Posted: 12/11/2024 2:57:43 AM EDT
|
We have SBRs, Suppressors, SBS and every other NFA category legal here. What are legislators doing to make it possible for Iowan's to buy insanely expensive collectible machine guns? The days of the $500 M10 are long gone, what is everyone worried about. |
|
The Iowa Firearms Coalition is focused on making this a reality after having been on the frontlines of achieving all the positive gains you mentioned for Iowan's. Additionally IFC is working on added protections for our children's schools, common sense changes to DNR regulations, etc., etc., etc. Can IFC count on your support, volunteer assistance & membership? |
"If we'd known we were going to survive all those firefights, we would've worn ear plugs."
IFC Life & Spartan Member
IFC Life & Spartan Member
|
Originally Posted By Ameshawki: I'd be surprised if there are more than twenty votes in the legislature to legalize machine guns. Perhaps that is why we need to call them "transferables" because there will be no new machine guns like uniformed legislators imagine. |
|
Originally Posted By NorthFork: They can start by legalization of FTR triggers, then machine guns. Edit: IFC member and member of almost every other firearms rights group. Life member where available in the different organizations. I'd ask you to email me at [email protected] and ask this question. Once you have, I'll send it over to IFC's volunteer lobbyist. Once that reply is received, I'll post it here. Things are not always as they seem. |
Dave Funk
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
|
Originally Posted By F224: I'd ask you to email me at [email protected] and ask this question. Once you have, I'll send it over to IFC's volunteer lobbyist. Once that reply is received, I'll post it here. Things are not always as they seem. Originally Posted By F224: Originally Posted By NorthFork: They can start by legalization of FTR triggers, then machine guns. Edit: IFC member and member of almost every other firearms rights group. Life member where available in the different organizations. I'd ask you to email me at [email protected] and ask this question. Once you have, I'll send it over to IFC's volunteer lobbyist. Once that reply is received, I'll post it here. Things are not always as they seem. Email sent, looking forward to the response. |
I suggest we trade a question mark in for a maybe.
Joined:
Feb 2008
Posts:
46061
EE: 100% (90)
IA, USA
|
Originally Posted By 6EQUJ5: We have SBRs, Suppressors, SBS and every other NFA category legal here. What are legislators doing to make it possible for Iowan's to buy insanely expensive collectible machine guns? The days of the $500 M10 are long gone, what is everyone worried about. "Every other NFA category"? They legalized AOWs? I thought you still couldn't have them in IA. |
WARNING-this post contains words or thoughts that may at some point be discovered by the state of California to cause cancer.
I suggest we trade a question mark in for a maybe.
Joined:
Feb 2008
Posts:
46062
EE: 100% (90)
IA, USA
|
Originally Posted By NorthFork: If you are talking shockwave type shotguns, I dont think those are legal either. Originally Posted By NorthFork: Originally Posted By shack357: "Every other NFA category"? They legalized AOWs? I thought you still couldn't have them in IA. If you are talking shockwave type shotguns, I dont think those are legal either. Shockwaves are fine, I'm talking about Super Shorty type shotguns and the old H&R Handi-Gun .410 pistol. |
WARNING-this post contains words or thoughts that may at some point be discovered by the state of California to cause cancer.
|
Originally Posted By NorthFork: Email sent, looking forward to the response. Update: Your lobbyist called me last night to discuss which was greatly appreciated. Says FRT's are not illegal in Iowa to possess. The way it is written in the code the manufacturers will NOT sell to anyone in Iowa. It specifically says you can not sell them in Iowa if you read it as describing a FRT. The lobbyist says that language is not describing an FRT but one of those old crank attachments you saw in shotgun news back in the day. Iowa Code 724.29 Firearm devices. A person who sells or offers for sale a manual or power- driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a firearm increases the rate of fire of the firearm is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor. The lobbyist said this is more of an education issue on how the law is written and suppose to mean and doesn't believe the current wording prohibits the sale of FRT's. The law states trigger device, not a trigger which is what the FRT is and why the lobbyist is saying it is already legal. But the manufacturers attorneys think otherwise and that is why Iowa is listed on their sites as a NO GO state. We had a long discussion about this and other topics. It is obvious they are working towards where we need to be but it is a long process. Little steps over time. We also talked about MG which they are working on. Even if it is passed, for it to be cost effective for ownership, the 1986 gun control act will need to be replead or ruled unconstitutional by the courts. |
|
Originally Posted By F224: I'd ask you to email me at [email protected] and ask this question. Once you have, I'll send it over to IFC's volunteer lobbyist. Once that reply is received, I'll post it here. Things are not always as they seem. When I lived in Illinois we were able to get SBR's by focusing on WW2 education and reenactor groups. It might be more palatable to voters if transferable were portrayed as historical artifacts (which they are) MN only allows C&R machine guns, that might be a good route. 1986 will be 50 years in the past before long. 
|
Its ok to own firearms solely for the purposes of fun and enjoyment.
