Kansas governor signs machine gun bill

TOPEKA | Starting July 1, Kansans will be able to own machine guns, other fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns and silencers.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill Monday legalizing their possession.

Supporters say collectors are likely to be the main beneficiaries. They note that machine guns typically cost at least $20,000.

Purchasers still must comply with federal restrictions, which include two background checks and approval by the local sheriff....

Full story at http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/585215.html

slackmaster comments: It's nice to see a little bit of liberty restored. I have at least one cousin who will be very happy about this, and he can afford to buy NFA items.

There is absolutely no crime problem attributable to lawful ownership of machine guns.

They are collectors' items.

:shrug:

(I believe the answer is two, and both were killed by police officers using department-owned weapons.)

If 74 years of history is any indication.

You don't have any logical argument at all.

if this apperatus got out of control

Um.... I guess the answer to this question would be the same as for "regular", non-full-automatic guns like rifles and pistols.

"Everybody".

Given enough time and enough ammo, of course.

Anybody COULD be killed with coins and stamps. You could poison the lick stamps. You could bludgeon someone to death with a bag (or role) of coins.

You could do any number of things to kill limitless numbers of people with these things because of one simple element, People. People can kill another person very easily whether by fist, rock, knife, or gun it is the person that actually kills someone; not an object.

killed people with his stamps. Don't forget about the mailing of anthrax.

Same principle. Some buy them for fun, some to show off the fact that they have too much money, some buy them as an investment, etc. Personally, I can't afford to buy or feed either, so they hold little interest (though I still think the Thompson is an amazing piece of machinery, as is the new Z06).

Legally owned machine guns have been used in so few crimes as to be negligible.

A car has a practical use.

but a corvette does not really have a practical use in every day life- its expensive, eats gas, can only hold 2 adults, has no trunk space.....the car has no real beneficial purpose.

Don't feel the least bit deprived.

My car, however, I need.

i need a car too....do i need a Ferrari to get to my job? probably not

I've lived my entire live without either a Corvette or a machine gun. Do I feed deprived? No.

If I had no car at all, or no gun at all, would I feel deprived?

Yes.

Does not mean that others don't. I am sorry if this is hard for you to understand but it must be said; the world does not do things based on what "YOU" need or what YOU find practical. Thank God for that.

I need both. I can accept that you don't. Can you afford us the same "progressive" acceptance for our differences?

But I need a bit of a larger car so I just keep my M2 carbine.

Should they be banned?

"He has a 'Vette/gun because he probably has a short.............."

The antis are slipping, seems a few of them always jump in with the "envy" thing. You'd figure they'd be all over a machine gun thread!

LOL!

sports cars and guns? It reminds me of something a friend once told me.

"This typical red-herring complaint against anyone who might want to own/carry a gun proves that the speaker is an example of what Freud said about hoplophobia (fear of weapons): a sign of retarded sexual & emotional maturity.

Applying their phobia's sexual overtones to others."

they kill far more people than a legal registered machine gun ever has, which so far is zero.

Because the government has them.

The Founding Fathers realized that the citizenry has to keep the government honest both peacefully (ballot box) and forcefully (gins) if necessary.

The 2nd Amendment is not second just by chance. The FF realized the importance of a well-armed citizenry to keep the government in check and to help guarantee the rights laid out in the Constitution.

Are we not killing each other fast enough?

Federal regulations do such a good job of preventing misuse, there is absolutely no reason for a state to outlaw them.

which is that unless responsible regulation is tackled comprehensively on a national level, rogue states like Kansas will be sources for illicit arms in other states.

That is our national regulation of machine guns and other items. Machine guns are available in most states. Kansas was one of a handful where they are prohibited.

EDUCATE YOURSELF!

and it also begs the question of whether machine guns (or easily converted semi-automatics) should be allowed in private hand at all.

You can't register a new machinegun, nor can you produce an "easily converted semi-automatic" as per BATFE regulations. Though I'd like to hear what "easily converted semi-automatic" means to you.

Here's one I found on a 20 second google search:

http://www.ar15.com/content/books/FullAutoVol1/

If one has the proper licenses. What's wrong with having the information available? Are you suggesting censoring it?

