Your views on fully automatic weapons.

[Metalflames 0]

I actually differ from a lot of you guys on this perspective, but I don't think the NFA is a conceptually bad idea. With some caveats, of course.

 

I think that there should be an infrastructure by which civilians can own, I'll use the phrase: 'more deadly' weapons, while allowing the more 'standard' options to remain readily available. For example, I wouldn't oppose and would actually support the concept of scrapping the NFA entirely and implementing a new, permit-based system in which individuals can get the equivalent of a federal level FID which would allow them to purchase suppressors and magazines exceeding 30 rounds freely. You would then have a system similar to the permit to purchase a handgun system here in NJ for fully automatic weapons and SBRs.

 

The sale of automatic weapons would no longer be prohibited under these conditions and newly manufactured automatic weapons would be available given the standards I mention above. The background checks would be more thorough than a simple NICS check for the federal FIDs.

 

Otherwise, all other firearms would remain legal and unregulated, however all private sales would be required to go through an FFL so as to allow for a NICS check.

 

That's what I'd do.

Sounds very logical.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The problem isn't the FA weapons. The problem is US: People are guaranteed the right to arms, but there is no guarantee of responsible behavior. I know everyone here on this forum, if presented with their first full-auto weapon, would seek knowledge before handling or loading it. What about the newly 21, who has no previous firearms safety training or self-taught knowledge? I don't have a solution, but whatever the solution, it will involve training.

 

We could extend the thinking to include crew-served destructive devices. You can own it, but would you want to try it before understanding it?

 

Listen, I totally get you, but that won't fly.

 

For one thing: the Government technically 'shields' the firearms industry from a lot of liability by having rules and regulations it deemed necessary to keeping guns safe. All companies need to do is show their paperwork that they met these regulations (however flawed) and they're protected. When the Government assumes liability, it controls what is liable.

 

Look at socialized medicine... do you think if a doctor in the UK screws up, that you can sue them into oblivion? Nope.

 

If we want our gun Rights back, then the firearms industry and gun owners need to re-assume a lot of liability.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I actually differ from a lot of you guys on this perspective, but I don't think the NFA is a conceptually bad idea. With some caveats, of course.

 

I think that there should be an infrastructure by which civilians can own, I'll use the phrase: 'more deadly' weapons, while allowing the more 'standard' options to remain readily available. For example, I wouldn't oppose and would actually support the concept of scrapping the NFA entirely and implementing a new, permit-based system in which individuals can get the equivalent of a federal level FID which would allow them to purchase suppressors and magazines exceeding 30 rounds freely. You would then have a system similar to the permit to purchase a handgun system here in NJ for fully automatic weapons and SBRs.

 

The sale of automatic weapons would no longer be prohibited under these conditions and newly manufactured automatic weapons would be available given the standards I mention above. The background checks would be more thorough than a simple NICS check for the federal FIDs.

 

Otherwise, all other firearms would remain legal and unregulated, however all private sales would be required to go through an FFL so as to allow for a NICS check.

 

That's what I'd do.

 

Eh, so we end up back to square one? The more the Government is involved in the process, the less Rights you have. I mean really, what would the difference be between getting an 'FID' versus the existing tax stamp/registration scheme?

[Albanian 121]

I agree with Devs Advocate (go devils!) it is about personal responsibility and responsibility in business. The government shifts too much liability onto itself, people are less likely to take responsibility for themselves.

[unclenunzie 3]

I get the libertarian angle. I just don't believe that market forces will always eventually produce an optimal solution. And while socialized medicine will have it's problems, I think if a doctor screws up enough, he'll get dealt with. You don't really think they let those guys keep screwing up with no recourse?

 

But in any case, as I said I don't have a solution. Seller/FFL liability for the buyer's future wrong doing..... no, that's neither right, nor workable.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I get the libertarian angle. I just don't believe that market forces will always eventually produce an optimal solution. And while socialized medicine will have it's problems, I think if a doctor screws up enough, he'll get dealt with. You don't really think they let those guys keep screwing up with no recourse?

 

But in any case, as I said I don't have a solution. Seller/FFL liability for the buyer's future wrong doing..... no, that's neither right, nor workable.

 

So you wish to rely on the status quo then? With the Government punishing us for our future wrong doings by limiting access to weapons we rightfully have access to?

