Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/17/2026 9:20:20 AM EDT
|
Pretty sure the NFA registry is screwed up. Why can't we have another amnesty as happened in 68? No idea how it occurred in 68 or who was responsible but the registry needs opened up and fixed. With the recent changes in NFA things we need to keep the press on or increase it. President Trump has two more years in office and it's a good window. Fingers crossed we see more gains for freedom and things rolled back. Either accept $200 tax to form 1 MG's or make it 0$ and let's roll. |
| Why amnesty at all? Why not just get rid of the registry altogether and allow the manufacture and sale of brand new factory MG's? |
Liberals are a curious mix of communism and fascism, they want to destroy you but want to use your own money to do it.
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
I'm getting down to the last box, the others have all been destroyed...
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
169
EE: 0% (0)
ZAF
| I really doubt we'll ever see anything open on MGs. There are too many dentists and chiropractors types that bought MGs not for owning a cool gun but to supplement their 401ks. Theres too much $$$ invested by too many guys only interested in their bank accounts to let the registry be opened. My STEn cost $300 in 1980 and that was crazy for a $9.00 gun in 1942, now that the registry is closed they are $15000.00. A M16 back then was $1000.00 today..... |
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: I really doubt we'll ever see anything open on MGs. There are too many dentists and chiropractors types that bought MGs not for owning a cool gun but to supplement their 401ks. Theres too much $$$ invested by too many guys only interested in their bank accounts to let the registry be opened. My STEn cost $300 in 1980 and that was crazy for a $9.00 gun in 1942, now that the registry is closed they are $15000.00. A M16 back then was $1000.00 today..... I've been around a LOT of MG guys and I still have yet to meet one of these mythical "I bought it as an investment and don't want the registry open" guys. Rather the opposite. They may have it as an investment but love shooting it and want more. |
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: I've been around a LOT of MG guys and I still have yet to meet one of these mythical "I bought it as an investment and don't want the registry open" guys. Rather the opposite. They may have it as an investment but love shooting it and want more. SOTs (MG dealers) with expensive transferable inventory probably fall into that category, at least until they unload said inventory. |
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
175
EE: 0% (0)
ZAF
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: I've been around a LOT of MG guys and I still have yet to meet one of these mythical "I bought it as an investment and don't want the registry open" guys. Rather the opposite. They may have it as an investment but love shooting it and want more. Yes there are plenty a good guy MG owners but many/more investors that arent shooters or really interested in guns more then the $$$ value; but lets just say you are correct how will the guy that just bought a $50,000 M16 gun feel when they start making new ones for $1500 and drop in auto sears for $300 because 90% of the new buyers wont care if it was a Viet Nam or GWOT gun as long as it goes burrrrrrrrrr Hell the FRTs put a dent in FA interest |
|
I imagine some investor-collectors would be unhappy, but that would have to be a very small number and likely not hugely politically influential. Original, historically interesting guns would hold their value reasonably well, as demonstrated by the prices holding up OK despite the proliferation of FRTs. Back to the original question, the BATFE will resist an amnesty because it will screw up all their pending prosecutions for unlawful MG possession. I can imagine that’s a big number with the proliferation of Chinese Glock switches in the hands of gangs. The only way I see it happening is if Congress passes an amendment to the NFA redefining “machine gun” to include FRTs and then opens up a registration window similar to the pistol brace amnesty of a few years back. It would make some sense to allow other contraband machine guns to be swept up at the same time rather than leave them floating out there off the books. Ultimately, all this would depend on Congress and the AG at the time. |
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
183
EE: 0% (0)
ZAF
|
Originally Posted By StealthyBlagga: I imagine some investor-collectors would be unhappy, but that would have to be a very small number and likely not hugely politically influential. Thats where I disagree with you. Guys that are buying $50K guns (or $50K anything) ARE politically influential |
|
Originally Posted By fxntime: Why amnesty at all? Why not just get rid of the registry altogether and allow the manufacture and sale of brand new factory MG's? 2nd amnesty to correct the registry. By accounts it's really screwed up. That's a direct corrective action. Getting the MG NFA rolled back to 1986 levels or removed should continue along with the above. |
