rifle or not you need to stand with your 2nd amendment brothers and fight back against the oppression of your rights before your gun is on the chopping block.

In short never concede any of your rights, weather you use that right now or not, you may want it later.

 

[CharonPDX]

How do you draw the line on what gets added?

While an AR-15 and/or AK-47-clone would certainly get added. Does a 10/22 get added? How about the Browning BAR?

And do you go for a California-like "add 'em all by name"? or do you do it by feature? Either way, manufacturers will find a way to modify something ever so slightly to have it avoid the list.

While I wouldn't agree to any such "add semi-autos to the NFA list" plan, if you're going to go that route, a complete overhaul should be done:

1. Repeal the 1986 FOPA's "no new [xyz]". Allow new fully-auto.
2. Add semi-auto rifles to a new category just for them. It should be a $5 stamp like AOW. It should have a *MUCH* shorter time span for the background check - 1 month *TOPS*, 1 week target.
3. Add a *FREE* background check system for private individuals to use - one that is statutorily no-records-kept. (With independent audits yearly to ensure.) This will increase the number of people who would willingly run background checks for private sales.
4. Get rid of the NFA tax for private sales, but continue to require transfer papers be kept by the seller. (FFL C&R-style, no reporting to the government at time of sale, just a record kept.)

Note, *I* don't want those steps, I'd rather have more freedom overall, but if you're going to suggest this to anyone, err on the side of MORE freedom, not less.

Also, while I don't want a magazine ban of any kind (they're pointless, as shown by the VT shooter,) if one were to appear imminent (or if anyone in the gun-rights area says they're going to suggest some sort of 'trade',) I'd make sure it wasn't a hard-limit of 10. Make it something like "what the weapon was originally designed for." For handguns, if there is *ANY* limit, it should be "a magazine that fits entirely in the grip." For rifles, it should be whatever the original manufacturer's magazine size was. Yes, for some this would be 10, but for most rifles it would be 15-30. I own a 75-round-drum, and I'd like to be able to buy another should I want to, but they are truly impractical in a real-world shooting scenario due to their unreliability. If ANY* magazines are going to be given up, I would grudgingly accept the very-high-cap drum mags as "expendable" (under protest,) way before I'd accept smaller-but-original-size.