[va_bank 0]

Can't. Firearms ownership and use is protected as a Right. Motorcycling isn't.

 

Sure you can. FA weapons are completely banned right now for 99% of people, protection as a right be damned. So between not having any option or being required to be certified - I'll pick the second.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Sure you can. FA weapons are completely banned right now for 99% of people, protection as a right be damned. So between not having any option or being required to be certified - I'll pick the second.

 

You don't get to choose. The Government does as long as it has the liability for it.

[SgtToadette 59]

Eh, so we end up back to square one? The more the Government is involved in the process, the less Rights you have. I mean really, what would the difference be between getting an 'FID' versus the existing tax stamp/registration scheme?

 

The difference is largely semantic, however the FID would be different in that you don't need to reapply for a tax stamp or pay a fee every time you would want to purchase a suppressor or magazine exceeding 30 rounds. I don't believe that my system is necessarily adding more government to the process as much as it is streamlining the process.

 

My system is impossible to implement for several reasons. The first is that my system overrides the ability for individual states to have their own laws by eliminating AWBs. It also allows for manufacturers to start selling new fully automatic weapons to civilians.

[TK421 2]

That's a terrible comparison. Ford and GM can't be easily sued for such a thing because the State has taken the liability on itself. If someone crashes a car out of gross incompetence, then the State's motor vehicle agency is responsible, not Ford/GM.

 

However, let's look at alcohol: for one thing, it's never sold directly from the brewery, but to distributors or local stores. Those stores are legally prohibited from selling to someone under 21. But let's say one salesman lets an 18 year old buy a bunch of booze without checking his ID and that kid drives his car into someone and kills them. While the 18 year old is ultimately responsible, the salesman is also partially liable. He didn't due any diligence in checking the ID. If he did, the kid might not have gotten alcohol.

 

See?

 

Same with guns. The NRA and industry would be responsible for ensuring that the people who buy their firearms are trained, in addition to them showing that they do not live with a prohibited person.

 

A perfect example of this at work is the "We Card" program, something set up by the tobacco companies and their partnerships to reduce their liability regarding underage smoking. They have a similar program for Alcohol sales as well.

 

It's not perfect, but it's Constitutional, and offers a pathway to exercising our 2nd Amendment Rights in a way we will never achieve as long as the Government is assuming liability in firearms transfers.

 

OK again you missed the point. The Ford/GM comparison is absolutely relevant given the proposal to hold vendors accountable for the actions of others with the lawful product they legally sell to their customers. If a store sells to someone under-age they broke the law and can be held accountable for their actions and subsequent consequences. If they legally some to someone over the age of 21 and that person went on a drinking binge and drove into a school bus full of children neither Ford, brewery, the liqueur store, or the DMV are held liable. The person who purchased the beer, drank the beer, started the car and drove into the school bus is the party that is held liable! You cannot hold a third party accountable for the actions of the first party if they did not break the law.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

The difference is largely semantic, however the FID would be different in that you don't need to reapply for a tax stamp or pay a fee every time you would want to purchase a suppressor or magazine exceeding 30 rounds. I don't believe that my system is necessarily adding more government to the process as much as it is streamlining the process.

 

My system is impossible to implement for several reasons. The first is that my system overrides the ability for individual states to have their own laws by eliminating AWBs. It also allows for manufacturers to start selling new fully automatic weapons to civilians.

 

S2D2, by keeping the Government largely in the loop, you're putting a lot of faith in it to not infringe the Rights its not supposed to infringe on.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

OK again you missed the point. The Ford/GM comparison is absolutely relevant given the proposal to hold vendors accountable for the actions of the lawful product they legally sell to their customers. If a store sells to someone under-age they broke the law and can be held accountable for their actions and subsequent consequences. If they legally some to someone over the age of 21 and that person went on a drinking binge and drove into a school bus full of children neither Ford, brewery, the liqueur store, or the DMV are held liable. The person who purchased the beer, drank the beer, started the car and drove into the school bus is the party that is held liable! You cannot hold a third party accountable for the actions of the first party if they did not break the law.

 

Why would Ford/GM or the dealership be responsible? The State is the one responsible for ensuring the people can drive.