|
Originally Posted By Kalahnikid: When I lived in Illinois we were able to get SBR's by focusing on WW2 education and reenactor groups. It might be more palatable to voters if transferable were portrayed as historical artifacts (which they are) MN only allows C&R machine guns, that might be a good route. 1986 will be 50 years in the past before long. Short barreled rifles and shotguns, like suppressors, are no long prohibited under Iowa Code. As previously stated, this has been a long and incremental step by step process, and we hope to repeal the whole Iowa Code Section 724 on offensive weapons. It's not like the dangerous quacks on the left can point to any increases in crime caused by the the removal of SBS/SBR/Suppressors from the prohibited list in Iowa. |
Dave Funk
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
|
Originally Posted By NorthFork: We had a long discussion about this and other topics. It is obvious they are working towards where we need to be but it is a long process. Little steps over time. We also talked about MG which they are working on. Even if it is passed, for it to be cost effective for ownership, the 1986 gun control act will need to be replead or ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Second part is completely not true. I can think of a few hundred gun owners just wishing they could buy transferables. |
I suggest we trade a question mark in for a maybe.
Joined:
Feb 2008
Posts:
46100
EE: 100% (90)
IA, USA
|
Originally Posted By 6EQUJ5: Honestly kind of forgot about AOWs. Originally Posted By 6EQUJ5: Originally Posted By shack357: "Every other NFA category"? They legalized AOWs? I thought you still couldn't have them in IA. Honestly kind of forgot about AOWs. It's really kind of silly. We can't have a super shorty if it's papeed as a AOW. But we can start with a factory 870 and a SBS form 1, and modify to super shorty size and perfectly legal. |
WARNING-this post contains words or thoughts that may at some point be discovered by the state of California to cause cancer.
|
Originally Posted By 6EQUJ5: Second part is completely not true. I can think of a few hundred gun owners just wishing they could buy transferables. How so?? A basic FA AR/M16 style rifle can run you around 40k now days. If you Kaboom it on a range day, it is gone, no replacement for you. Belt feds in the 100k range. I know there are several people who will pay that and can pay that. But for the cost to come down for the average person the 86 rule has to go to increase the number of transferable MG available to bring prices down. |
|
Originally Posted By NorthFork: How so?? A basic FA AR/M16 style rifle can run you around 40k now days. If you Kaboom it on a range day, it is gone, no replacement for you. Belt feds in the 100k range. I know there are several people who will pay that and can pay that. But for the cost to come down for the average person the 86 rule has to go to increase the number of transferable MG available to bring prices down. And same as it is in EVERY state that allows transferable machine guns. The only difference is in Iowa, even if you have 40k you still can't do it. Putting Iowa on par with every other NFA state is a reasonable goal as most states are NFA states. It's not like in Texas they can keep adding transferables to the registry. That closed for EVERYONE in 1986. And lets not forget the first machine gun ban happened in 1968 with the GCA. That is why the market isn't flooded with $200 Sten guns. Now if somebody wants to go after the 1968 GCA (which is really what allowed the Hughes amendment in 1986) then more power to them. But getting the registry re opened is probably going to be much harder than allowing "registered" transferables to be owned by people in Iowa. |
|
Originally Posted By 6EQUJ5: And same as it is in EVERY state that allows transferable machine guns. The only difference is in Iowa, even if you have 40k you still can't do it. Putting Iowa on par with every other NFA state is a reasonable goal as most states are NFA states. It's not like in Texas they can keep adding transferables to the registry. That closed for EVERYONE in 1986. And lets not forget the first machine gun ban happened in 1968 with the GCA. That is why the market isn't flooded with $200 Sten guns. Now if somebody wants to go after the 1968 GCA (which is really what allowed the Hughes amendment in 1986) then more power to them. But getting the registry re opened is probably going to be much harder than allowing "registered" transferables to be owned by people in Iowa. I think you guys are mistaking my overwhelming passion to see all NFA laws removed starting with the 86 law with somehow I am against MG in Iowa. I was very disappointed that they didn't come in with everything else at the beginning. I was just pointing out that every year there are less and less of them available and the prices continue to rise, and are at the point a common person couldn't own one That is the problem with the whole registry being closed that has to change ASAP. The other problem is collectors with the reality of losing tons of money if the registry was ever reopened. People you think are on our side to repeal are pulling the rope in the other direction in the shadows to protect thier investments. |
|
