Comments on: A piece of history

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:45:50 +0000

This is basically the last gasp for civilian MG ownership … if the hughs amendment isn’t removed, and responsibility for new registration taken away from the BATFE, as a tax matter, and not as gun control, we will see MG ownership relegated to rich people and movie studios.

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:44:24 +0000

Before 1968, if someone discovered an MG in the attic, they could just go down to the post office, buy a $200 stamp and a form, and register it.

The GCA of 1968 screwed with all of that.

As recently as 1976, they had an MG amnesty to get those closet MGs registered.

Now that the hughs amendment has passed, banning new registries after May 1986, I don’t see the BATFE doing another amnesty unless forced to do so.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:20:08 +0000

Does anyone know what it actually is? Jack.

By: Heartless Libertarian

Heartless Libertarian — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:40:17 +0000

I’m sure the National Infantry Museum at Ft Benning would love to have it, but I’m not sure if their funding comes from the Federal budget or from donations.

Actually, even if it is federal money, they should have funding for ‘artifact acquisition’ or some such thing. But I’m sure the U.S. Army can take possession of it, and do the right thing and give some money to the library.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:51:30 +0000

That is idiotic. It was lawfully brought home as a trophy of war, and it was completely legal when it was brought in to the country. The fact that it was stored away and forgotten doesn’t change the fact it was legally acquired prior to all of the newer gun control laws.
The ATF and the politicians responsible for this state of affairs all deserve a swift kick in the ass.

By: chris

chris — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:09:55 +0000

But I thought that Senator Kerry was a staunch pro 2A advocate a couple of years ago.

Perhaps these folks need to approach Senator Craig instead.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:08:09 +0000

sure, but MA Sens kerry and kennedy aren’t the most, err, sympathetic to guns. And who wants to be the senator that says ‘disregard the law/policy, please’.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:58:27 +0000

I know, but Senators can still wield political pressure when applied in the right place.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:41:21 +0000

are they simply at the mercy of who�s in charge?

Ayup. they could turn it over to the ATF, who usually destroys such things. And maybe the ‘who’s in charge’ will choose not to.

A senator is not the executive branch.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:35:28 +0000

That’s what I mean, it said the law could be circumvented “in rare circumstances”. What are those “rare circumstances” and are they simply at the mercy of who’s in charge? And that’s what I meant by a friendly word from a Senator changing their mind…

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:20:11 +0000

And, of course, as Kristopher pointed out above, there is a way around it. But it still illustrates the stupidity of the law.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:03:03 +0000

Wouldn�t every automatic weapon in every museum now be illegal if they�re not registered?

But they are registered. If not, they're illegal.

All the ATF has to do is say, Ok, we�ll register it. And stop dragging their feet and rejecting the requests.

Well, they could but that would be illegal.

Sounds like all it would take is a call from their Senator to get them to register the dang thing.

Still be illegal. The law is quite clear. No post 1986 MGs are transferable. Period. Unregistered MGs are contraband. Period. That said, there is the Veteran's Heritage Firearms Act in committee now for just such a situation. But, it's been in committee for years.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:58:34 +0000

Wouldn’t every automatic weapon in every museum now be illegal if they’re not registered?

All the ATF has to do is say, Ok, we’ll register it. And stop dragging their feet and rejecting the requests.

Sounds like all it would take is a call from their Senator to get them to register the dang thing.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:40:17 +0000

Barry, I don’t know of a smithsonian exemption in the law.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:32:23 +0000

You know, even I agree with you on this one. And if we agree on a stupid gun law, it must really be stupid.

What if the Smithsonian got involved?

By: Diamondback

Diamondback — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:15:59 +0000

If only to save it from distruction, could they not donate it to a military museum?

By: nk

nk — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:03:50 +0000

Private bill?

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:18:51 +0000

If they wished to do so, the BATFE could sieze the weapon as contraband, sell it for one dollar to the local police on a form 10, and the Bush administration, could, if it wanted to, simply ignore the may 1986 ban, since congress doesn’t have any real authority to order such, and let the police sell said firearm normally.

But they won’t.

By: Snowflakes in Hell » Why The Hughes Amendment Must Go

Snowflakes in Hell » Why The Hughes Amendment Must Go — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:58:53 +0000

[...] It’s destroying our history. If it weren’t for the FOPA provision that made registering new machine guns illegal, this piece of our history wouldn’t be at risk. [...]