Unconstitutional NFA told to kick rocks!

[bug]

Josh, if your post is for me:

Machineguns, SBRs, SBSGs and Suppressors are considered "Offensive Weapons" by PA law and as such are prohibited/illegal. There are exceptions, the most notable of which is if you own them in accordance with the NFA, you're OK. I'm far from a lawyer but I believe if the NFA goes away, many PA residents will be in possession of contraband. I'd hope there would be a way around this but I don't see it...

PS There are other "Offensive Weapons" defined but the 4 I've mentioned are near and dear to me.

[HKusp 45]

Lets go for a middle ground. Tax stamp stays in place, you apply, pay for, and receive at your FFL using PICS, same as a regular firearm purchase.
Feds get their money, we get no wait.

hell no there should be no middle ground why are e being taxed for the privilege of enacting our rights. The whole middle ground is what got us to this point .

[HKusp 45]

Josh, if your post is for me:

Machineguns, SBRs, SBSGs and Suppressors are considered "Offensive Weapons" by PA law and as such are prohibited/illegal. There are exceptions, the most notable of which is if you own them in accordance with the NFA, you're OK. I'm far from a lawyer but I believe if the NFA goes away, many PA residents will be in possession of contraband. I'd hope there would be a way around this but I don't see it...

PS There are other "Offensive Weapons" defined but the 4 I've mentioned are near and dear to me.

how exactly did they define a suppressor as a weapon let alone an offensive one? on it's own it is not capable of doing anything a weapon defined can do. I would think by that definition being flawed in accordance with the definition of a firearm it would become null and void.

[JoshIronshaft]

Josh, if your post is for me:

Machineguns, SBRs, SBSGs and Suppressors are considered "Offensive Weapons" by PA law and as such are prohibited/illegal. There are exceptions, the most notable of which is if you own them in accordance with the NFA, you're OK. I'm far from a lawyer but I believe if the NFA goes away, many PA residents will be in possession of contraband. I'd hope there would be a way around this but I don't see it...

PS There are other "Offensive Weapons" defined but the 4 I've mentioned are near and dear to me.

Ah, now I see what you*re saying

[bug]

how exactly did they define a suppressor as a weapon let alone an offensive one? on it's own it is not capable of doing anything a weapon defined can do. I would think by that definition being flawed in accordance with the definition of a firearm it would become null and void.

I wouldn't be the one to answer your questions. It is clear to me though, that they did. It's the law and for now, we're stuck with it. My concern is the unintended consequences of losing the protection afforded us via the NFA.

[bogey1]

Ah, now I see what you*re saying

Metoo#

Screw that, I'll never give mine up. Come take them?

[GunLawyer001]

He's referring to the ones who have hundreds of thousands invested in transferable machine guns, particularly the dealers who would essentially be ruined overnight if you could get new production MGs

I've never met one of those, and I'll bet nobody here has ever met one of those.

I remember there was a fake letter once, published somewhere, where some troll pretended to be some professional with lots of cash tied up in transferables. He wrote that he didn't want the poor folks participating. He didn't exist, and he was the only example of elitist snobs who protect the 1986 ban.

Suckers still cite to his letter.

The truth is that NFA dealers made money before 1986, and they'll make money again no matter what happens. Would you rather make $2K a pop selling 50 guns a year from the shrinking supply, or make $500 a pop on a thousand new gun per year?

Volume is important. Smart dealers know this. And most of the dealers I know are not just in the business, they're in the hobby. And they'd LOVE to buy $800 M-4 MG's, $1200 Thompsons, even $10K miniguns. They could sell a dozen MAC's a week at $1K per.

I don't know where this bitter assumption of some mysterious cabal of cigar-smoking collectors in oak paneled back rooms comes from, but every Class III I know would be glad to take the short term hit in exchange for massive new sales, if the 1986 law was repealed. And every collector I know is the same, they wouldn't shed a tear on their 5 MG's dropping 90% in value, because they'd be able to cover another wall with new MG's for a fraction of the current price.

[cdi]

Oooh! I have one! A customer of mine rotated his entire NFA inventory through my shop for inspection, test fire and cleaning.
That started 7 or 8 years ago and took about a year.

At the conclusion I estimated about half a million in items. He was in his early 80*s at the time and I haven*t seen him in at least 4 or 5 years. He did bring his worthless non-gun appreciating son with him on his last visit to discuss how probate matters were handled. I sent him up to you, Phil. If he showed up, you*d remember him. He was *memorable*.

[raxar]

I've never met one of those, and I'll bet nobody here has ever met one of those.

I remember there was a fake letter once, published somewhere, where some troll pretended to be some professional with lots of cash tied up in transferables. He wrote that he didn't want the poor folks participating. He didn't exist, and he was the only example of elitist snobs who protect the 1986 ban.

Suckers still cite to his letter.

The truth is that NFA dealers made money before 1986, and they'll make money again no matter what happens. Would you rather make $2K a pop selling 50 guns a year from the shrinking supply, or make $500 a pop on a thousand new gun per year?

Volume is important. Smart dealers know this. And most of the dealers I know are not just in the business, they're in the hobby. And they'd LOVE to buy $800 M-4 MG's, $1200 Thompsons, even $10K miniguns. They could sell a dozen MAC's a week at $1K per.

I don't know where this bitter assumption of some mysterious cabal of cigar-smoking collectors in oak paneled back rooms comes from, but every Class III I know would be glad to take the short term hit in exchange for massive new sales, if the 1986 law was repealed. And every collector I know is the same, they wouldn't shed a tear on their 5 MG's dropping 90% in value, because they'd be able to cover another wall with new MG's for a fraction of the current price.

I don't know what gun world you've been involved in, but the one I've been around is full of A-holes.

[GunLawyer001]

I don't know what gun world you've been involved in, but the one I've been around is full of A-holes.

The entire world has plenty of a-holes, but even a-holes understand that losing value on their existing collection would be offset by a flood of inexpensive and advanced new MG's that they could play with, or flip for profit if they're SOT's.

It's not altruism that debunks the myth of the cabal of greedy gun owners, it's self-interest.