Originally Posted By NorthFork: I think you guys are mistaking my overwhelming passion to see all NFA laws removed starting with the 86 law with somehow I am against MG in Iowa. I was very disappointed that they didn't come in with everything else at the beginning. I was just pointing out that every year there are less and less of them available and the prices continue to rise, and are at the point a common person couldn't own one That is the problem with the whole registry being closed that has to change ASAP. The other problem is collectors with the reality of losing tons of money if the registry was ever reopened. People you think are on our side to repeal are pulling the rope in the other direction in the shadows to protect thier investments. Again, the last statement is mostly not true. Guys who own one or two maybe feel that way. If all you own is a lightning link that you paid $10,000 for and suddenly it's a $5 paperclip you might be motivated to not want to see the registry opened. But the guys who own original machine guns like 1928 Colts are gonna see zero difference because it's not like original machine guns that haven't been made since WWII are magically gonna appear out of nowhere. And most serious machine gun collectors would be thrilled to see their investments become "used guns" because they would then be able to buy brand new examples of many of them not to mention being able to buy stuff that almost doesn't exist on the registry. But again the BIG change would be getting rid of the ban on IMPORTED machine guns which was part of the 1968 Gun Control Act. That is why genuine transferable MP5s don't exist, none were imported before 1968. At any rate, I completely agree with you that it would be wonderful to get rid of the Hughes Amendment in FOPA 1986 and to remove the "sporter clause" of the 1968 GCA because that is where they got the legal basis to ban imported machine guns, but the first and easiest step would be to allow people to buy registered transferables in Iowa. Iowa is one of only 9 states that doesn't allow the ownership of machine guns in some form. Hell even CA has an option to own machine guns with a "Dangerous Weapons Permit" even thought most mortals can't get one. And as a logic exercise, if people were allowed to own transferables in Iowa, it would be one more state where such things are the norm and that would mean greater support to getting the NFA registry opened and going after things like the "sporter clause" in the 68 GCA. If the normal is "nobody can own a machine gun" then people will be conditioned to think that removing the Hughes Amendment would be exceptionally dangerous because they don't understand in most states it's already legal to own a machine gun. Wasn't all that long ago that a ton of states thought that conceal weapon permits would lead directly to daily shootouts in the streets because everyone would have a concealed firearm. When it became normal for pretty much every state other than NY, CA, DC and IL people learned the opposite was true and we even have greater reciprocity between states than most would have dreamed about only 20 years ago. |
|
I would love for Iowans to be able to buy Transferable machineguns again, I understand that they were legal long ago but that Governor Ray was the person who made them illegal to possess with no grandfather clause. I wouldn’t care if the current value of my Transferables were lowered if the ‘68/‘86 Gun Control Acts were abolished and more could be added to the Registry and would love for machineguns to be once again legal in Iowa. As far as current prices on machineguns there are entry level machineguns still around $10,000, some belt feds can be had in the high teens and non-Colt factory M-16’s (registered/converted AR receivers) can be found in the low to mid $20’s. If damage would happen to a Transferable machinegun all is not lost as there are many competent licensed gunsmiths that can repair what people would think as unrepairable damage to their registered receiver. |
|
https://iowafc.org/2025/03/25/for-those-of-you-butt-hurt-over-no-machine-guns-in-iowa/ tl:dr = the GOP even with a large majority are all RINO cuck's that dont want to look like radicals on KCCI |
Rhodesia was super
|
Originally Posted By Kalahnikid: https://iowafc.org/2025/03/25/for-those-of-you-butt-hurt-over-no-machine-guns-in-iowa/ tl:dr = the GOP even with a large majority are all RINO cuck's that dont want to look like radicals on KCCI So from reading that it appears that IF they actually removed the Hughes amendment from FOPA 86, the ban on importation of foreign machine guns from the 68 GCA and the 1934 NFA that machine guns would STILL be banned in Iowa due to the “offensive weapons” code 724.1. If anyone hasn't done so, subscribe to the GOA so they can send you legislative alerts. https://www.gunowners.org/category/state-alerts/ |
|
So a couple RINO's are blocking the HPA from being put into law. Might be worth a call to them. I know we cant vote for them but we can let them know we are able to donate to any primary challengers. Chris Cox from the NRA is reported to be involved too. My bet is some Republicans are going to seriously hurt themselves while trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Look at the stunt Tillis from NC pulled this week. Hope he finds unemployment soon. Thread from GD BLOCKED: Hearing Protection Act Held Hostage — Your Voice Is NEEDED NOW! We’re inches away from a major win for your rights — but insiders reveal why the Hearing Protection Act STILL hasn’t passed… -- Two key REPUBLICAN Congressmen and a political insider are allegedly holding it back. They’re reportedly refusing to support removing suppressors from the NFA registry — and instead backing a watered-down alternative that keeps law-abiding Americans trapped in a federal database. -- Here’s who’s blocking it — let them hear from you: -- Rep. David Kustoff(TN) – 202-225-4714 -- Rep. Jason Smith(MO) – 202-225-4404 - (Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee) -- Chris Cox (Cap6 Advisors) – [email protected] - (Former NRA lobbyist, now allegedly working to derail the HPA behind the scenes) -- Make the call. Send the email. Be firm, respectful, and absolutely clear: - We demand full support for the Hearing Protection Act. - We will NOT accept a compromise that keeps Americans in the NFA registry. - We are voters — and we’re paying attention. This is about freedom, privacy, and restoring your rights. Let’s turn up the pressure and push this through. -- Share this everywhere. Flood their lines. Now is the time. |