Previous Post
Next Post

Glock Auto Sears

One of the questions I occasionally get during the day at the class-3 FFL where I work is, “can I buy a machine gun?” I usually respond with the whole spiel of how “the registry” was closed and how much that tends to stink for anyone of average means who desires a full-auto weapon. Quite simply, if you don’t have a fat wallet, you don’t get to go rat-a-tat-tat. I really hate that . . .

It’s not that I’m jealous of those who can afford machine guns. It doesn’t bother me that their disposable income is much greater than mine. What bothers me is that I should be able to afford a machine gun, but I can’t because of artificial inflation caused by a “do-good” representative from New Jersey circa 1986. I don’t want to offend those of you who own them, but to be quite frank, MAC-10s are $300 guns at best. And Stens should be a cash purchase you make from your change jar.

Have you ever looked at these guns? Imagine that you were shopping for guns at a third world arms bazaar and a Georgian with a bushy mustache offered you a 35-year-old stamped metal machine pistol for $5000. You’d probably laugh at him, then get the guy you hired out of the back of Soldier of Fortune magazine to kick his ass for trying to rip you off.

Yet here we are, nearly 30 years after the registry closed and no one has made a peep about opening it up. That really gets my goat (the one I took from the Georgian who tried to rip me off). I want my GLOCK auto-sear. $100 + NFA tax. My GLOCK 26 will be complete. That’s the machine gun of my dreams; my favorite pistol with a happy switch.

The Supreme Court ruled that at a minimum, we have the right to weapons that are in common use. Machine guns need to be in common use for them to be constitutionally protected (by way of Heller), but because of artificially limited supply, created by the Hughes Amendment, they’re not. The closing of the registry created a catch-22. How many of you out there would own machine guns if you had the option? Enough to make them “commonly used” is the answer.

Even without a court case, why has there not been a single “poison pill” attached to some cause celebre bill that has been proposed (and ultimately passed) within the last two decades? The Affordable Care Act comes to mind. There were stimulus packages. What about various foreign aid bills that passed?

I think part of that comes from a politician’s reluctance to be known as “the guy who put machine guns back on our streets.” Another part of it stems from a poor general attitude on the issue at hand. Have you ever started up the, “I want a machine gun” conversation with someone, only to be met with the reply, “Yeah, it’s a waste of ammo,” or, “I’d rather just get the semi?” I have. I think that many overlook the fact that most machine guns are select-fire and give you the option of semi or full auto… or burst fire, if you want to really get down to it. Why, given the option of having a gun that could do both for the same price, would you not choose the full auto? Seriously, if I presented you with two AR-15s for $1500 – one select-fire and the other neutered – why would you pick the one that lacked the option of full-auto fire?

At this point in the conversation, if you manage to circumvent the usual nonsense about preternatural rate-of-climb and uncontrollability, the various half-assed, full auto “simulator” triggers get brought up as viable alternatives. Hell-fire, Tac-Trigger, bump-stocks; whatever someone came up with to get around the machine gun ban; something to give us poorer slobs a taste of full auto. Except, it’s still not full auto. And it tastes like a mouthful of turd. It’s like giving a man accustomed to fine cigars a Swisher Sweet and saying, “what? it’s a cigar, isn’t it?” No, it’s not. I’m no coprophage, I’d like my machine gun please.

My gut tells me that I’m not the only person who would like to see the registry opened. As to how… I would say that we need to wait for the right moment, but I think there have been many times when this could have been brought up as a bill or amendment and argued for successfully. I would say we need the right court case, but we’ve already had a number of them that would support the opening of the registry. People just sat on their not-so-proverbial-derrieres and let things pass them by. This is the problem that we must overcome: those who are happy with the status quo; those who lack ambition; those who consider machine guns to be too taboo for public mention; and ultimately, those who fight for only the parts of the Second Amendment that they care about. Surely, I am not the only one who sees machine guns as more than a novelty? There has to be a congressional representative at some level that would help Second Amendment supporters take up this cause.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I got to hand it you, that is original.

      Imagine in the 2015 remake of Dirty Harry when Callahan whips out a FA .500 S&W mag-fed revolver instead of his .44, pointing it at a punk while discussing luck with him. I would pay to just watch that scene

  1. The real answer is that prior to the NFA they were in common use. Prior to the Hughes Amendment they were in common use.

    • Now that I’ve looked it up I need to go back to the post and see how it was used. Funny how sometimes we just kinda skip over words we don’t know.

  2. I really think at this point that even maybe opening the registry again is politically unpalatable.

    What I would like to see, more realistically, is SBR/SBS and suppressors removed from the NFA.

    SBRs, ironically, would probably be the most likely of those three things to happen. SBRs aren’t really politically mushy, while “sawed-off shotguns” and “assassins’ silencers” are definitely media hype items. Either one are still way more realistic than MGs ever being opened up again.

    • You know, I’d have to ponder that for a while. If the choice was between silencers and SBRs dropping off the NFA (so you can, for instance, buy a silencer at a hardware store or have one mail-ordered to your house, or make your own) or allowing new-production machine guns and machine gun conversion parts to be added to the NFA…. I don’t know. Tough one.

      • Ya see, this is where I find the idea of the pro-gun side “compromising” as not too bad.