 

As for the rest: nope, you really can't! So when applying the same thing to firearms, why is it different? They can still be held liable if there is evidence of liability. But in that instance, they are not.

[SgtToadette 59]

S2D2, by keeping the Government largely in the loop, you're putting a lot of faith in it to not infringe the Rights its not supposed to infringe on.

 

I suppose, but I don't think it's much different than how it is now (a bit less restrictive IMO). I think given the two extremes, the first being no government control whatsoever and everyone can have what their wallets (or credit cards) can handle, and the other being total government control and you need a permit for each bullet, my system satisfies my pragmatist criterion floating somewhere in the middle.

 

But opinions are like are like a**holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I suppose, but I don't think it's much different than how it is now (a bit less restrictive IMO). I think given the two extremes, the first being no government control whatsoever and everyone can have what their wallets (or credit cards) can handle, and the other being total government control and you need a permit for each bullet, my system satisfies my pragmatist criterion floating somewhere in the middle.

 

But opinions are like are like a**holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

 

Your solution isn't much of a solution, just more of same thing worded differently.

[myosys 0]

I *believe* in training....I think that would help alot...there are NEW people walking in the door....(WHICH IS GREAT) who know NOTHING about firearms....THAT is scary

 

I agree with some sort of mandatory class time as well. I was almost shot by a .270 hangfire many winters ago by a guy in our hunting party who wasn't thinking (good thing he didn't look down the muzzle.) Not to mention ducking at the range when a bore axis crosses my head, etc.

 

The same situation existed for recreational boating up till a few years ago. NJ, NY, (possibly CT, MA, and others) now require a "safe boating class" card in order to register a boat (still doesn't really cover WHO is piloting the boat, but let's assume that your insurance carrier would require that.)

[unclenunzie 3]

So you wish to rely on the status quo then? With the Government punishing us for our future wrong doings by limiting access to weapons we rightfully have access to?

 

No.

[TK421 2]

Why would Ford/GM or the dealership be responsible? The State is the one responsible for ensuring the people can drive.

 

As for the rest: nope, you really can't! So when applying the same thing to firearms, why is it different? They can still be held liable if there is evidence of liability. But in that instance, they are not.

 

Did I miss something or am I in outter space?

 

I was responding to these posts:

 

As a libertarian, I have a solution: since the 2nd Amendment forbids the Government from interfering with your Rights (or any other person), then the easiest way to go about this is by using market pressures via the assignment of liability.

 

Place weapons like machine guns, SBSs, SBRs, suppressors, in a "liability" category where an FFL can be sued if they are misused. The caveat is: the FFL would also be allowed to require training or other certifications prior to releasing a firearm.

 

So, Nick, let's say you know me, you've shot with me, you know who I am. You trust that I won't go crazy and use a machine gun to go Rambo. You could reasonably transfer me a full-auto FNP-90 and not worry. However, if I'm some slacker looking kid with a hoodie holding guns 'gangsta' style, you would probably not be to thrilled to sell me an MP-5K... so in order to shield yourself from liability you could require training.

 

It's a double edged sword, I know. It puts a lot of weight on the FFLs. But I feel it's the best compromise to ensure safety without totally infringing on our Rights. Obviously this is also a simplistic explanation, I plan on going into more detail in my blog.

 

I disagree. Doctors and other professions carry a great deal of liability, yet they manage. Granted, the easiest thing you can do is cap liability. For Assault Rifles, it would be $200,000k max, for Rocket Launchers, it would be $1,000,000. For Stinger Anti-Air missiles, it would be $10,000,000 etc.

 

Where you suggested FFLs (which I would also include SOT Class 2s) should carry insurance and be held accountable for potential unlawful action involving the weapons they legally sell to law abiding citicens, is that not the same?

[Soju 153]

The fact that suppressors are an NFA item is a joke. What better way to help reduce noise that is both harmful to your own hearing and can be annoying to neighbors? The fact they cannot be used for hunting in many states is equally ridiculous. If I am not mistaken, there are European nations that REQUIRE the use of a suppressor for certain hunting. I could be mistaken.