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: There are too many dentists and chiropractors types that bought MGs not for owning a cool gun but to supplement their 401ks. Theres too much $$$ invested by too many guys only interested in their bank accounts to let the registry be opened. BS and they have no real voice in it. |
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: Yes there are plenty a good guy MG owners but many/more investors that arent shooters or really interested in guns more then the $$$ value; but lets just say you are correct how will the guy that just bought a $50,000 M16 gun feel when they start making new ones for $1500 and drop in auto sears for $300 because 90% of the new buyers wont care if it was a Viet Nam or GWOT gun as long as it goes burrrrrrrrrr Hell the FRTs put a dent in FA interest If I buy a $50k m16 and a week later the NFA goes away making an m16 a $750 rifle like it should be I'd be tickled to death and buy another. I can beat on the cheap one and save the old one as a piece of history. Basically that happens every time you buy a new car. Your $50k car looses X percentage as soon as you sign for it. Cars are also a luxury item. Been across the country. Never heard a MG guy bitch about being able to get more MGs for cheaper. Usually they bitch about ammo costs. |
Joined:
Aug 2026
Posts:
186
EE: 0% (0)
ZAF
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: Basically that happens every time you buy a new car. Your $50k car looses X percentage as soon as you sign for it. Cars are also a luxury item.... But Im not buying a car for an investment. I buy a car to use it. When I buy silver coins its not to spend them, I buy them because next year they will be worth more than last year. I dont put them in a drink machine for a Coke because Im thursty |
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: But Im not buying a car for an investment. I buy a car to use it. When I buy silver coins its not to spend them, I buy them because next year they will be worth more than last year. I dont put them in a drink machine for a Coke because Im thursty While some people might have purchased MG's with the goal to make big money long term its still a gamble and I have never met anyone personally with MG's that want the 86 ban to stay in effect , they desire more. Firearm ownership and lawful use is a constitutional right , unlike buying a car. With the reforms now happening a larger full court press needs to keep going on any and every front. Another amnesty , no different that the first one is a good start and having an honest audit of the NFA registry. The 0$ tax is a good start to deregulate items that should have never been NFA items. MG's are still taxed at $200 but they have closed the door on accepting taxation but still regulated (denied) with no legal process for relief. Take my $200 to form 1 register a new MG or make it 0$ and rolled back to the state level legislation. |
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: I really doubt we'll ever see anything open on MGs. There are too many dentists and chiropractors types that bought MGs not for owning a cool gun but to supplement their 401ks. Theres too much $$$ invested by too many guys only interested in their bank accounts to let the registry be opened. My STEn cost $300 in 1980 and that was crazy for a $9.00 gun in 1942, now that the registry is closed they are $15000.00. A M16 back then was $1000.00 today..... This mindset is why. |
As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: But Im not buying a car for an investment. I buy a car to use it. When I buy silver coins its not to spend them, I buy them because next year they will be worth more than last year. I dont put them in a drink machine for a Coke because Im thursty Why not? People buy jeeps as an investment. A Shelby coupe apparently sold for $45 million not long ago. Hell of an investment there! I didn't buy a MG as an investment, I fully intend to wear it out. MG is a hell of a lot more gamble than buying a GT500 and leaving it in the garage. |
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: Why not? People buy jeeps as an investment. A Shelby coupe apparently sold for $45 million not long ago. Hell of an investment there! I didn't buy a MG as an investment, I fully intend to wear it out. MG is a hell of a lot more gamble than buying a GT500 and leaving it in the garage. Exactly. It's as if people that do not have a registered MG, never had a registered MG do not want others to have them either. Given that many states prohibit ownership of many NFA items it's far from a sound "investment". Also some states had LE that refused to sign transfers (before). |
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: I've been around a LOT of MG guys and I still have yet to meet one of these mythical "I bought it as an investment and don't want the registry open" guys. Rather the opposite. They may have it as an investment but love shooting it and want more. I’ve had the opposite experience in the past fifteen years or so… The contemporary registered MG-owners I know all want the registry open in terms of the 2A and our rights, but I can only think of two who have said they would be cool to lose $50k-$5M to see it happen. And those guys are operating in another financial stratosphere. It is also within the realm of possibilities that NFA MGs are, in fact, both fun to own and investments. So many out there seem hell bent on either or. In my opinion, the debate is irrelevant because it isn’t transferable owners who will make — or ever made — the decision. |