        We won’t necessarily insist on repeal of the entire NFA all at once … just a little bit at a time. Until it’s eventually all gone.

      • I think that given those choices, I’d go suppressor, SBR, then machine guns. Waiting for months for an empty metal tube is simply preposterous.

    • Being that they fall in between the pistols and the rifles with 16″ barrels all using identical ammunition, SBR’s are definitely the easiest to justify to the middle-of-the-road crowd.

      Suppressors have the “silent killer” myth against them, but so do baseball bats and garrotes and there is no registration required (yet) for those items.

      Regardless, I say go for the low hanging fruit when the opportunity presents itself… i.e. SBR’s.

    • If the wait for NFA wasn’t so damn long I’d probably have a few short barreled shotguns and rifles and suppressors.

      I’m still peeved about having to set up a trust for $400 then paying $200 on top of every item I want though and THEN waiting 9+ months just to have a pencil pusher say “OK” when an NICS check itself (not that I bother with those anymore what with my CHL) takes minutes.

      The whole idea that a weapon with a barrel less than 16 or 18 inches and a stock on it is somehow such a deplorable idea is in and of itself a deplorable notion. What stops anyone from doing this if they want to in the first place? Suppressors are a little tougher to create compared to a short barreled long-gun but nevertheless don’t make a gun any more or less lethal… just easier on the ears.

      Damn I hate NFA.

      • SBRs and SBSs were included because the gangsters were concealing them under their long coats–and a SBS will clear a room.

        • The difference in effectiveness for that purpose of an SBR compared to an AR or AK “pistol” sans stock is rather slim. Especially when the pistol can be SBR’d in matter of two minutes.

          SBS are even more ridiculous, since all that is required to make one from a legally compliant shotgun is a metal saw…

          Basically, it’s one of those laws that may have been well intentioned, but is useless at best because what it prohibits is trivial to do (and conceal until such time it is used in commission of another crime, at which point it hardly even matters).

        • I love internet “experts”. I own a 9″ SBS and it doesn’t spread much more than an 18″ shotgun. No, SBS & SBRs were included because the NFA originally covered pistols.

        • Since when did a gangster follow a law? 🙂 the mythos of the gangster coat and also the mythos of machines guns “clearing rooms” has been around since the 1920’s unfortunately its all a myth that the democrats created to pass the NFA. I for the life of me do not understand why so many people believe it today. Less than 1 percent of guns used in crimes were committed using machine guns back in the 1920’s and 30’s. The NFA of 34 went after the same “scary guns” concept the anti rights groups go after with the “assault weapons”. If it were all about “safety” they would put a mandatory sentence on using a machine gun in a violate crime and not have attacked the innocent machine gun owner with the NFA of 1934.

    • To be blunt you’re lying to yourself if you think you’re going to petition the current POTUS to get any pro liberty thing passed. But beyond that the Hughes amendment needs to go back to court as it was ‘passes’ completely illegally. But I’d also not recommend challenging it until we can get a stronger pro-2A government in power.

    • Signed. Now only 99,991 more signatures to go. But I’m sure since I “shared” it on Facebook it’ll only take a couple hours.

      I wish.

        • Yeah. I’ll sign it. I’m already on like 5 lists because of my FPID. What’s the worst that could happen? I’m already expecting a random surprise swatting if Christie approves the 10 round mag bill.

  3. To take a leaf out of the anti’s book, incrementalism (or making the slippery-slope work in our favor for once). First get Suppressors then SBRs/SBSs off of the NFA registry, THEN will we be able to “rock-n-roll” again.

    • Yes, agreed. It will take time but I’d recommend the same. It boggles the mind as to why select-fire is restricted, but let’s start with the easy ones first. First and foremost, suppressors. I was in my LGS the other day and they had quite a few cans on display. A Saker 556 caught my eye, and it was sad because I did have the funds to purchase it right there. The LGS and the manufacturer lost my money that day because I didn’t have a trust set up plus the $200 fun tax is a turn-off. I suppose I should set up a trust, no CLEO in South Florida has signed off on an NFA item in forever…however, the Saker was $550 or so, which wasn’t horrid. But then you have a $200 NFA tax, and then $250 (yeah one-time fee) for the gun trust lawyer to prep your trust, and then off to NFA jail goes your purchase. Kind of ridiculous for a device actually designed for safety.

  4. IMO, the issue is that most shooters ,myself included, can’t justify what benefit a full auto weapon provides versus a semi auto counterpart.

    Setting aside the 2nd Amendment infringement issue, on a practical level I could care less about full auto anything. It would be like Washington banning the importation of Lamborghinis. It would have zero day to day effect on my life. So what if Lambos are a million dollars apiece because of an import embargo. Makes no difference when my commuting machine is a Metro train.

    On another level, we have more important issues to fight in the short term.What good does full auto legalization do a New Jersey resident who can’t even buy two revolvers in six months.

    Get nationwide CCW passed, and let’s get rid of state level rosters and cross border FFL requirements. Then we can work on the esoteric stuff like getting full auto guns off the NFA.

    • It would be like Washington banning the importation of Lamborghinis.

      Poor analogy. A Sten gun isn’t a Lamborghini, it’s a 20 year old Chevy.

      • No, it’s a good analogy, as what he is saying is that he has no use for either one, and whether they are available or not he wouldn’t buy one. This isn’t a price comparison, it is a desire/utility question. I agree with him. I have no use for FA. I can’t find enough ammo to feed my semis, what do I need with an empty ammo hose? Wasteful, inaccurate, and no utility, the very definition of range toy. I’d rather have a precision rifle and a top quality scope. A SBR makes a good home defense gun, and a silencer is useful always. A FA, not so much.

        • Not really, the argument is really just one degree of separation from the Fudd argument about not needing a scary black rifle so therefore they tend not to stand up for the groups that do want or need them. On a side note the author stated that, select fire gives you the option of doing either. I have trained with an Uzi on a couple of occasions, and I really liked it, and found it to be very controllable on full auto with proper technique. I think it would make a fine home defense gun. Since I am limited to semi auto by the fact that I cannot afford a real Uzi, I will just stick to my glock 17.

        • I don’t know about you, but I’ve fired dozens of machineguns*, and I’ve never really found them to be uncontrollable. Thus, I find the “machineguns are uncontrollable” argument to be absolute nonsense.

          As far as finding ammo goes, it’s been a bit tight over the last year or so, but I’ve never been unable to find ammunition; I may have a location bias, but I know of several medium to large gun stores that typically have a good supply of ammunition. With the exception of a 2-6 week period last spring, almost everything has been available (even in quantity), although the prices have often been a bit higher than normal.

          Where utility is concerned, you acknowledge the utility of suppressors and short barrels for home/self defense, yet you absolutely ignore the possibility that a rifle capable of putting more rounds on target in a shorter period of time would have utility as well. Aside from the defensive utility, machineguns are just plain fun. They may be expensive to feed if you use them on a regular basis, but if you’re only taking them out for special occasions (say, once or twice a year), the ammunition cost becomes much more manageable.

          Everyone has their hobbies, and hobbies can be expensive. That doesn’t mean that they’re a waste of money.

          *At least two Browning Automatic Rifles, multiple M16 variants, at least 4 different MP5 variants, at least 3 different AK variants, at least two M1919, 2-3 uzi variants, an M60, an MP40, a MAC or two, a sterling, a few Thompson submachineguns, a UMP, a Glock 18C, an HK 416, an HK G36C, a Beretta 93r, some variant of PPSH, and probably several more that I’m forgetting.

        • I don’t know… I think an MP5 in burst would make pretty much the perfect home defense weapon.

    • While I’m symathetic to the plight of the NJ resident who can’t buy a revolver, why should I be forced to move at the speed of NJ when I live in a state that the Brady Bunch hates due to our “lax” gun laws?

    • Actually the Lamborghini Coutach was originally banned due to NHTSA/EPA regulations. They were imported under a grey market provision so vendors could make them legal.

    • I own a couple of suppressors and they are tons of fun. I have also shot full auto guns and would love to own them. Sadly they are too expensive.
      I am want some common sense compromises on NFA items.
      #1 Barrel length is no longer a consideration on whether or not a rifle or shotgun is NFA or not.
      #2 Suppressors are now simply a serialized item that require nothing more than a 4473 to be filled out. #3 Don’t hate me, but I am ok with machine guns being left in the NFA. However, the Hughes amendment should be lifted and guns made after 86 can be purchased.
      There are very few crimes committed with NFA items. SBRs are no more dangerous than full size rifles. Silencers are more common and serve a legitimate purpose.

    • The way the ATF has interpreted the Hughes amendment, if a firearm can accept original fire components which convert it to full auto, then it is full auto. Likewise, if a firearm operates from an open bolt, it is considered full auto.

      Convertibility to full auto is one of the key reasons why the CMP cannot offer current military weapons to civilians, even if those have been welded to only allow for semi-automatic fire. Ironic, considering the CMP is probably the closest thing the United States has to a ‘well regulated militia’ training program.

      It’s not the equivalent of banning Lamborghinis, it’s the equivalent of banning automobiles with automatic transmissions, or even vehicles that might allow a gearbox which converts them to automatic.

  5. 922(o), the second of USC that prohibits new manufacture of MGs for non governmental use, has ruined innovation from garage tinkerers. That alone should be enough to convince pro-business and pro-invention folks that change is most certainly needed.

    • There’s at least one on the registry; I saw it on one of the MG sale boards a few months back. As I recall, the asking price was somewhere around $250,000-350,000. The key issue though, is the ammunition: There is 40mm ammo on the market, but it’s largely a mix of blue training rounds, buckshot, and flares. I have never seen HE rounds offered for sale, but even if they were they’d certainly be classified as Destructive Devices in and of themselves (the buckshot rounds probably are too), and would require a 200 dollar tax stamp (and transfer) for every single projectile.

      Not exactly cost-effective to shoot as a mere plebeian.

      For that kind of money, I’d much rather have an M134; At least I can get ammo for it.

  6. I think part of that comes from a politician’s reluctance to be known as “the guy who put machine guns back on our streets.”

    That’s the main reason. It’s the same reasoning why they Lautenberg Amendment will never be done away with politically. No politician wants to be known as the “guy who sides with wife beaters.”

  7. I too want machine-guns, if you ever really looked at them they are not all that difficult. My FAL is a few weld blobs, ~1/4in of extra metal, and a ~$13 “safety sear” away from select-fire… oh so tempting, but then I would have to bury it 🙁

    So other than “illegal” means I find it quite difficult to put ~5K into my budget so I can burn through ammo in a gun that I don’t really want but would get because it is “cheep”.

    My solution is a state or even just a county work towards true freedom and Nullify the unconstitutional BS. My friend does not believe that machine gun owners will work to destroy the NFA or the registry because it would wipe out their “investments”. He also believes that the courts will just rule that we can not nullify the laws, but he does not seem to grasp the simplicity of it. You tell some one to F-off and they tell you that you cant tell them to, you make them F-off.

      • There are two kinds of people who own machineguns:

        Those who like them for what they are: Mechanical wonders that can chew through ammunition quickly; and:
        Those who are out to make a buck.

        The people that actually collect and/or shoot machineguns typically SUPPORT legislative action that would vastly devalue their guns (from reopening of the registry through the total abolition of the NFA) because such legislation would allow them to VASTLY expand their collections. Think about it: For the cost of one new-in-wrap M16A2 (~$40,000 in today’s market) you could buy countless firearms. Furthermore, it would also mean that rarer designs (like the M134 minigun) and newer guns (like the FN SCAR, Masada, HK MP7, etc.) would become widely available with the fun switch. Also, many of today’s machineguns would retain a large portion of their value due to their intrinsic historic novelty.

        As far as the latter group, I have no sympathy for them: Markets fluctuate over time, and I have little sympathy for those who buy at the peak of an artificially created market bubble.

        That being said, I have met a large number of machinegun owners, and I have NEVER (at least to my knowledge) met anyone from the second group.


    From the orals before SCOTUS in Heller: (Solicitor General Clement was arguing in support of the DC gun ban)

    JUSTICE SCALIA: But that opinion also, it didn’t use the militia prologue to say it’s only the kind of weapons that would be useful in militia, and that are commonly — commonly held today. Is there any Federal exclusion of weapons that applies to weapons that are commonly held today? I don’t know what you’re worried about. Machine guns, what else? Armored bullets, what else?

    GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?

    GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre -pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is – it is nowadays commonly held.


    JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.

    GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.” Now, if this Court wants to say that they don’t — I mean — I mean — we’d obviously welcome that in our — in our obligation to defend the constitutionality of acts of Congress. The one other thing I would say is that this is an opinion that is susceptible of different readings. It’s interesting that Respondents’ amici have different characterizations of it. The Goldwater Institute calls it strict scrutiny; the State of Texas calls it reasonable — reasonableness review.

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, General.
    GENERAL CLEMENT: Thank you.

  9. The time is coming. if i’m not mistaken, washington just made SBR’s legal, & I think there is a bill floating around somewhere that would make sound suppressors legal. Maybe after that passes we can push that next.

    • Just because an SBR is “legal” in Washington does not mean that you do not have to get a tax stamp from the feds. SBRs are “legal” under the federal law, as long as you pay $200 and get a clean bill of health from your proctologist. Rather, some states have banned them separate and apart from the federal statute. That Washington has reversed its prior ban changes nothing at the federal level; nor will federal law change even if all fifty states allow SBRs and silencers.

  10. No doubt people would buy them, if the market were open to new production for civilian sales. People already rent them, after all.

    Overall, yes, full auto is silly and, yes, is a range toy novelty. But that’s assuming ongoing civil society, and not the backstop to tyranny scenario the 2A contemplates. Then again, if one is in violent conflict against the government, you wouldn’t seek approval for these weapons. You’d just alter your existing semi. For that G26, you can just replace the slide cover plate with a highly illegal conversion kit. Simple as changing a light bulb. Machining parts to convert AR’s and AK’s likewise would not be all that difficult.

    In civil, lawful society, I just think we have many and larger firearms fish to fry, than select fire weapons availability and playing down at the range. I know, it’s our right and this is b.s. infringement. I get it. That doesn’t mean it’s a high priority.

    • Most full auto fire is kind of useless especially on rifles, but not all of it is. Support weapons are a good example, and I would argue SMGs or other PDWs are as well if you know what you are doing. Especially the latter for home defense.

  11. The sad fact is that if ever there was a movement to allow us unwashed masses to gain access to these types of firearms, the current machine gun owners would oppose it to protect their “investment” because after the law is removed, that 5 digit price tag is going to drop suddenly.

    • I can only speak for myself, but I own a machine gun and would LOVE to be able to buy my next one at a fraction of the price. Not only that, but selection is limited to what was available pre may 86 (no mp7 for me). I would prefer to open up the selection.

    • Wrong.
      From a guy who owns more than one.
      All my guns are just hunks of steel, wood and plastic.
      Some were multi thousand dollar purchases. Some were garage sale specials that were less than a hundred bucks.
      I would gladly take the loss so that I could buy a butt load more.

    • The NFA itself was nearly struck down in 1939 in US vs. Miller, until the supreme court ruled against the defendants because they nor their lawyers could not gather the funds for travel to the venue. It’s probably one of the most blatant examples of judicial corruption in the US’ history, and yet is never really discussed – in what other cases have the supreme court issued a ruling unopposed because the defendants were legitimately unable to be present?