 

SBR's and SBS's being NFA items is pretty dumb as well. Why is it okay to have a AR pistol and an AR (yes yes, NJ is retarded when it comes to these too), yet an AR with a 14" barrel is now a restricted NFA item? Why a 18" barrel coach gun okay but a utility pump gun with a 17.5'' barrel is restricted? What practical purpose does this serve?

 

Machine Guns being an NFA item makes some sense. What is a joke is that you can't sell newly manufactured Machine Guns to private citizens. I suppose the design was to artificially inflate the cost that it would require a ridiculous amount of cash to own one, by limiting the number of legally transferable ones. While that I disagree with, at least this makes sense. The other NFA items, not so much.

 

AOW is an interesting class. This I can also understand. It is a catch all. The fact it only requires a $5 tax stamp is acceptable IMO. I mean, I still don't agree, but it is practical enough I suppose. I guess it is better to have an AOW class rather than leaving firearms that otherwise would fall into this (if it didn't exist) up to the discretion of authorities and courts to decide what it is, which could easily land people in trouble.

 

What is most frustrating about the NFA system is that it varies from state to state. This isn't surprising, or even strange. I mean, regular gun laws vary from state to state. It is frustrating nonetheless, because even transporting (sans suppressors) an NFA item between states, when legal in both, can be a hassle.

 

So in short, yes I think machine guns should be legal, non restricted/non NFA item firearms, just like the rest of NFA items should be as well.

[rightisright 3]

Any weapon police are "allowed" to have should be available to the general public. Period. End of sentence.

 

 

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." Sir Robert Peel

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Did I miss something or am I in outter space?

 

I was responding to these posts:

 

 

 

 

 

Where you suggested FFLs (which I would also include SOT Class 2s) should carry insurance and be held accountable for potential unlawful action involving the weapons they legally sell to law abiding citicens, is that not the same?

 

Again, some subtle differences. How can Ford/GM ever be held liable for someone driving improperly when the State is the one who issues licenses?

 

As for being held accountable, yes, they would be, to the extent which that can be proven. You basically answered your own question with the "21 year old drunk who crashed into a school bus" scenario.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Any weapon police are "allowed" to have should be available to the general public. Period. End of sentence.

 

Any weapon the police Federal Government is "allowed" to have.

[SgtToadette 59]

Your solution isn't much of a solution, just more of same thing worded differently.

 

I tried to avoid using the word solution because I don't think that one necessarily exists. I think my hypothetical system refines the current one and provides a mutually beneficial move forward for both sides of the issue. We get easier and less expensive access to NFA items for the law-abiding while at the same time ensuring more background checks on more individuals and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

[TK421 2]

 

 

Again, some subtle differences. How can Ford/GM ever be held liable for someone driving improperly when the State is the one who issues licenses?

 

As for being held accountable, yes, they would be, to the extent which that can be proven. You basically answered your own question with the "21 year old drunk who crashed into a school bus" scenario.

 

So by your logic, GM sells you a car, some 13 year old steals that car and runs over a neighbor's kid, GM is not liable and the state is not liable because they never issued the 13 year old a license. Correct?

 

GM sells you a car, you roll it 15 times on the GSP doing 150mph and kill a kid in a minivan, GM is not liable but the state is liable because they issue you a drivers license?

 

Bushmaster wholesales an M16 to RSR, RSR sells it to Shore Shot, your neighbor buys that rifle from Shore Shot and shoots up your house killing your kid and somehow under your logic Bushmaster, RSR and Shore Shot need to carry insurance because they are somehow liable?

 

You lost me.

 

In my world the 13 year old, you and your neighbor are the ones who are liable.

[TheSingularity 0]

I am tying to find the language in the 2nd amendment where it specifies that it is okay for the "authorities" to have more firepower than the people. And for that matter, for retired "authorities" to carry concealed "just because," and not for the people.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

So by your logic, GM sells you a car, some 13 year old steals that car and runs over a neighbor's kid, GM is not liable and the state is not liable because they never issued the 13 year old a license. Correct? Correct.

 

GM sells you a car, you roll it 15 times on the GSP doing 150mph and kill a kid in a minivan, GM is not liable but the state is liable because they issue you a drivers license? Somewhat Correct, only if it can be proven that you should've never been issued a license.

 

Bushmaster wholesales an M16 to RSR, RSR sells it to Shore Shot, your neighbor buys that rifle from Shore Shot and shoots up your house killing your kid and somehow under your logic Bushmaster, RSR and Shore Shot need to carry insurance because they are somehow liable? Partly Correct, if you can show Shore Shot had any idea this guy was crazy and going to do that.

 

You lost me.

 

In my world the 13 year old, you and your neighbor are the ones who are liable.

 

That's because, in your world, the scenarios presented are easy to determine in a lawsuit. For one thing, I didn't say firearms dealers and makers need to get insurance, just that it would be a logical evolution of increased liability. All businesses carry insurance for various liabilities.

[Soju 153]

Partly Correct, if you can show Shore Shot had any idea this guy was crazy and going to do that.

 

Then they wouldn't need insurance, they would need a lawyer. Selling a firearm to someone when you know they are going to use it illegally is a crime...

[mrlew 0]

Lot's of posts here and the thread is all over the place. My 2 cents, in this country the general, law abiding, citizen should be allowed to own any weapon that is available to government agencies. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." TJ

 

As others have correctly stated, and for the trolling anit-gunners that I am sure are watching this site, full auto weapons are much less deadly then semi-auto. "Spraying" bullets is very ineffective.

 

Lastly, I would LOVE to own, and shoot, a Thompson 1927A.

[TK421 2]

That's because, in your world, the scenarios presented are easy to determine in a lawsuit. For one thing, I didn't say firearms dealers and makers need to get insurance, just that it would be a logical evolution of increased liability. All businesses carry insurance for various liabilities.

 

Assuming they did some thing neglegent like sell someone a gun if their NICS was denied or someone rents a gun and offs themself in the range, they already have insurance for stuff like that. You propose they somehow need to be insured for the possibility that they could be held accountable for someone's actions after a legal transfer in which they were not negligent.

 

 

Partly Correct, if you can show Shore Shot had any idea this guy was crazy and going to do that.

 

 

So if Shore Shot runs a NICS check and gets an approval they are supposed to then second guess if someone should be competent to own a gun? I have known almost everyone at Shore Shot for almost 20 years, I don't think any of them are licensed psychologist competent enough to perform a psychological assessment to determine if someone is mentally competent enough to own a firearm. Yet you feel they should somehow be held financially liable if a third party commits a crime with the firearm even if the government approves the transfer? Wow, can't argue with that logic!

 

Libtarded thinking like that is the reason Congress thankfully passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, to stop asstards with agendas from twisting tort law and using the courts to harass and intimidate lawful businesses through frivolous law suits.

[KpdPipes 388]

Note that NJ is green in the map for "machine guns". There is a procedure where one can get a permit for a FA weapon in NJ. The fact is no one has been given one.

 

I've had the opportunity to shoot a variety of FA weapons due to my LE and military background. I can understand the novelty if you've never shot one. The idea that FA fire is inaccurate is well...inaccurate. some FA weapons, like a M60, are designed to be not that accurate. They are designed to produce a cone of fire. Along with the weapon the level of training of the operator is a very big factor in how accurate a FA weapon can be. Give me a BAR, MP5, or M4 and you would be surprised how accurate they can be. I would need a little practice with the BAR as I haven't fired one in a while.

 

I have no issues with any trained shooter owning a FA weapon. I also realize that the 2A has no training clause. Would I own one? Not at the inflated prices the post 86 ban has created. About the cheapest you can go is a M2 kit for a 30 carbine at about $5000. I think use of FA is very limited by LE and civilian use even less. That doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be able to own one for fun.

 

I've seen Macs and Tube Stens for around $3500.00 just to toss it out there.

[KpdPipes 388]

Fully automatic guns are legal in many states where they trust their citizens, nj is not one of them, heck we dont even allow concealed carry. Automatic licensed weapons are just about the safest product I have ever known, well at least the ones owned by civilians. Since 1934 when the feds began civilian registering their automatic weapons their has only been ONE instance of misuse, and that person was a cop. Name another product with that safety record. In the hands of police its a different story, remember the cop in toms river who lost it with his mp5? Amazing how across the delaware they trust their people, in nj, no trust.

 

Wrong it was Two, one was a Doctor, and the other was a PO..that said, you might not want to crow TOO loudly about that since that makes a pretty damning case FOR Limited availability and stringent regulation