What is the political climate in Texas regarding repeal of the Hughes Amendment?

[Mexican_Hippie]

Reagan wasn't the uber conservative some make him out to be. He spent a ton of $$ just like the rest of 'em. He was the Romney to Obama's Carter.

 

[ii]

Not "fair" to those born after 1986? WTF?

Yes. Why should someone today in their 20's or 30's have to pay 20K for a weapon that should cost around 1K. Then not be able to have that multi-thousand dollar weapon replaced if it breaks or something along those lines. Personally I would give up my entire MG collection to be able to buy them back for thousands less if it meant a repeal of the Hughes Amendment. It's about a freedom that has been taken away and nothing else the way I see it. As time passes future generations will never get to experience using full auto weapons outside of LE or Military with the present legislation. MG's are out of reach for the average American. I think the control on them is a good thing having to go through the NFA Branch for prior approval before ownership is conferred however to say no more forever just does not resonate with the American experience in my estimation.

 

[kabob]

title ii, you magnificent bastard. Your silver tongue has moved me. You're right, being indifferent to this issue is counterproductive as a gun owner

 

[London]

I think the control on them is a good thing having to go through the NFA Branch for prior approval before ownership is conferred

Does that stop the gangs, cartels, and other undesireables from getting them? Or just the people who bother to follow the law?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I think the control on them is a good thing having to go through the NFA Branch for prior approval before ownership is conferred however to say no more forever just does not resonate with the American experience in my estimation.

I think the ATF has no legal basis to exist at all - and is in complete conflict with the American experience.

But you know what they say about opinions...

 

[midnightyell]

I think the ATF has no legal basis to exist at all - and is in complete conflict with the American experience.

Oh, I'm okay with them monkeying about with the Alcohol & Tobacco & industrial Explosives. That crap's dangerous!




It's all Tapatalk or the iPhone's fault.

 

[ii]

Does that stop the gangs, cartels, and other undesireables from getting them? Or just the people who bother to follow the law?

I would say there has to be some control and the NFA legislation passed in 1934 serves its purpose with registration and taxation. America is not some other third world Nation for example where you can find an AK-47 for less than 50 USD and there are no questions asked at purchase. Some control for these weapons has to be on the books to prevent those folks you mentioned above from getting access to them and causing the police forces and society in general issues. I would say that states should be the ones who deicide legality on these items. Americans would have the option to move where ownership is allowed. One other caveat would be that ownership of an adequate safe to store MG's while not in use would be a prerequisite to taking delivery.

The laws currently on the books are pretty tough for using MG's in the commission of a crime. There is a 30 years to life sentence minimum (I believe) 250K in fines or more (500K) if it is a Corporation or Trust. There is no parole in the federal system anymore which is where such crimes would fall. I think your average criminal would be hard pressed knowing or unknowing these facts. Not to mention the State will come down on them after their federal sentence is finished more than likely. I would go a step further and toughen the laws for their criminal use while deregulating and making them available again. Make the death penalty a reality for those who choose to use automatic weapons in crimes. My philosophy on the matter just like someone will argue otherwise. My main point is America is a free society and that founding principle should resonate with future generations forever. Go elsewhere if you want something else. Realize London that I am not attacking you personally here just coherently stating my opinion while answering your questions. The beauty of America is we can have this discourse and there is the first amendment which protects free speech. What's second on the bill of rights... yes that’s right the right to keep and bear arms!

 

[ii]

I think the ATF has no legal basis to exist at all - and is in complete conflict with the American experience.

But you know what they say about opinions...

Everybody what’s a piece of the action ($$$) and the ATF is no different. “Death and Taxes” my friend as Benjamin Franklin said are your only two certainties in life.

 

[London]

Some control for these weapons has to be on the books to prevent those folks you mentioned above from getting access to them and causing the police forces and society in general issues.

Like they did during the botched bank robbery in LA in which the robbers had full-auto AK-47s?

Americans would have the option to move where ownership is allowed.

That's not so cool that some states have free citizens and others don't. "Live free or here?"

Realize London that I am not attacking you personally here just coherently stating my opinion while answering your questions.

Undesirables who want machine guns will get them. The laws you support and propose serve only to keep machine guns out of the hands of those you don't need to worry about. And just why should they have to leave? Isn't freedom a better idea?

One other caveat would be that ownership of an adequate safe to store MG's while not in use would be a prerequisite to taking delivery.

Why? Are machine guns that much more dangerous than other guns?

My main point is America is a free society and that founding principle should resonate with future generations forever. Go elsewhere if you want something else.

America is hardly a free society, thanks in part to gun laws like the ones you support and propose. Your argument that one can just as well pack up and leave to a freer state loses water when one admits that as the government progressively grows, there are fewer and fewer truly free places to move.