      • I am not even sure that the defendant filed a brief. But from a due process perspective, a party has a choice as to whether to offer additional briefing in the appellate courts. A party may “submit on the record.” That’s not to say that Miller was “fair”: it appears to have been a set up to assure the constitutionality of the NFA.

    • Maybe not if you go with the whole ‘pre-ban’ BS. I for one would like to have a few select fire options in my collection, but until the initiative starts who knows what will happen.

  12. My AK slidefire is the best 300 USD toy I’ve purchased and I can rock it. That said, I would prefer true, cheap full auto.

  13. Two days ago, I flipped the selector switch to FA for the first time and rocked out.

    I want a machine gun SO badly now.

  14. This is the same as importing jdm cars the rich have them but us normal folk don’t another way America is tearing in two!

  15. But does it define common use? Bc they are in common use by military… Instead of fighting to get them back, why not fight the wording, and in turn bring them back.

  16. It would be best to define the term common use, common use by whom, what qualifies as common and of course what is considered the definition of use? In 1986 it was highly uncommon for a CIVILIAN police force to use fully automatic firearms, but today it could be considered common use, how common must the items be, and how specific must they be, I.e. if you state that automatic firearms are in common use, the definition is very broad, if you say AR pattern firearms are common use it becomes more specific but within argument, if you try to argue that a glock 18 is in common use in the United States the task becomes much more difficult. As for the “use” portion, if you take all of the currently “legal” automatic fire/select fire firearms; dealer samples, law enforcement, privately owned (including but not limited to) manufacturer owned, museum display,etc. then yes as a whole they may be considered common use (while a museum display may not be considered being used for the firearms intended use, it is still a form of use), but if the definition of use is so acute that only examples of non-military/law-enforcement being used by the legal owner for the original intended design and purpose of the firearm are to be considered.
    While these are just some of the many, many facets to consider, it is still best to have an idea of what specifics are to be argued before the conversation is started, otherwise you end up loading your shoulder thing that goes up with 50rd clips.

    • Even if we could get are foot in the door with a list of common use items, specifically the M4, that would be a start.

  17. Maybe a Texas Governor could invoke the 10th Amendment and say that the NFA does not apply to an MG that is built and used solely in-state?

    If WA and CO can flout Federal drug laws (NTTAWWT), then why not the NFA?

    Maybe President Cruz can promise not to enfore the NFA, like Obama with the DREAM Non-Act, and all the invonventient parts of the ACA?

  18. Someone should start a class action lawsuit for discrimination. As an average American we are being economically blocked from being able to own a machinegun, simple as that. The REAL issue is that you couldn’t get any of the actual owners to support it, they would litteraly loose their collective asses. NFATCA ring any bells?

  19. I want to own a machinegun as much as the next guy and gal. They built the registry like the magazine in a fort. We have the key to that magazine, that would be 2A. The pillars of the fort would be the ’34 NFA, ’86 FOPA, ’68 GCA. The gates to the fort would be lies, deceit, MDA, MAIG, et. al. 2014 is the crucial moment to organize and get the pro-gun people in place. The ’34 NFA and the ’86 FOPA w/ the Hughes Amendment is a two-pronged attack. First thing to fall could be the FOPA and open the MG registry. It requires the coordination of GOA, NRA, and all pro-gun groups to go and tell the story of Harry Beckwith and Gary Fadden defending themselves by machine guns. When the FOPA goes down and the registry opens, next thing to come from the antis will be an economic attack through the NFA. They will put up any type of BS regulation down through it and become highly bureaucratic and selective. Then strike the NFA completely. This requires not only pro-gun people but free and independent businessess across the country and manufacturers to request their representatives in the house and senate through a pro-gun system of government. Same thing applies to the NFA, GCA, FOPA w/ Hughes amendment.

  20. They will give us what we want only when they can get something from us that they want…usually $$$, huge taxes. Just like any discussion of ending the war on drugs, decriminalization will result in a cost way higher than the current going price.

  21. While I personally would love to have a select-fire weapon, I don’t think that allowing civilian purchase is a viable option. Does the restriction of SBRs, SBS, and suppressors make the public safer? I certainly don’t think so. “Hi capacity” magazines? Nope! Let’s work to get rid of these, if anything. I’m likely to catch a lot of flak here for this, but here goes: You know all of these cases of crazies shooting up public places? The ones that inspired recent gun control legislation? Many of them acquired legally-owned guns. I don’t think someone could credibly argue that select fire variants of the weapons used wouldn’t have substantially increased the loss of life those people inflicted. That’s one thing that makes the idea of reopening the registry so unpalatable. I can’t say the same is true about SBRs/suppressors. At the very least it would be more realistic to get these off the restricted list.

    • Sure. If someone tried to shoot someplace with full auto, it probably would result in less casualties. Instead of aimed fire, you’d have a couple rounds hitting someone then the rest of them spraying into the ceiling. Unless it’s huge real machine gun and not an assault rifle, in which case they are big, heavy, and everyone would see them coming.

    • You missed the point of the article entirely. The author is suggesting doing away with the Hughes amendment, not removing full-autos from the NFA list. If you don’t know the difference you need to educate yourself.

