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.netcomments: 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