Now I am not attacking you personally either, I have just seen these arguments hundreds of times before and get a little irked when I see someone on "Our side" use them. Safety is always the first argument of those who wish to destroy our liberties. If you want to hold onto your beliefs, that is your right, but at least realize you are using the same arguments as the anti-gun crowd to further (and in my opinion, needlessly) curtail fundamental American freedoms.

 

[Younggun]

I am defiantly not a fan of the "adequate storage" thing. That is just another way for the government to strip our rights away without actually banning anything. What happens when a M16 is $2000 but the government says you must have a $15,000 security system installed to keep it safe. Pretty much back at square 1.
Then lets say somebody manages to pass an amendment to that bill saying that the rule applies to all firearms, now they would have it where a very limited number of Americans could posses firearms while not actually banning a damned thing.

Doesn't mean I agree with all the rest but I hear things like that a lot and many don't consider what can lead to.

Not that I use or condone it's use, but I'm fairly positive this sort of measure was used in the original "ban" of marijuana. You had to have a stamp to posses it, had to have it in hand to get a stamp. Impossible to get both but having both was completely legal.

These things have happened in the past and can easily happen again if we're not carefull.

 

[ii]

Like they did during the botched bank robbery in LA in which the robbers had full-auto AK-47s?

Yes, there will always be folks who can not live in society. Not that it makes a difference that the AK-47's were illegally modified from my understanding of this particular event. I have heard stories from men here in Texas 5 to 6 decades my senior tell me at one point in time right here in Texas that banking institutions would pay reward money to individual/s who brought the carcass of bank robbers to the bank for reward. No money was paid to any individual/s that brought bank robbers alive. Are these stories true? Well I was not there to verify however I can believe it coming from those old timers. Criminals will do what they do best regardless of the law, weapon or situation. If they know certain death awaits their decision to use automatic weapons maybe they will think twice or maybe not. Each individual is different.

That's not so cool that some states have free citizens and others don't. "Live free or here?".

Living in Texas is a gem. It’s much decentralized and that is what attracts people here. Try living in a place like NY, NJ or IL and others I am leaving out where I have witnessed the mannerisms and customs of the people in those areas. Let them have it and eat their cake too. I am merely saying remove the federal restriction so that those states that do not have state legislation banning MG's can once again have them and perhaps those states that do ban them with time can learn from other states that seem to be doing things well. It was a gentleman from NJ that put in the present language of the federal legislation that is the topic of this discourse. I have actually lived in Jersey City, NJ a short while. I would never live there again. No thank you! If MG's don’t work for NJ then I say that’s a state issue for the people in that state to figure out. Should someone in Texas or anywhere else in the US for that matter be subject to the Hughes Amendment. I say it’s better left to a state to decide.

Undesirables who want machine guns will get them. The laws you support and propose serve only to keep machine guns out of the hands of those you don't need to worry about. And just why should they have to leave? Isn't freedom a better idea?.

Freedom is always the best idea. Reality is we live in a society today that just does not understand the value of their freedom and the price paid for it. I believe I can make that statement with immunity as I have personally held a weapon and stood a post in a foreign land and have lived by the Code of Conduct of the United States Armed Forces. Am I better than anyone else or the average American civilian who has not served or who reads this? No! When I see what my peer’s value I shake my head in disbelief. Maybe the military has prematurely aged me into an old man trapped in a younger person’s body with what it is that I value most. I seem to resonate more with the old timers than my peer group. I am merely saying a free society is what our forbearers prescribed when deciding to make this thing we call the United States of America. Maintaining those freedoms is paramount now and in the future and allowing civilians to have access to MG’s as they did pre May 19, 1986 is fair in a just free society in my estimation.

Why? Are machine guns that much more dangerous than other guns?.

No. You have to be a responsible adult with safety your top priority regardless of the weapon or situation in life in general. Safety storage device I was referring to was something along the lines of a home safe or something you would hold your money or coin collection or other valuables in nothing fancy like a multi-thousand dollar alarm system connected to the local police station or anything like that. This would be prescribed in the language of the legislation specifically so that would guide the ATF to making an extra question to appear on the Form 1 or 4 while removing the language on Form 2’s that has the language May 19, 1986 in it pertaining to MG’s. For example Question: Does the applicant have an adequate storage device to secure the device for which this application is being made? Yes or No (or whatever the proper legalese happens to be). Just means a criminal will be stopped or slowed down if they are breaking into your home when you are not there and hopefully the storage device will block your MG's or other weapons and valuable property. You or I will not live forever and eventually your MG's will have to be sold or passed to the next generation. At least while you are alive to enjoy it responsibly and keep it safely tucked away out of reach of anyone but yourself or family when not in use.

America is hardly a free society, thanks in part to gun laws like the ones you support and propose. Your argument that one can just as well pack up and leave to a freer state loses water when one admits that as the government progressively grows, there are fewer and fewer truly free places to move. .

Anyone is one mistake away from loosing their freedom in America. We live in a police state in my opinion. I would say its better than the places I have traveled overseas and I will take it any day of the week. Then again I have experienced first hand what restricting freedom does to a society so my opinion is biased towards America.

