Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986
So I think we all have to come together and brainstorm a little bit. Do you think their is a way to get rid of it? Will a politician ever arise that actually has some balls to make it go away?
Many other acts and laws have been nullefied i dont know why it wouldnt happen to this one.
Well, what portion of it do you believe is so wrong?
The portions restricting folks with active restraining orders against them (Clairification of Restricted Persons), the "Safe Passage" provision that protects people from the strictures of a state they are just traveling through (for example the Peoples Republic of Kalifornication), the license regulatory reform that stopped the then ATF from harrassing FFL holders?
Or are you simply refering the the portion that forbade the ATF (now BATFE) from collecting the tax madated by the National Firearms Act?
Ummm, I'll take a stab at this.... I do believe he'd be referring to the part that made it illegal to manufacture a machingun for personal possession. :roll: Any good NFA junky knows about this. [poke] Karl. [roll]
I,m with BadShot.
Umnn ya the part that was tacked on the end of that sucker right before it passed... the part that banned the manufacture of new MG's for civilian purposes.... I thought that was self explanatoryI will be more specific next time.
Anyways any thoughts or ideas?
Assumptions with regards to what others will take from such open ended and EXCEPTIONALLY VAGUE questions such as you posted is not the best of tacts to utilize on the Internet.
Yes we can surmise that it was you wished to discuss, but I'll tell you this... I could have easily assumed that you believed that child molesters and wife beaters should have their "rights" restored, or that you believed that the BATFE should have the ability to constantly harass FFL holders when ever they want.
I would have expected that you might have learned to be more specific around here from your past attempts at initiating debate. I'm not saying this isn't a good subject to discusss, just pick a part of it to discuss when you initiate the conversation.
As for that specific portion of the Act.. I don't disagree with it. I don't like the way it snuck through, but the politics of the day (before you were born if I make my guess) were different than today.
Actually it was before i was borne
I understand what you guys mean by me needing to be more specific.
But ya I guess I’d have to disagree with you when you say that you dont particularly think that part is wrong, I think much like many here that any limitation on firearms is a bad one. That means that if I want to buy a legally manufactured 2006 machine gun i should have that option, it also keeps me from collecting old machine guns like STG44's and FG42's which are WWII era machine guns. Lets put it this way if a bad guy wants to kill someone with a machine gun he doesn’t have to go very far to get an illegal gun especially with the porous borders we have and how simple it is to make a gun illegally fully auto. The criminals will have the gun anyways all that this part of the law does is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to have a legal machine gun since the prices are so darn high.
ALL laws are only for the law abiding citizen.Originally Posted by Delphi
Criminals don’t mine the passage of new laws, they laugh at them TOO.
As for the subject matter of this thread.
What part of “shall NOT be infringed” is hard to understand?
I dunno its quite clear for me.... thats why i'm just wondering if we the people can do anything about it or are we gonna let the slime on capitol hill keep playing with our rights?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote