[tangoseal]

Im curious since this is second amendment related question?

What would it take to LEGALLY and I do mean legally repeal the brady and other firearm acts which deny private citizens, not subjects like UK, the ability to own select fire weapons again. I still fill this is a massive violation of our 2A and people have been letting it go unchallenged for too long. Remember it isnt about having a fully auto rifle its about having the full exclusive access to our second amendment rights.

What would it take? This is a valid question, not stirring controversy just curious?

 

[varob]

It will take your vote. Vote out the anti's.

 

[rodc13]

Consider that there would be massive opposition from those who have invested heavily in full-auto weapons. If restrictions were removed, they could easily lose 95% of the current value of their investment with the stroke of the pen.

 

[Ramen]

I've always said guns aren't an investment.

I think everyone would be happier if they could but newer versions of their aging guns so they can shoot those instead of something rare and collectable. There's only so long a real MG42 will fire before breaking and replacement parts are getting rare.

 

[dukalmighty]

Tell that to someone who bought an M16 for 3000.00 and it's now worth 15,000+

 

[automatic slim]

Simple, it would take a Congress with the intestinal fortitude to repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act, not the bunch of losers we have now.

 

[rottkeeper]

A miracle.

 

[QKShooter]

It's a political Red Hot Potato with Leprosy.
I'm best guessing that nobody in politics will ever touch it no matter who gets voted out and who they get replaced with.

There are a lot of gun owners in the United States but, compared to the total U.S. population we are still an extreme minority.

 

[archer51]

I think you stand a better chance of hitting the Mega Million Dollar Lottery.

 

[nasal]

It's a political Red Hot Potato with Leprosy.
I'm best guessing that nobody in politics will ever touch it no matter who gets voted out and who they get replaced with.

There are a lot of gun owners in the United States but, compared to the total U.S. population we are still an extreme minority.

I agree. It would take a massive shift in the thinking of the American public. Not likely to happen soon, if ever. What possible benefit could a politician get by identifying himself with the most demonized weapons in existence? I can only see this happening if aliens invade or something. Otherwise, the supreme court would have to strike it down.

 

[mlr1m]

It would mean that most people would have to wake up and realize that Government could enact these same type of laws against non-auto weapons. We would then lose the ability to buy them as well. Attrition is our enemy.

Michael

 

[redbird]

The crazys would have to go away.

 

[Ram Rod]

Im curious since this is second amendment related question?

What would it take to LEGALLY and I do mean legally repeal the brady and other firearm acts which deny private citizens, not subjects like UK, the ability to own select fire weapons again. I still fill this is a massive violation of our 2A and people have been letting it go unchallenged for too long. Remember it isnt about having a fully auto rifle its about having the full exclusive access to our second amendment rights.

What would it take? This is a valid question, not stirring controversy just curious?

What would it take? Every last one of us. Taking control of OUR government once again. Things have gotten way out of hand. We all may be at fault for not educating our future generations (most of today's voters if the election of 'O' is any indication of the times) enough, and instilling those principles we base ourselves upon...our foundation, our true-to God and country beliefs . Turn the tide now or it's all over. Every last one of us before the last one sheds blood for the cause.

 

[torgo1968]

It's way beyond the Bradys or modern gun control. Even many (perhaps most) people who would identify themselves as conservative have been conditioned to see automatic weapons as "going too far." As has been pointed out, this isn't recent, it's been ingrained over several generations, well over half a century.

Look at how the press flipped their friggin' wigs over the mere sight of a semi-automatic slung over a man's back at a protest, despite him being nowhere near the president and not giving police or the Secret Service the slightest worry.

The success of the concealed carry movement over the last couple of decades is stunning, and one of the reasons it worked is that it's been done relatively quietly. Despite it being in 41 states, many people are still surprised to hear that most regular Americans can carry a concealed weapon. There would be no way to quietly make full auto legal again.

And maybe I'm too optimistic and this is anecdotal, but I've seen a number of collectors who said they'd be fine taking the loss on the value of their collection if it meant being able to buy cool new stuff and regaining that right. I think they are the majority. I have no doubt that some might be short-sighted and resist, but I think they'd be in the minority.