I know how to do it, hell, given the tools in my garage, I could likely build a full-auto SMG from scratch (need a lathe to have a rifled barrel though). You still need machine tools, some know-how, and a willingness to go to jail for a damned long time. It's roughly the same level of complexity as would be involved in building a new full-auto firearm.

Actually, I think it would likely be easier to build a Sten than to make an AR-15 full-auto.

to convert a semi-auto to full auto anyway

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Tell me this. Do you know the first thing about "guns" let alone an AR-15 to know if what you are reading is possible?

I would be surprised if you did but then again I have been surprised before.

LOL, The "Rouges" are the ones that don't allow them all together...MOST STATES allow Machine guns...

Read up on the subject your posting about....So when folks talk they don't sound like Caroline "you know, that thing that goes up" McCarthy.

Like it or not, the Pro-Civil rights folks are winning.

entire US and countless 3rd world nations w/MG's. The resultant bloodshed will cause the level of the world's oceans to rise at least eight feet and will flood coastal cities with blood.

oh yeah > :sarcasm:

Just what we need. More machine guns.

ignorance is bliss isnt it.....the registry for civilian sales has been closed since 1986- so the number of machine guns will stay stagnant or decrease over time

so i dont know whre you are going to get "more" machine guns from- last time i checked the laws for the conservation of matter still applied in Kansas

the number is stagnat, all that happens is that they change hands

Is it a testerone thing?

Obviously I don't get it. :shrug:

collect different things- why collect stamps, coins, news clippings.....who knows, its a hobby and frankly machine gun collecting really hasnt been a problem in the last 50 years

Raise your sights: we're making progress America!

Then again, lots of things used to be legal.

on every eligible hip so every 'murikan can fully exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, to hell with others' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to hell with all the rest of the Bill of Rights. :D

There are a limited (~300k IIRC) number of legal MGs in circulation. They can be owned by people in many states, subject to strict federal and local regulation. Read up on the NFA of 1934 and the FOPA of 1986.

need to have an Uzi on the hip of those who "feel" threatened, so the offenders can be dispensed with efficiently and with aplomb. :D

if it is like the florida law it is not just based on "feel"- there needs to be evidence to back up your feelings- and why would you want to carry around a low powered long gun with you?

an UZI is a 9mm pistol with a longer barrel....not much longer

That's why I served in the Navy where one typically isn't faced with killing/being killed by someone face-to-face: rather, the goal is typically to lob a 5- to 16-inch shell on the other guy's ship before he beats you to the draw, so nothing personal here. :D

a deer rifle can easily cut through a police officers body armor- easier than an UZI

there's still time to learn, if not much time. :D

my great grand father lived to be 92, my great grandmother 101, and my grandparents are both 88 and still kickin

Winchester Model 12, 16-gauge shotgun, bought on the eve of WWII, than about anyone: and a few bevy of quail to boot, but he's never liked rabbit. As for me, I could never hit a barn door with a bass fiddle, so I knew it was the Navy for me. :D

to say "To hell with the rest of the Bill of Rights." My owning guns has NEVER threatened your right to live nor has it put your life in danger. That is, of course, as long as you are not threatening the safety of my family or myself. That would be a different matter all together.

on this you will likely be taking a VERY unusual route where ever you are going. Here is the state by state info about which states do and do not allow NFA weapons...good luck planning your route...maybe you better fly, that is if your destination isn't on the list of NFA participators, in which case I guess you will be staying home? or does your home state participate unbeknown to you?

http://www.mp5.net/info/sbsconr.htm

I think it's both politically astute and a positive affirmation of the value of liberty, excercised with responsibility.

I do not get machine guns, automatics, or even a lot of the semi-autos. These people really represent less than 10% of the population, they just have a really loud voice in the NRA and a lot of stupid stupid men who are afraid that if they oppose them they'll be called cowards.

Where does a machine gun put the sport in sportsman?

Nor are most gun owners such "sportsmen" unless you count match shooting.

None of my ideas are well thought out, so I probably shouldn't even be posting on this thread.

There's no damn reason to have machine guns, just like there's no damn reason to be allowed to stand in the middle of a freeway and disrupt traffic in the name of "free speech". It's a distraction, and every Democrat who has participated in this distraction is responsible for the Republican take-over.

Sorry.

The same reason we prohibit standing in the middle of the freeway, or make people get a permit before they're allowed to do it.

to how regulated machine guns are disruptive to society

Before they made them illegal. :crazy:

just regulated....read some firearm laws

I have company coming, see ya.

next time come with something more substantial and actually correct to say

People are under an impression, maybe by hearsay etc, then they learn/live/quote it as truth, then come in here with a chip on their shoulder telling you that you're crazy eyc.

Then you simply remark that the law contadicts them and they get twisted even tighter.

What gives with these types? You could stand in Philly and show them the original text of the Constitution and they'd still call you a liar.

Have Brady/Schumer/Feinstein et al actually corrupted the antis that completely?

to bury your head in.

David

A wealthy collector keeping a machine gun locked up in a safe, taking it out to a range to shoot it once or twice a year is distruptive to society?

is simply saying that they just hate machine guns. No particular reason, they just do, so we should just throw ours into the middle of the ocean.

go figure.

should be a law banning them. Why not, neck ties are already regulated in police departments as some are unsafe.

My M2 carbine never hurt nobody. Except when the bolt came down on my finger once. Don't ask:)

I am allowed to possess whatever broadcast equipment I want. Even that which is incapable of being used legally by me. If I use it on frequencies I am not allowed to use, or when/where I should not, the FCC comes after me (at least in theory). Similarly, I am allowed to own a gun. I am not allowed to shoot whatever I want, whenever I want.

There should be restrictions on use, but a minimum of regulation should be applied to possession of the means to exercise one's rights.

Several corporations own satellites. No reason a natural person couldn't, aside from the cost and impracticality.

Me personally, I can't afford one.

Just like you have to get a license to broadcast over the airwaves. There are all kinds of government regulations on the amendments and there is no damn reason there can't be regulations to reduce the number of guns on the streets.

standard class I guns are regulated too

It's not a violation of the 2nd Amendment at all.

ever heard of the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968?, the brady bill?

Whether some law goes against ANY amendment depends on exactly what the law says and how it affects the right in question.

There is no permission needed to *own* one. There is permission needed to launch, deorbit, or use one to broadcast using one. All of which is needed, as those actions (key word ) can affect others. Having a satellite in your living room, not a problem. Wanting to launch one and broadcast the Superbowl, problem.

As I said, you need permission to use it, not have it.

What regulations do you want to "reduce the number of guns on the streets" that do not negatively affect our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? And why do most proposals to do that end up affecting those who do not commit crimes to a much larger degree than they affect those who do?

No, you have to have government permission Just like you have to get a license to broadcast over the airwaves. There are all kinds of government regulations on the amendments and there is no damn reason there can't be regulations to reduce the number of guns on the streets.

And which country grants permission to all the other countries that launch satellites into space?

That's a function of supply and demand.

What they can do is regulate who has them and how they have them.

I get hunting, protection, target shooting ... I do not get machine guns, automatics, or even a lot of the semi-autos.

Your criticism sounds valid and not hysterical, so I will give you a stab at a reasonable answer.

I don't own any fully automatic guns. I would like to, but I can't afford either the firearm or the ammunition it would consume. Some day I would like to build a full-scale functional replica of a model 1862 Gatling Gun - they fired reloadable black powder chambers and so should be reasonably inexpensive to shoot.

Why would I like to own them? For the same reason I enjoy owning all of my firearms.

Firstly, being a mechanically inclined person, I find them interesting from a mechanical perspective. They are very intricate and precise yet incredibly rugged - especially military weapons. They must function in the most severe of conditions and must do so very reliably and accurately. From an engineering perspective they are ingenious.