|
Originally Posted By PAESAN: I’ve had the opposite experience in the past fifteen years or so… The contemporary registered MG-owners I know all want the registry open in terms of the 2A and our rights, but I can only think of two who have said they would be cool to lose $50k-$5M to see it happen. And those guys are operating in another financial stratosphere. It is also within the realm of possibilities that NFA MGs are, in fact, both fun to own and investments. So many out there seem hell bent on either or. In my opinion, the debate is irrelevant because it isn’t transferable owners who will make — or ever made — the decision. The irony is that it isn't worth anything until you sell it. All of my firearms have exactly zero resale value because they will never be sold while I am alive. When you sell something it's only worth what someone is willing to pay. If it doesn't sell, it wasn't worth what you are asking. |
|
I'd expect that there is not a single person in the administration, much less the President or his circle, that understands what the situation is with the registry or MGs, or that knows that an amnesty is already provided for in the GCA and just has to be conducted according to what's already in the law. If you went back to the GWB administration there might have been somewhere in the bureaucracy, but no desire to rock the boat or expend political capital on it. Remember when we were told that Dick Cheney was an NFA guy and would get things straightened out? Yeah right. Just another lie from the establishment Rs. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
|
An amnesty won't get rid of 18 USC 922(o), which became effective on May 19, 1986. An administrative or executive amnesty cannot repeal or override this statutory prohibition. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect. Interestingly, some states have been considering forming government entities to work around the MG ban via paragraph (2)(A) since that would be "under authority of" the government. Some people think the federal government could simply start approving transfers, and that would likewise be allowable under (2)(A). So theoretically Trump would only need to order ATF/DOJ to do it, but that wouldn't be considered an amnesty. |
Joined:
May 2024
Posts:
1454
EE: 0% (0)
PA, USA
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: I really doubt we'll ever see anything open on MGs. There are too many dentists and chiropractors types that bought MGs not for owning a cool gun but to supplement their 401ks. Theres too much $$$ invested by too many guys only interested in their bank accounts to let the registry be opened. My STEn cost $300 in 1980 and that was crazy for a $9.00 gun in 1942, now that the registry is closed they are $15000.00. A M16 back then was $1000.00 today..... There is an estimated 182,000 transferable machine guns in the ATF registry There are 174 million registered voters in the United States That means that if every machine gun owner in the United States owned just one machine gun, as a block of voters they would represent 0.1% of the voting public But every time this subject comes up someone states the amazingly brilliant opinion that somehow a tiny number of people who own machine guns are keeping everyone else from owning them There are 107 million gun owners in the United States Somebody please explain how fewer than 182,000 people can shut down the votes of 107 million people The reason that the registry is closed and will never reopen is because opening it would take a huge push by a whole bunch of politicians and politically it's toxic waste There is absolutely no politician in the United States who is going to put his career on the line so that you can buy a cheap m16 Picture a bunch of politicians standing up on the floor of Congress and saying, "what America really needs is for everybody to be able to go by a $500 machine gun" The only actual job that any politician has is to get re-elected and absolutely none of them are going to risk that so that you can have fun at the range |
Joined:
May 2024
Posts:
1455
EE: 0% (0)
PA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: I've been around a LOT of MG guys and I still have yet to meet one of these mythical "I bought it as an investment and don't want the registry open" guys. Rather the opposite. They may have it as an investment but love shooting it and want more. There are probably a lot of guys who would rather die than see their $40,000 Thompson get turned into a $4,000 Thomson But the topic is irrelevant because everyone gets just one vote And for every gun guy that owns a machine gun, there are about 600 who don't That's the actual statistic: about 600 to 1 So according to this brilliant thing that everyone keeps saying in these kind of threads somehow one man can outvote 600 other men Because they have enough money to buy a machine gun I laid out $28000 for an M16 clone about 2 years ago so now that means I can outvote 600 men |