So what would it take? Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? That's about the level of likelihood we're talking here.

 

[tangoseal]

So what would it take? Alien invasion? Zombie apocalypse? That's about the level of likelihood we're talking here.

Well if our country goes flat broke which I have no doubt is soon going to pass... then who's to say some country out there will not take advantage and attempt a hostile invasion being that we cant afford to defend it any longer.

 

[mcp1810]

I think the most likely way it would happen is for someone to arrested and get their case before SCOTUS. If you recall the reason for the ban on short barreled shotguns was (besides the defendant having died and not being there to argue to the case) that it was not demonstrated to the court that they were suitable for militia use. Selective fire weapons definitely suitable for militia use.
So all we need is a case.

 

[Thanis]

Often firearm regulation of any amount on this forum will inevitably have at least several posts that will provide a domino effect, slipper slope, etc. argument. So I'll go with the opposite argument. For select-fire / auto-fire firearms to be legal again, it will have happen a few steps at a time.

Another possibility is an erosion of the federal authority of the regulations that govern these sales, like the 1934 National Firearms Act. I imagine this would hapen at the state level.

For example the states that are considering made in (state name) firearms that can't be taken out of the state (out of the state's jurisdiction).

State sponsored militias, where the state issues the firearm to a certified user. Could be various proficiency requirements, perhaps must be a CC permit holder (or maybe it would be a new class of permit), etc. Again, would not be legal to take out of the state.

Not stating they are great solutions, just providing hypotheticals.

...get their case before SCOTUS...So all we need is a case.

Maybe.

 

[farronwolf]

Thanis,

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority for arming the Militia. So the weapons would have to be in accordance with that the feds determined, not the individual states.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[tangoseal]

Thanis,

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority for arming the Militia. So the weapons would have to be in accordance with that the feds determined, not the individual states.

Your argument is noted and noteworthy although once again this falls back on the fact that the 2nd amendment does not fall into jurisdiction of neither fed or state level to regulate. It is unalieanable and does not allow anyone whatsoever to regulate the right to keep and bear arms (arms not being clearly defined to a particular style, make, or model) for the citizen. It is for the citizen on the level of the citizen not for debate.

So as we can see here the battle of semantics reigns supreme alas never to allow one party to be completely right in their arguments. I wish I could go back and inform the founding fathers to word it as such....

"..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This right is not to be debated, regulated, denied, or taken away from the individual citizen. States nor Federal government have any regulation whatsoever over the specific arm whether it be firearm or medieval style weapon. This right shall not be subject to groups such as Brady, Congress, Obama, or any other president for that matter, the legislative branch including but not limted to Sotomayor or any other member of any political party, or civil union, or CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or any other network non news organization..... etc.... etc... I can keep going.

 

[Thanis]

Thanis,

According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority for arming the Militia. So the weapons would have to be in accordance with that the feds determined, not the individual states.

I think the stronger argument would be Article I, section 10, clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace.

However, if I'm not mistaken, a state has a right to secure the safety of its citizens. Unless someone at the federal level could show a state issued firearm would be dangerous (I think the requirement would be on the preponderance of the evidence), I don't see how it could be stopped, especialy if that firearm is owned by the state or is a firearm made in that state on lease to a resident of that state.

There are a lot of semantics involved. A state could define its milita as peace officers. When push comes to shove I don't think the bATFe will have authority over a state issued firearm, so long as the firearm does not exit that state's jurisdiction.

I will say one thing about many (not all) anti-gun types. Their concern usually centers around gun laws and how it applies to a city. I have a feeling if SD were to do something like I've stated, they will be made fun of in the media, but some anti-gun from NY city could care less, as long as the firearm is not allowed legally into NY.

How I think this applies to OP, is that as long as places that issue select-fire firearms to residents (who want them), and it does not result in increased crime, then it will weaken anti-gun regulation.

Side note, I don't think one state could offer reciprocity with another state concerning state issued firearms, as crossing state lines would fall under Fed / BATFE / FBI.