From an aesthetic perspective they are equally interesting. Most firearms, with the exception of military firearms, though some enjoy the military aesthetic, are highly artistic. The highest examples of firearm craftsmanship include gold and silver inlay, exquisite engraving, and sometimes even mounted jewels. Even the most basic civilian firearms often have carefully selected and crafted wood stocks that blend smoothly into the metal components, and the metal components are brilliantly polished and finished. They exude careful craftsmanship and pride in work. Seeing such attention to detail and craftsmanship built into a machine is very neat. Why it's neat is hard to explain, but it is neat in the same way that the extra craftsmanship and detail put into a Corvette is cooler than the craftsmanship and detail put into, say, a Yugo. The elegant combination of artistic craftsmanship and artwork is cool.

From a functional perspective I enjoy the challenge of shooting, and different weapons present different challenges. I enjoy shooting my target .22 pistol as it is highly accurate with minimal recoil and so one can really do some precision target shooting, and cheaply, too. I enjoy shooting my .44 magnum pistol as it has a tremendous recoil and it is very challenging to mentally make yourself stand steady and fire when your brain knows a huge bang is about to happen. It takes a lot of self-control to do and I must say I'm pretty good at it. :)

And yes, there is some machismo to it, too. It's fun to go to the shooting range and shoot my semi-automatic AK-47 variant rapid-fire into a target. It's hard not to feel a little "bad-ass" when you're firing an "assault rifle" even if it is a semi-automatic version, just like I felt more bad-ass driving down the road in my Mustang GT (I miss that car!) than in our minivan. Yeah, it's a cheap thrill but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a thrill. I imagine shooting a machine gun would be similarly thrilling. Unfortunately even my AK-variant when loaded with a full 30-round magazine holds about $6 worth of ammunition at today's prices. A true fully-automatic AK would burn through that in about 3 seconds. As it is when I go to the range for an afternoon I usually go through about $90 worth of ammo, and as such I only get to go about once every 3 months, as that's all I can afford. Even if I could afford the $5000+ for a used machine gun, $100 worth of ammo would get you about 16 30-round magazines of ammo, which you could burn through in less than 5 minutes easily. For $100 I want a whole afternoon of entertainment every few months, not five minutes.

Finally I'd just like to say that I use all of my firearms for hunting, protection, and target shooting. If I had a machine gun I'd only shoot it on very rare occasion at a shooting range for "target" shooting, which is kind of funny because machine guns are really not designed for precision targeting - they are suppression weapons. I'd never try to use one for hunting, as it would be far to inaccurate past the first shot and consequently it would be impossible to fire safely. Likewise it would be completely unsuitable for home defense or concealed carry. About the only real use for owning a machine gun is pride of ownership and possibly investment. You might think it's a silly thing to be prideful of owning but there are lots of things people own that I think are silly, like Yachts or jewelry.

These people really represent less than 10% of the population, they just have a really loud voice in the NRA and a lot of stupid stupid men who are afraid that if they oppose them they'll be called cowards.

There are approximately 40-80 million firearm owners in the United States, with a population of about 300 million. That works out to 13% - 27% of the population. When you consider that overall voter turnout for Presidential elections runs only 50% - 65% ( http://elections.gmu.edu/turnout_rates_graph.htm ), and when you consider that firearm owners are typically very motivated voters, you can see why legislators highly respect the NRA voting block.

This is, in my view, precisely the way our government is supposed to work. People with common interests work together to make sure they are represented. Just like I support the right of workers to form Unions to secure better representation than they could individually, I support the right of voters to do similarly.

Reword it like this and it shows your ignorance.

"These people really represent less than 13% of the population, they just have a really loud voice in the NAACP and a lot of stupid stupid men who are afraid that if they oppose them they'll be called racists."

African Americans are about 13% of the population and look hard hard the Democrat Party works to get their vote. Imagine how much our party could get done if it would work harder to win the vote of gun owners, by fully supporting the 2nd amendment instead of our current presidential candidates merely giving it lip service.

By throwing away the vote of gun owners you make our party less likely to get the more important things done. Our party should be about respecting people's rights not forcing more restrictions on them.

and I don't get machine guns either.

and i don't get why my next door neighbor owns a Lambo....the highest speed limit ive seen around my island is 55 mph and my honda accord can do that just fine

And mowing people down in the streets - then come back and make the comparison.

obviously you don't hang out at the Nassau fire buff page...you get to see how many people get mowed down in just one little section of america every day

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but i hear alot about it on the buff boards- alot of domestic disputes end in with aggraviated vehicular assaults- they are more common than you think

wife mowed down her husband just east of Houston.


