HR 1263 Adds semiauto rifles and shotguns to NFA 1986

[mayor]

TAM --- Preach, Brother!

[jason812]

TAM, right on.

Everyone has their own line in the sand.

I've said before though that if semi auto's become illegal, it will be time to just go full illegal.

Also, who is going to admit on a public forum that they have unregistered NFA items?

[Odinvalknir]

TAM, right on.

Everyone has their own line in the sand.

I've said before though that if semi auto's become illegal, it will be time to just go full illegal.

Also, who is going to admit on a public forum that they have unregistered NFA items?

Fully semi-auto illegal!

[José Shalom]

Also, who is going to admit on a public forum that they have unregistered NFA items?

The same kind of hotheads who admit on a public forum they won't comply if semiauto rifles become NFA items.

[anygunanywhere]

Also, who is going to admit on a public forum that they have unregistered NFA items?

The same kind of hotheads who admit on a public forum they won't comply if semiauto rifles become NFA items.

Well, I guess that makes me a hothead.

Tyrants do not enforce the laws they enact. They send someone else, someone’s son, daughter, father, or mother. Those who would be tasked with enforcing such unconstitutional and unjust laws understand the consequences, at least most do.

Sincerely,
Hothead.

Can I change my screen name?

[Allons]

Also, who is going to admit on a public forum that they have unregistered NFA items?

The same kind of hotheads who admit on a public forum they won't comply if semiauto rifles become NFA items.

Well, I guess that makes me a hothead.

Tyrants do not enforce the laws they enact. They send someone else, someone’s son, daughter, father, or mother. Those who would be tasked with enforcing such unconstitutional and unjust laws understand the consequences, at least most do.



Sincerely,
Hothead.



Can I change my screen name?

[The Annoyed Man]

Also, who is going to admit on a public forum that they have unregistered NFA items?

The same kind of hotheads who admit on a public forum they won't comply if semiauto rifles become NFA items.

Well, I guess that makes me a hothead.

Tyrants do not enforce the laws they enact. They send someone else, someone’s son, daughter, father, or mother. Those who would be tasked with enforcing such unconstitutional and unjust laws understand the consequences, at least most do.

Sincerely,
Hothead.

Can I change my screen name?

FWIW, by hotheads, I meant those who think that you’re some kind of coward unless you’re willing to immediately engage in a shooting war and start killing liberals if this law passes. I’m stating that I will not comply with the law if it passes, but neither will I immediately open fire on the first person I see who voted democrat.

WISDOM dictates FIRST securing/improving your position, taking steps to protect your investment from registration by removing them from possible discovery, and only THEN planning for whatever actions come next to rectify the situation.

To date, I am in compliance with NFA, and have no undeclared items. I did that because it was the least amount of hassle, with the lowest risk, to be able to have the things I wanted to have. On the day NFA requires me to register common rifles, which were not NFA items when I purchased them, and which I purchased lawfully and in good faith, that is the day that my compliance with NFA will stop. That compliance will stop, because the NFA will have broken the last bonds of trust.

I do not have any unregistered NFA items, but I can promise you that if I did, I would NOT brag about it on an open forum. I wouldn’t even jokingly [wink wink]imply[/nudge nudge] that I might maybe have something unregistered. People who hate my rights read this forum. Why would I give them ammunition to use against me RIGHT NOW?

Yes, I could have built NFA items and failed to register them. I did not, because failing to register them made them effectively unavailable to me. Transporting and/or using unregistered NFA items would add an element of risk to my life that I have been unwilling to accept up to this point. One could call me a coward for being unwilling to risk a 10 year felony conviction and the attached fines, but I could say that talk is cheap, and if you assumed that risk when there was no need for it, then you’re a reckless fool. Coward, meet reckless fool. Aren’t we a pretty pair? And did that name calling actually help anything? Did it help to create unity in the pro-gun-rights community? How about we ease up on one another, and accept that MY risk analysis doesn’t necessarily apply to YOU, and visa versa?

It’s real easy to preach that uncompromising hero crap if one is sitting on a 100 acre property out in the middle of nowhere, where one is MUCH less likely to interact with “authority figures”—calling into question the good character and intentions of people who live in suburbia. Frankly though, it’s nothing but virtue-signaling, and it’s about as useful as when SJWs do it.

How about we accept at face value that, when people SAY they will not comply, they actually MEAN they will not comply? How about we stop virtue-signaling because we think that someone else’s more measured and considered approach isn’t violently revolutionary enough to satisfy our blood lust?

Crap on a cracker. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

[Gator Guy]

Unless somebody doesn't comply with NFA already, I'm skeptical they will start, no matter what other firearms fall under that unconstitutional un-law.

Non-compliance is a cowardly act in the absence of performing a patriot act.

Can someone explain to me what those two statements are supposed to mean in this context? I seriously do not get it.

I agree with gator guy.
Basically I think gator guy means if you already comply with the rules, chances are you will comply in the future regardless of the rules. In other words, you haven't fought back yet regarding 2a restrictions, why would anyone believe differently in the future?

I think what Montgomery is saying is that most people won't put their money (and freedom/life) where their mouth is... basically.

My interpretation.... apologies to both if I missed the mark.

You understood what I meant, but I can only speak for myself.

A lot of people in a lot of gun forums say they won't comply with a semi-auto ban. I think the percentage of online stalwarts who actually break bad if this passes will be lower than the percentage of people who actually follow through with a new year resolution for long term weight loss. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only one way to prove it, and it doesn't involve more talking.

[jason812]

Unless somebody doesn't comply with NFA already, I'm skeptical they will start, no matter what other firearms fall under that unconstitutional un-law.

Non-compliance is a cowardly act in the absence of performing a patriot act.

Can someone explain to me what those two statements are supposed to mean in this context? I seriously do not get it.

I agree with gator guy.
Basically I think gator guy means if you already comply with the rules, chances are you will comply in the future regardless of the rules. In other words, you haven't fought back yet regarding 2a restrictions, why would anyone believe differently in the future?

I think what Montgomery is saying is that most people won't put their money (and freedom/life) where their mouth is... basically.

My interpretation.... apologies to both if I missed the mark.

You understood what I meant, but I can only speak for myself.

A lot of people in a lot of gun forums say they won't comply with a semi-auto ban. I think the percentage of online stalwarts who actually break bad if this passes will be lower than the percentage of people who actually follow through with a new year resolution for long term weight loss. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only one way to prove it, and it doesn't involve more talking.

You mean all the people that didn't register their guns in Colorado or turn their magazines in Massachusetts? I think the numbers are way higher for noncompliance than you think.

[K.Mooneyham]

Unless somebody doesn't comply with NFA already, I'm skeptical they will start, no matter what other firearms fall under that unconstitutional un-law.

Non-compliance is a cowardly act in the absence of performing a patriot act.

Can someone explain to me what those two statements are supposed to mean in this context? I seriously do not get it.

I agree with gator guy.
Basically I think gator guy means if you already comply with the rules, chances are you will comply in the future regardless of the rules. In other words, you haven't fought back yet regarding 2a restrictions, why would anyone believe differently in the future?

I think what Montgomery is saying is that most people won't put their money (and freedom/life) where their mouth is... basically.

My interpretation.... apologies to both if I missed the mark.

You understood what I meant, but I can only speak for myself.

A lot of people in a lot of gun forums say they won't comply with a semi-auto ban. I think the percentage of online stalwarts who actually break bad if this passes will be lower than the percentage of people who actually follow through with a new year resolution for long term weight loss. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's only one way to prove it, and it doesn't involve more talking.

You mean all the people that didn't register their guns in Colorado or turn their magazines in Massachusetts? I think the numbers are way higher for noncompliance than you think.

Don't forget how badly Connecticut's little registration-or-else scheme went. Can't remember the percentage that complied, but it was really low compared to what the authorities there thought it would be...and that is an EXTREMELY "blue" state.

[Rubicon]

"If you must play, decide upon three things at the start: the rules of the game, the stakes, and the quitting time."

[ScottDLS]

Small point of order...it’s the NFA of 1934, as amended by the GCA of 1968, and the Inartfully named FOPA of 1986.