  22. The NRA has proven, over a nearly 100 year span, that legislation is not how things like this get rectified.
    They have had since 1934 to challenge the NFA, and they have failed to do so.
    Because they are part of the machine, at this point.

    Litigation, not legislation, is the way forward.

  23. if machine guns were made legal that would be awesome. i would try to buy as many semi auto ak’s and ar’s as i could. they would start rivaling the .22 ar look a likes in price.

  24. I have been wanting a group like the Second Amendment Foundation or the NRA to start going after this, open up the registry and remove items from the NFA. Even though I contribute to the gun groups my letters don’t seem to get anyone there to do anything. So, what group would be good to join to get some action in this area? Would it be better to start our own group and chase after this issue directly?

  25. Let’s not forget guys and gals, the State does not want a free and armed citizen. The idea of the citizen with a sword, whichever it may be, that is not under the control and regulated by the State and its bureaucracy is a big threat to the power of the state. However, a free, empowered and armed citizens that gives limited and regulated powers to the state should not infring in any way, shape and form againt the citizenry.
    Monopoly of force, guys and gals, and the balance of power, in the hands of the state declares by whim and fiat, the citizens as subjects, serfs, less-than, source parasites, and slaves no matter the race, religion, political affiliation, et cetera.

  26. Instead of calling MGs as such, let’s call them “Force multiplying, personal defense weapons.” An MG in the hands of the free citizen is worth 7 bad guys ventilated.

  27. I know how this needs to be attacked. Get an AWB to the Supreme Court argue against it based on the common use and military use (Heller and Miller) since they are and in common use and they would/could have a military use. Once the Miller case’s basic reasoning is considered still valid reopening the registry may be possible (hey look it’s clearly unconstitutional based on the AWB case reasoning) but even if not another SC case would make short work of it.

  28. OP – I fully support you’re stance on the “rat-a-tats”. “Shall not be infringed”, right?

    But you sir, have given me offense by your characterization of Swisher Sweets.

    Shame on you.

  29. I’ve been thinking about something like this a lot lately. I think that whole “Be the change you want to see in the world” thing isn’t schlock. We have enough people that want it, so let’s rally and get an organized push for our rights.

  30. Speaking subjectively here and haven’t been immersed in the ‘full auto market’ for many years…but there are THOUSANDS of full auto unregistered firearms in very subdued circulation.

    I was lucky enough to be employed by a Class 3 dealer and traveled as a private contractor for Glock and H&K selling to police departments nation wide. Now THAT was fun!!! When you show up at a police shooting range with a van full of NFA weapons and ammo….YOU ARE THE MAN! Temporary as that is…Knob Creek is our MECCA,

    All the parts are available on the open market to convert many firearms to full auto and without regulation…until you cross a line. Just breeze through Shotgun News….

    About 6 years ago 3 Illinois State Troopers were arrested and charged for NFA transgressions.

    Connecticut is not the first time common everyday people have defied government regulations though they don’t have ‘The Feds’ after them…yet….

    So…they are already out there… a risk of ten years in federal detention and that is not worth the price of getting caught at least speaking for myself. Besides, I can’t afford the ammo to feed that fetish any longer….but if I could???

  31. Statistically, legal machine guns are used in exceedingly few crimes. I’ve only heard of one or two, ever. Once you overcome the “they’re scary and there will be innocent blood in the streets” argument, you’ll at least have real evidence on your side.
    I’d also like to see the MG registry re-opened or better yet, done away with altogether.

    I have noticed a shifting attitude of late. Both local shops in my rural area are now selling suppressors, which is something I would not have expected a few years ago. I think the next time a cry for “compromise” comes up, we should figure out a compromise that gets us some of what we want. It may be easier to get the length of an SBR barrel reduced from 16″ to 10″ and to get suppressors off the NFA to start with, but I’d also support a push to get the NFA entirely dismembered.

    • Yes. Like I stated above, I would have bought the Saker on the spot if suppressors were off of the NFA list. The NFA is bad for business.

  32. I just want to legally obtain and own a professionally manufactured, reasonably priced, select fire 10/22 receiver

  33. Those registries and restrictions shouldn’t exist in our nation anyway. Shall not be infringed.

    Good article. 🙂

  34. “…reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,…”

    If someone can name me ONE – only ONE – properly functioning militia on this planet to have ever existed after the advent of the machine gun to not be equipped with one, then I will lend legitimacy and authority to the Hughes Amendment. Until then, the Hughes Amendment is invalid.

  35. hell, if select fires became legal, id probably register most of what guns “should be” select fire, such as all my ar’s , my ak’s, stuff like that,

  36. Why not push for it to be stronger? Include the military and police, or open it to all. Equal potection under the law, regardless of profession or political title.

