H.R. 5005
Gun Law news has the skinny on what H.R.5005 is about:
Make no mistake; H.R.5005 does not correct the injustice of the Hughes Amendment.
What it does do is allow for the correction of two situations.
Read the rest.
12 Responses to “H.R. 5005”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 8th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I’d comment over at the linked site, but it looks like their method of comment spam requires me to register. Blog evolution in action.
Um yea, it would allow them to possess those machine guns, it would also not limit where they could practice, or where they could deploy. It also lets the private security firms avoid the $200 BATFE tax that the rest of us mere mortals have to pay. The possessors of the actual firearms would also only have to pass a NICS and have their fingerprints taken, instead of the background check everyone else gets.
Why should theses people get to skirt the law the rest of us must obey?
Yea, it just lets those private security services get class 3 stuff at government surplus prices.
It does not provide the BATFE a chance to “open the floodgates”, it does allow open up some potential abuse from private corporations.
I’d give it a -2 myself. This gives almost nothing to the average gun owner. If we really believe the slogan, “I am the NRA”, shouldn’t our NRA really be pushing some real reform in this bill? With all that lobbying money, all those A and B graded critters, can’t we get some pro-RKBA amendments attached in on this thing?
April 8th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
If they want people to carry machine guns in Iraq and be trained in the US, recruit them into the armed forces. Otherwise repeal the ban on civilians owning such weapons.
I think it is very dangerous to create a special class of warriors that can operate with neither the restrictions placed on civilians nor the rules and discipline imposed upon military personell. The end result of this bill will be a class of soldiers that take orders from the US govt but arent a political liability when they break the rules ala abu ghraib. I cant understand why everyone is having such difficulty seeing the problems this bill facilitates.
As I already pointed out here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193426) in pdf and word format, this bill does not actually change anything for the better. It moves existing rules from appropriations to the US Code and then scoops out some exemptions for government contractors. This bill is more like a 0 because it doesnt actually affect gun control for the average person at all.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
also, there’s some good stuff on this thread:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193426
Again, beerslurpy had made the proposed changes to the law and written them up with comments. Someone else has converted that file also in to a PDF file, if you prefer that format.
more comments from that thread:
ElTacoGrande: Gracias for the writeup, Senor Cervesa. I’m very unimpressed by this bill. They need to do something chip away at 922(o) for ALL of us.
mordechaianiliewicz: …But, there should be a bone thrown to everyone else. Anything. They could have put in a definite end to the ’86 ban. They could have put restrictions on the BATF, or loosened import laws allowing importers more leniency in import requirements (can’t hope for pre-68 mail order, but simply allowing importers to import long guns wo new import marks [just mark down serial #s and push them out the door]. They also could have lowered the FFL permit ammount to $50 even, and required a legal process seriously “streamlined” wait, I’m getting an idea here for another thread….
beerslurpy: The sad thing is that the NRA could actually be fighting for things worth fighting for instead of finding ways to make the bradys look reasonable.
You would think that the NRA has run out of gun control to repeal.
…
April 8th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
I concur but I’d consider this a very small step forward.
April 8th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
this bill could be a better oportunity than you think…a BATF amunition manufacturing license is just $30 for 3 years —- think about it!
from http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nlc/ffl/ffl_types.htm#type06
Type 06 –
MANUFACTURER OF AMMUNITION FOR FIREARMS
other than ammunition for destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition.
18 U.S.C 923(a)(1)(C)
Fee:
$ 30.00 for three (3) years.
Application: ATF Form 7 (5310.12)
April 9th, 2006 at 12:17 am
Hmmm….
So perhaps Joe has found a little loophole here. Of course, you can only own it for the sole purpose of “testing, research, design, or development of ammunition”, instead of “collecting and investing”. Although if I had a license and a MG, I’d just have to do some on-site testing every year at Knob Creek.
Too bad getting a license to manufacture ammo from the BATFE probably isn’t “shall issue”.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:05 am
I feel stupid for not seeing this.
I’m pretty sure Ammo Manufacturer is close to shall issue. Since the ATF is giving them out to the thousands of companies that manufacture ammunition and sell it to other people (not just Remington and Wolf, but also EBR and all the other small time manufacturers) you could probably start doing FOIA against them to find out how they judge the suitability of manufacturers to receive licenses and then sue to find out why they denied yours.
The ATF COULD enage in some devious rule making to get around this, but I honestly think this section will back them into a corner. My main worry is what would happen if you let your manufacturer FFL expire. Would your machine guns become contraband?
April 10th, 2006 at 12:08 am
If this turns out to be true it will be pretty cool as I was planning to start manufacturing subsonic 7.62×39 for myself and for sale to others.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:04 am
I don’t mean to be pessimistic, but this just sets us up again for the “more private citizens trying to stay on the right side of the law, than gas stations”, anti-gun argument.
For those not in the know, apparently on a bad day, you can run afoul of the law by buying a gun, and then selling it again at a profit. You were acting like an unlicensed dealer. One solution was to become a licensed dealer. By buying a license, complying with some regulations, not only do you get to avoid this little rights ending SNAFU, you also suddenly get the right to engage in interstate commerce.
Imagine that.
Well, then the price of a license went up, supported by some in the industry who didn’t want to compete with hobbyists who mail order stuff for their friends and themselves. Still, the economic cost of the license was worth it to many people.
Then the anti-freedom bunch put forth their “more gun stores than gas stations” screed, and the BATFE put forth their effort to reduce the total amount of revenue received via license fees, and the legitimize dealer crackdown began. Of course, for every “kitchen table” dealer that they shutdown, the tobacco ninjas got the purchase records turned over to themselves.
I think we have enough pull with the critters that think themselves part of the party of “fiscal responsibility” and “smaller government”,that if we just let them know we are willing to just stay home next election unless they put their NRA blessed A and B grade ratings to use and grant us some of our freedoms back.
I still say we need to hold out for real reform in this bill, instead of quietly hoping for loopholes that can get plugged by BATFE invented regulations with the force of law.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
The people who made that argument were the storefront FFLs. They complained the loudest about their license fees not buying them a proper government provided monopoly on firearms transfers. Blame them.
I completely agree that this bill needs to be amended to have more reform in it.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Perhaps H.R.5092 will be more to your liking. Thomas does not have the text up yet.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Greetings senor. Thanks for the heads up.