Now I am not attacking you personally either, I have just seen these arguments hundreds of times before and get a little irked when I see someone on "Our side" use them. Safety is always the first argument of those who wish to destroy our liberties. If you want to hold onto your beliefs, that is your right, but at least realize you are using the same arguments as the anti-gun crowd to further (and in my opinion, needlessly) curtail fundamental American freedoms. .

A good discourse on the Hughes amendment is the end here. No other. The second person I used is intended to be the third person in my responses. Its a crying shame that only a couple of hundred Americans will read this discourse.

What say you ladies and gentlemen regarding the Hughes Amendment?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I think it's unlawful. I think Congress didn't have the authority to pass it in the first place. I'm sure many will roll their eyes at that comment, but its my two cents.

I don't think you're going to have many here who wouldn't support repealing it. Then again, we can't even agree on legalizing Open Carry so you never know. I'm sure there's some gun owners who will say "why do you need a machine gun?" Every time a "why do you need..." question is uttered I imagine some high school kid sleeping through civics class.

 

[Bithabus]

I think it's unlawful. I think Congress didn't have the authority to pass it in the first place. I'm sure many will roll their eyes at that comment, but its my two cents.

I don't think you're going to have many here who wouldn't support repealing it. Then again, we can't even agree on legalizing Open Carry so you never know. I'm sure there's some gun owners who will say "why do you need a machine gun?" Every time a "why do you need..." question is uttered I imagine some high school kid sleeping through civics class.

and Jefferson weeps in the afterlife

 

[TheDan]

No. You have to be a responsible adult with safety your top priority regardless of the weapon or situation in life in general. Safety storage device I was referring to was something along the lines of a home safe or something you would hold your money or coin collection or other valuables in nothing fancy like a multi-thousand dollar alarm system connected to the local police station or anything like that.

That is a ridiculous requirement. I could have a gun stolen from my front porch and the only person that did anything wrong would be the person that took it. Granted it was dumb of me not to secure my valuables, but that should be my choice to make. "Safety storage device" is bullshit anti-speak, and implementing it as a requirement to owning firearms is just more bureaucratic interference in our lives.

 

[ii]

That is a ridiculous requirement. I could have a gun stolen from my front porch and the only person that did anything wrong would be the person that took it. Granted it was dumb of me not to secure my valuables, but that should be my choice to make. "Safety storage device" is bullshit anti-speak, and implementing it as a requirement to owning firearms is just more bureaucratic interference in our lives.

I can respect that opinion. I can not recall any arms cage or armory that I have come across that was left unsecure which had weapons of any sorts in it. The requirement would not be punitive in nature.

 

[London]

By the way, a few years ago on another gun forum a border sheriff said his town had a problem with cartels breaking into peoples houses and stealing entire gun safes. Even ones that were bolted to the floor.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

That reminds me. Border ranchers have a very legitimate daily need given the spill over.

 

[stdreb27]

That reminds me. Border ranchers have a very legitimate daily need given the spill over.

I don't know how much spill over there actually is, last year el paso, had one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation, if I remember right.
Which I find quite interesting. And slightly unbelievable.

 

[semperloco]

One issue you have with statistics is reclassification, whether it is homicides reclassified as suicides or self-defense killings reclassified as homicides. If a car is taken from a driver and the driver is shot but does not die, that is considered a robbery or GTA because mayors don't want statistics to make their city look like a dangerous place to do business. You just have to be careful with statistics. I heard a couple of years ago that Phoenix, AZ was the #1 hotspot for kidnappings because coyotes blackmailed family members to pay up. If this is true, does this happen elsewhere as much? How are these classified there?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I don't know how much spill over there actually is, last year el paso, had one of the lowest homicide rates in the nation, if I remember right.
Which I find quite interesting. And slightly unbelievable.

I'm not sure the El Paso city records are relevant. Ranchers don't live in a town. They live out on ranches with no one around. If they can even get a cell signal it could take LEOs 30min-1hr to even get to some of the ranches - if they left immediately when they got the call.

We used to have a ranch about 20 min from the border and I personally witnessed, and even encountered up close and personal, drug smuggling operations. We regularly had Border Patrol and sometimes DEA out there. We had ranch houses broken into and had some interesting moments when we rolled up on guys kitted out w/ packs, etc. They would likely come across Falcon Lake and then track parallel to HWY 16 through people's ranches. None of those encounters ended up with us being murdered but you better believe that if we had machine guns they would have been with us at all times. We always had AKs on us, just not full auto.

Point being it was dangerous but never ended up in the "spill over" or homicide statistics. That was over 15 yrs ago and its gotten worse. I'm not bashing you, I'm just speaking from first hand experience and what I hear from family friends that still have ranches down there. These guys have gotten organized and trained and are DANGEROUS when you run into them.