  37. Actually the term “commonly used” did not refer to the civilian population but rather to the military foot soldier. In essence saying that the civilian should be afforded the same firepower that a basic foot soldier in the military “commonly used”. Since that includes submachineguns, light machineguns, light antitank, and etc then it stands to reason the average Joe Law Abiding Citizen should also be allowed the ability to own a firearm equal to the military of a tyrannical government sent to violate Joe’s Constitutional Rights. This is what was the intent of the Second Amendment “Shall not be Infringed” Therefore, the 1986 Act and all the ones passed before it are all Unconstitutional…and Unlawful. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been subverted just as has the Executive Branch in the White House, and the Senate. No longer have we a checks and balance system, but rather a Monopoly on Freedom…or actually…the lack of Freedom.
    Just saying…

  38. A 10th amendment attack on the NFA is doomed to legal failure, as SCOTUS has already denied cert to Gary Marbut and the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

    A better tack, to me, would be to tke the testimony of Atty Gen Cummings and NRA president Fredericks as to the constitutionality of a ban on machineguns. Cummings explicitly stated that a ban would likely run afoul of the police powers of states, but that a tax on machineguns would pass constitutional muster. Frederick states that he supposed that the NFA could be used as regulatory under the guise of taxation.

  39. The real reason they won’t put full auto guns back on the table is because it would give citizens the ability to effectively suppress the government when such need arises…i’ll stick with my slide-fire and tac-con triggers…at least the scum-suckers in DC don’t know I have ’em

  40. Full auto will probably NEVER be newly manufactured again for civilians.So start saving up now or buy a pathetic bumpfire junk stock,Just kidding,,Please don’t waste your $ on that…True full autos are a ton of fun!! Shooting semi auto is like having sex with your wife,,Shooting full auto is like having sex in the Playboy Mansion!!

  41. My idea that I think at least hold some ground is to have a way for C&R ffl holders to be able to register historically accurate FA arms. If we are going to increment the NFA, this would be a good place to start. By the time a dude gets his 03 FFL, then pays to register his kit-build and then builds it to original spec, you can be pretty sure he is no thug-gang banger.

  42. I’ve always wanted to go on a forum and ask these two questions, hoping to get an intelligent response… so here it goes:

    1). Why are people so afraid to make their own? Personally where I live in Georgia, I never have officers called on me weather I’m shooting my 45-70 or bushmaster “ar” style rifle with bump stock… by that logic I could just make my own dias or buy a FCG and install via hole drilled. I never go to public ranges and I shoot on my own private land…so why do people always say “10 years in jail with bubba” like the second you mod a weapon, the cops are at your door… it seems like fear keeps resistance in line indeed.

    2) What would happen if everyone just starting building their own? I mean you can’t arrest everyone… so I always wonder why people haven’t just gathered in droves and started building their own to put congress n friends under pressure.

    Maybe these are dumb questions and that is fine but it’s always been on my mind to ask. I think trying to attack unlawful gun bans like the FOPA are perfect…. but all people are doing is talking.. let’s DO something instead of saying “won’t happen” or “would be nice”. Hell I would start right gathering support for this cause because we are approaching 30 years with this law on the books and nothing to show for it. Seriously people, let’s get to work on this, now. Get phone numbers, facebook info, whatever you have to do and organize. I am in full support.

    • 1) People do.

      2) Massive civil disobedience would make these laws unenforceable. All infringement could be stopped in short order if the People could organize and simply refuse to comply on a massive scale.

    • No, no one instantly shows up at your door to haul you away. People do make their own. Just as I know people that carry unlicensed, unregistered, concealed handguns in New York City. But, they do that because they value the opportunity to save their own lives more than they do the threat of being caught.
      I think everyone thinks select fire is nice, but perhaps they don’t see the reward outweighing the risk on that particular subject.
      I also know a man that spent time in a federal prison for constructive possession (I think that would be accurate). He was turned in by a close acquaintance for possessing an uninstalled full-auto sear. The man that turned him and several other people in for various victimless crimes was under threat of prosecution himself if he didn’t produce results for the ATF which, at that time, was working hand in hand with Janet Napolitano. The entire thing was a half-baked witch hunt in Napolitano’s push for a big “win” in the public’s eye one year after the Oklahoma bombing. Dear Janet wanted to be seen thwarting another act of domestic terrorism and when she couldn’t actually find one, she crafted one…

      Anyways, my own personal view on constructing my own select fire weapon:
      1. I could go to federal prison and come out with a lifelong record
      2. Do I realistically need to be able to shoot $100’s of ammo in seconds/minutes?
      3. At this point in time and history, the only thing it would likely get used for is impressing my friends which could lead back to item #1
      4. If I made one, it’s kind of loud and obvious when I use it (not everyone has your level of privacy and seclusion) and you should use it, if you have it and intend to use it you should train on it… So, if I made one it would probably get hidden somewhere for when I actually need it. So, now I’m out an out a gun becaus it needs to be hidden.

      Also, I don’t think getting caught with an unregistered select fire weapon is going to happen just like an ATF agent camping out at the local shooting spot. It’s more likely going to happen peripherally. Police come to the wrong address and think they have probable cause to enter and search your residence. Get pulled over for something stupid and the cop “smells marijuana” because he needs the overtime and wouldn’t mind getting it sitting around a booking room. Etc….

      • Oh, and one of your other points; what if we all stood up against the man?
        I’m Sparticus! No, I’m Sparticus! No, I am.
        Yeah, wouldn’t that be nice….? I don’t think I really need to go into too much detail on how unrealistic that is.What was the republican voter participation estimated to be in the last two elections?

  43. Michael holderer is my hero. We need more people like you in this world. Its really dragging me down how this country is destroying the second amendment!