Joined:
May 2024
Posts:
1456
EE: 0% (0)
PA, USA
|
I work for the government as a contractor in heavy construction in the transportation industry The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars, an endless ocean of money. And that money flows back to the government in the form of campaign donations The idea that wealthy gun collectors could influence national firearms policy is absolutely ludicrous If you won $5 million in the lottery and you decided to spend it juicing the vote on machine guns you wouldn't be able to move the needle 0.00000001 mm. That amount of money is a droplet in an ocean |
Joined:
May 2024
Posts:
1457
EE: 0% (0)
PA, USA
|
Try this experiment sometime Go up to a 100 random people at the supermarket and say "what do you think of the idea of anybody who wants to being able to spend 500 bucks and buying a brand new M16 assault rifle that's fully automatic?" And at least half of them will say that they think it's a horrible idea Not a bad idea, but a HORRIBLE idea And now you know why the registry has not opened and will never open again Oh, and of course because some dentist who owns four machine guns has magic invisible psychic powers that keep the registry closed. that's the other reason. |
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: I really doubt we'll ever see anything open on MGs. There are too many dentists and chiropractors types that bought MGs not for owning a cool gun but to supplement their 401ks. Theres too much $$$ invested by too many guys only interested in their bank accounts to let the registry be opened. My STEn cost $300 in 1980 and that was crazy for a $9.00 gun in 1942, now that the registry is closed they are $15000.00. A M16 back then was $1000.00 today..... I hate this argument so badly! While not a dentist or chiropractor, I do own over $200K in transferables and would be fine with most of their value going away tomorrow if that meant I could own things like a full auto M249, RPD etc. instead of one M16 I would own five. Some things I own would take a hit but nobody is building new Lewis guns or Jap Type 99 paratroopers as there aren’t even parts kits to start a build with. Original C&R guns will always have value over a kit build as well. Sure, if you could just make as many RRs as you wanted then why bother with a DIAS? But for me, open the registry and it would be close how I lost more money. The value of my transferables or how much ammo I put through my new toys? |
|
Originally Posted By sleestakwhisperer: There are probably a lot of guys who would rather die than see their $40,000 Thompson get turned into a $4,000 Thomson But the topic is irrelevant because everyone gets just one vote And for every gun guy that owns a machine gun, there are about 600 who don't That's the actual statistic: about 600 to 1 So according to this brilliant thing that everyone keeps saying in these kind of threads somehow one man can outvote 600 other men Because they have enough money to buy a machine gun I laid out $28000 for an M16 clone about 2 years ago so now that means I can outvote 600 men If you have a net worth of $45k that hit is significant. Don't be a moron an put your large investments in something that is only a pen stroke away from disappearing. Out of those 600 people probably 500 want a MG. The 1 has less than no voice in the matter. Very few people have more money than 600 combined, unless you are talking trailer part trash and tweakers. Even if each person has $5k to their name that is $3mil that can speak against. Are you willing to spend $3mil to protect your $40k investment? To protect something worth 1/75 of what you will spend? In the grand scheme of things MGs are not that expensive. I've used cars as an example above. A cheap car is some $30k now. M16A1 seems to be trending around $45k. Expensive but less expensive than what most people spend (or get a loan on) to drive around every day. I basically can't touch a newish used truck for the price of a Sten or Mac10 yet people pay that every day. Hell, I doubt I can get my house re-roofed for the price of a sten. Just because someone doesn't own a MG doesn't mean they don't have the cash to out vote you. You may have paid $28k for one, I have $40k in machining equipment in my garage so by that metric I can out vote you and 200+ men. I have semi autos that are worth dammed near what my transferrable is worth. I can also make what you spent $28k on. But, we spent that money so we don't have that to lobby or fight against the "peons" that don't have what we have. |
|
Originally Posted By sleestakwhisperer: Try this experiment sometime Go up to a 100 random people at the supermarket and say "what do you think of the idea of anybody who wants to being able to spend 500 bucks and buying a brand new M16 assault rifle that's fully automatic?" And at least half of them will say that they think it's a horrible idea Not a bad idea, but a HORRIBLE idea And now you know why the registry has not opened and will never open again Oh, and of course because some dentist who owns four machine guns has magic invisible psychic powers that keep the registry closed. that's the other reason. In my town I'd say more like 75% would say hell yeah! Go to Portland, probably 30-40% in favor. |
