I received a question from a Mr. Richard Cross, who appears to reside in the 269 telephone exchange for Michigan (Barry County, perhaps).  I tried to respond to him, but the email address I had (northwoodscross@mei.net) came back as "user unknown".  As such, I post this message thread here as a blog entry.  Mr. Cross, please forgive me - I did my best to try and find a valid email for you, so you could receive the following:

 

Dear Mr. Cross:

Thank you for your note and your question.  Both are appreciated, very much.
I preface my responses by noting that these comments are mine and mine alone.  I do not speak for NRA.  I speak only for myself.

NFA firearms deserve the same protection under the Second Amendment (and under all State Constitutions), the same as any other firearm.  They are no different.  It's not the gun that's the problem.  It is the people who misuse them for criminal and other nefarious reasons. I'd like to see the NFA cleaned up.  I'd like to see fully transferable receivers manufactured once again, and the transfer tax reduced.  Hindsight shows that it was not the best decision to give this up in 1984 (or was it 1986?) when Volkmer-McClure was passed.

At one time I was involved with a gun shop here in Adrian, and we had two law enforcement sample guns - a M1A1 Thompson, and a Cobray.  I shot the Thompson many times.  When ATF raised the annual fee, we had to give them up.

In Michigan, our current Attorney General (Mike Cox) issued a favorable ruling pertaining to NFA firearms.  Previously, by the ruling of a former anti-gun state AG (Frank Kelly), the only way you could own a Title III NFA gun in Michigan was to be a "licensed person", meaning you had to have an FFL.  If you had an '03 FFL, you were limited to NFA guns on the C & R list. If you gave up your FFL, your machine guns had to go.  Our current AG ruled that BATFE's approval process and the payment of the transfer tax constituted licensing.  I've been talking with NRA-ILA and encouraging them to work with friendly state legislators to get this opinion written into law in Michigan, so this favorable decsion cannot be reversed by some future anti-gun AG.

In summary, I think it's perfectly fine for folks to own Title III NFA guns. FWIW, Sandra Froman, NRA's immediate past-president has some Title III guns. So did my very good friend on NRA's Board, the late Bruce Stern.  He had a bunch of them! You may have seen the article about him in a recent American Rifleman.

On issues like this, NRA-ILA tends to work very quietly and behind the
scenes.  As you know, the media deliberately blows this issue WAY out of proportion.  They would like nothing better than to paint NRA as an extremist organization to try and pare away the resevior of public support and goodwill we've built up over the past decade.  Sadly, this issue lends itself to this sort of gambit by the media.

Thank you again for your question, and for visiting my website.  If there is anything in my response which is unclear, please let me know.  I appreciate your interest, and I hope that you find me deserving of your vote.

Sincerely,

David Coy
Adrian, Michigan

p.s.  Did you see the picture of me behind the Ma Deuce?  That was the real deal.  I bought a belt of ammo from the owner of the gun.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Trellix Mailer" <mailfrom@mysite.verizon.net>
To: <shootingcpa@verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 4:12 PM
Subject: A comment form was submitted


fullname: Richard Cross
email: northwoodscross@mei.net
comments: Dear David Coy:

I am a collector of NFA Guns (Machine guns Mostly) and enjoy shooting in events with them. Where do you stand on protecting  NFA firearms? Sometimes it seems like the NRA has turned the other way when it comes to NFA events and new gun Laws in the type of Gun.
Best Regards,
Richard Cross

This issue represents an emerging threat to firearms rights.  The following was submitted to Trap and Field magazine for publication in the March, 2008 issue, as part of my regular column in this publication:

 

Ammunition Encoding Legislation

            This gambit by the anti’s seems to be spreading, and it is different from the anti-gun legislation recently enacted in California.  The California law mandates that handguns must be manufactured so the firing-pin and chamber wall of the handgun imprint identifying numbers on the fired cases.  However, ammunition encoding requires that a unique serial number be engraved on the base of each bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing for each round of ammunition.  The prototype for this anti-gun legislation surfaced during 2007 in Maryland.  The legislation is applicable to center-fire rifle, center-fire pistol and .22 rimfire ammunition.  It also applies to 12 gauge shotgun shells.  How they intend to serialize a “12 gauge bullet” and the inside of a hull is mystifying.  It is unknown how this legislation will affect reloaders.

            During January, 2008, similar legislation has been introduced in Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi.   HB 4269 in Illinois is entitled “Ammunition Encoding.”  It is being called “bullet serialization” in Mississippi, and “encoded ammunition” in the text of HB 1260 in Indiana.

            The Illinois and Indiana legislative requirements are virtually identical.  Both bills also impose a $0.05 per round tax to support the record keeping system mandated in these bills.  This aspect of these bills does two things.  First, the legislation creates and funds a gun owner registration system. Stated simply, if you buy ammo, it is assumed you have a gun.  Secondly, these bills increase the price of ammunition to make shooting too expensive for the common man.  For example, at five cents per round, a 50 round box of .22 long rifle cartridges goes from a $1.00 - $1.50 to $3.50-$4.00.  The price of a brick of .22’s will jump by $25, into the $35 to $40 range.  Such a price increase will devastate to youth shooting programs sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America, the Royal Rangers and 4-H. 

It needs to be clearly understood that these consequences are intentional.  They represent the truly desired outcome of the antis for this legislation.  It is deliberately crafted to run existing shooters out of hunting and the shooting sports by increasing the amount of “red tape,” increasing costs, and by the expanding the level of government intrusion into the private affairs of gun owners.  All of these things will also prevent new people, especially youngsters, from entering the sport.  With no new shooters, the shooting sports will wither, and our numbers will dwindle to the point where there are too few of us left to resist the antis. Guns will become a thing of the past.