  44. It’s just another punishment for committing the crime of being poor (or, at least, not rich); the greatest crime in the world.
    We’ve all seen rich people get out of every other crime imaginable, but no one escapes punishment for being poor.

  45. The government is stupid for not re-opening the registration window!!!

    First, most crimes involve handguns. There are a variety of reasons why this is, but some include 1) handguns are readily available 2) criminals can easily conceal them 3) handguns are carried by non-criminals for the same reason and are also placed within reach within households, both of which make handguns more likely to be used during a confrontation or domestic dispute 4) most importantly, they are cheaper than rifles in most cases.

    Second, only a small percentage of crimes are committed using rifles and an even smaller percentage are committed using assault weapons…Ehh, the latter probably isn’t that accurate. How could it be? The media, the statisticians and our government can’t even decide what an assault weapon is! Shoot someone with an M1 carbine, not an assault weapon. Shoot someone with a typical M-14, not an assault weapon. Shoot someone with a M-14 with a synthetic stock and metal handguard, probably an assault weapon. Shoot someone with the latter M-14 with the addition of a pistol grip, always an assault weapon. It is a joke. Let’s just stick with “few crimes are committed with rifles.”

    I classify an assault weapon as any semi-automatic rifle with magazines available that hold more than 10 rounds. But huh, that isn’t technically correct, it has to have a “frickin” pistol grip. By my definition anyways, the fully-automatic brothers of these assault weapons make up the majority of firearms that would be registered. Yes, I would register some glocks too, but in general my previous statement is accurate.

    The bottom line though is how often do you hear about a shooting involving a legally-owned fully automatic firearm…I can almost say “never.” It is rare to hear about a shooting involving an illegally owned fully-automatic weapon. But why? They aren’t hard to purchase! The background check and process isn’t difficult! Well why then? In general, it comes down to the price. Criminals and insane people have something in common, they can’t afford them. This isn’t a debate about criminality or mental disorders…this is just a generally accurate statement. Many criminals wouldn’t be criminals if they had bags of money and insane people, in my opinion, aren’t usually medically insane even though some psychologist for the defense diagnoses them as such after getting paid 5k for a paper and a testimony. But heh, insane people kill people so they have to be insane right? Well they didn’t harm a fly until they were 35 years old, what gives? Well typically they do have a minor mental or physical issue or a disease, but it is typically the associated social awkwardness or handicap resulting from their condition that results in the lack of a long-term job, few friends, etc. etc. etc. that makes an overall normal person do something insane. Again, this is a general statement with lots of exceptions, but there are many people with the same conditions as those who do horrible things that live perfectly normal, loving lives. The moral of my rambling: 1) people who can’t keep a job don’t have money 2) be nice to people that have a noticeable handicap or those who are socially awkward so they don’t shoot up your local school or local cinema or local gay bar or whatever the common target is now, I haven’t been reading the news lately!!!

    Why is the government stupid? Because reopening the window to register these weapons, if done correctly, is financially appealing and would have little to no negative consequences. The tax right now to register your purchased “full-auto” weapon is 200, same as it has always been. If you reopened the registration window and kept the tax as is it would 1) be almost as easy and cheap to buy a full-auto firearm as it is to buy a semi-auto firearm (BAD!!!) 2) it would be unfair to everyone who has purchased a previously registered weapon, either for fun or as an investment. (ALSO BAD!!!)

    So why not make a firearm specific tax for all first-time registered firearms? There are like 200 “common” full autos which could each have an associated tax. All non-specified weapons would just fall into an “other” category with a fixed tax. The idea would be to make the tax high enough to not significantly devalue previously registered weapons, but low enough to make purchasing/registering or registering a new weapon appealing. A transferrable M-16 for example costs $17,000-$23,000 today. So make the tax on an M-16 $8,000-$9,000 so after the purchase of the M-16, the total cost is $10,000-$11,000. Second, increase the tax of transferring an already registered weapon from $200 to $1500-2500. Then, there is the option of reopening registration indefinitely at some point after the initial window has closed at which time, the taxes could be re-evaluated and increased to an amount where the cost of a “new weapon plus the re-evaluated associated tax” would mirror the cost of purchasing an “already registered weapon plus the associated tax (not $200 anymore).” This could result in a Trillion dollars of tax revenue over a 5 year period and I am probably low balling this estimate. I mean, new car or mini-gun, new car or mini gun….definitely the minigun!!…even if I can only afford to shoot it twice a year for a total of 30 seconds. It would cost me $42,000 total and $20,000 of that would go straight to the government…boom! I can’t be the only insane person who would make dumb decisions like this on top of the other weapons I’d buy…a mini-gun!!…I would even pay the beforementioned psychologist 5k to declare me insane if that allowed me to buy one.

    In conclusion, on top of this being good for our government, this would also structure the registration so it would be fair to those who already have purchased their toys, Likewise, it would keep the price high enough to keep criminals from purchasing them just as the prices for the weapons themselves have done today. Of course, the downside of this is it would keep a lot of good people from being able to purchase them as well. But hey, it’s fair for everyone, new buyers get half off, current owners lose some of their investment, our government gets rich, -19 trillion $ rich anyways, and the weapons would be only marginally more likely to be used for crime as they are today (just because there would be more of them).


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here