|
Originally Posted By Banshee35: I hate this argument so badly! While not a dentist or chiropractor, I do own over $200K in transferables and would be fine with most of their value going away tomorrow if that meant I could own things like a full auto M249, RPD etc. instead of one M16 I would own five. Some things I own would take a hit but nobody is building new Lewis guns or Jap Type 99 paratroopers as there aren’t even parts kits to start a build with. Original C&R guns will always have value over a kit build as well. Sure, if you could just make as many RRs as you wanted then why bother with a DIAS? But for me, open the registry and it would be close how I lost more money. The value of my transferables or how much ammo I put through my new toys? The toys we could have with an.open registry far out weights the perceived lost value, IMHO. I can't afford a M2 but I can afford an M2 kit and Form 1 that! I could build all my sub $200 kits in original form and still have money for ammo which is the expensive part! |
|
Originally Posted By PieterCoetzee: I really doubt we'll ever see anything open on MGs. There are too many dentists and chiropractors types that bought MGs not for owning a cool gun but to supplement their 401ks. Theres too much $$$ invested by too many guys only interested in their bank accounts to let the registry be opened. My STEn cost $300 in 1980 and that was crazy for a $9.00 gun in 1942, now that the registry is closed they are $15000.00. A M16 back then was $1000.00 today..... That trope has been repeated since the 90s. It was false then and it’s false now. I have a considerable amount of money in transferable MGs. I would be absolutely gleeful to see the values slashed if it meant we see 922(o) declared unconstitutional and we could buy brand new MGs. Every one of my friends who own transferables (many of whom have far more money in their collections) feel the same way. Doctors, dentists, bankers, business owners, etc. |
|
I have a group industries 1918a2 BAR, and a couple other MG’s. I would gladly welcome the opening of the registry so I could legally convert my Ohio Ordnance M1918a3 to original full auto specs and not worry about wearing the receiver out. Would also love the chance to buy a new M249/ M240/ MG3, etc. |
|
The registry really needs a current audit and any corrective action needed implemented. I would love to see the current state and numbers. This should be faster & yield some results faster than legislative alone that moves slower than rust. We have made some gains, need to get back what we had & add to it. |
|
Originally Posted By Deerhurst: I've been around a LOT of MG guys and I still have yet to meet one of these mythical "I bought it as an investment and don't want the registry open" guys. Rather the opposite. They may have it as an investment but love shooting it and want more. The kind of people who can afford transferable MG likely wouldn’t notice their net worth move at all if the value of their MGs went to zero. |
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery". - Thomas Jefferson
|
Originally Posted By KitBuilder: An amnesty won't get rid of 18 USC 922(o), which became effective on May 19, 1986. An administrative or executive amnesty cannot repeal or override this statutory prohibition. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect. Interestingly, some states have been considering forming government entities to work around the MG ban via paragraph (2)(A) since that would be "under authority of" the government. Some people think the federal government could simply start approving transfers, and that would likewise be allowable under (2)(A). So theoretically Trump would only need to order ATF/DOJ to do it, but that wouldn't be considered an amnesty. If a state retained legal title to the machinegun and then issued it out to a state resident as they were a member of a state militia or something similar, then that would be "under the authority of" the state and be kosher. But if the federal government just started approving new machinegun form 1's and form 4's and said that they were approved "under the authority of" the federal government, then you'd have to ask what exactly 922(o) changed, because before 922(o) was passed you still had to get an approved form 1 or form 4 for machineguns. There's a legal principle called the rule against surplusage, which is that every word in a statute should have meaning and not be superfluous. Basically "If your interpretation of the law is such that the law effectively does nothing, then it's a bad interpretation." Congress doesn't write laws to do nothing and that interpretation of 922(o) would mean that it changed nothing, so it's a bad interpretation. |
|
87%+ of the population doesn’t know the difference between automatic and semiautomatic. Including politicians and judges. |
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Armory Sponsor