BAN CARS, do it for the husbands!

than I have who have died violently.

Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do on a regular basis.

That is what we are talking about here.


David

ive seen people mowed down by cars- infact just 3 days ago i took a hose line and cleaned up blood from a sidwalk after a car lost control and plowed into a pedestrian- he was hurt so badly they had to have a massive trauma team standing by at the hospitol

but the one with "smiley" (can't give out his real name) was a domestic dispute gone bad- husband ran over his wife with a car

When people are aiming cars at each other and mowing people down in the streets - then come back and make the comparison.

Far more people die annually from cars than from firearms.

If so, you have no credibility here whatsoever.

So what will it be?

Ban cars?

Ban alcohol?

Both?

Come on, you sound like you want something done about needless deaths, let's hear it.



11,000 fireams-related deaths per year

16,000+ alcohol-related auto deaths

It screws with the agenda too much.

Whether you "get" it or not. Your personal feelings are irrelevant and do not il-legitimize what for some is an enjoyable hobby. Truth is, legally-owned machine guns are intensely regulated, extremely expensive, and very rarely used in crime. Much less so in fact than many objects and devices not specifically designed to propel a projectile.

For that new B.A.R.!;-)

to only a very small group of people, i.e., collectors. The Federal law will still be the determinative here, and from what I understand it is quite expensive to jump through all the hoops to acquire/possess a full-throated "machine gun."

So, this doesn't really seem to me to be all that big of a deal. Now if we could just get Federal laws regulating the possession of handguns up to the same strict standard as the one that regulates the possession of machine guns, we'd be making progress.

But America will eventually grow up on this issue and join the rest of the civilized world, and that is a day worth looking forward to.

i cannot predict how far into the future

i do believe though that one day we my childrens world will be a police state because we will grow up and realize that the greater good is more important that individual freedoms

and on that day there will be a bonfire to burn the constitution

the D.C. V Heller

"pro-gun Democrats" because they seem to bear no relationship to any conversation I'm involved in.

For instance, I post "Someday, I'm going to die."

And the reply comes back: "Ask the Pope about that."

My Gun Forum X-Ray specs are still stuck in the mail somewhere, so it's always refreshing to have someone who can translate Gun-garble to vernacular English help a soul out from time to time.

:thumbsup:

Seriously? It was a huge series of threads here, which (as I recall) you were involved in.

The Supreme Court heard a case not 60 days ago, on the very topic of making handguns very hard to acquire legally. And when I post a message suggesting that they might have some input, you say it has no relation to you posting that we should heavily restrict handguns?

60 days till a decision

I posted: "Now if we could just get Federal laws regulating the possession of handguns up to the same strict standard as the one that regulates the possession of machine guns, we'd be making progress"

In reply, I got:"will never happen"

I posted by way of reply: "Not anytime soon, of course. But America will eventually grow up on this issue and join the rest of the civilized world, and that is a day worth looking forward to."

Then your snout nosed in: "Ask the Supreme Court about that -nt"

Which was, really, apropos of absolutely nothing under discussion upthread.

Then we get this gem: "The Supreme Court heard a case not 60 days ago, on the very topic of making handguns very hard to acquire legally. And when I post a message suggesting that they might have some input, you say it has no relation to you posting that we should heavily restrict handguns?"

Like, some "input" on my opinion about the United States of the future and how that future might unfold? That would sure be flattering, if so. But it still doesn't have Jack-shit to do with my opinion that "America will eventually grow up on this issue and join the rest of the civilized world, and that is a day worth looking forward to."

Or does it? You been getting secret messages in your head from Scalia & Co.?

Did you read the same words I did?

You said that the US will join those nations that prohibit (or heavily restrict) handgun ownership. I said that the Supreme Court might have an opinion on that, one you might be interested in (whether they agree with you or not).

It was quite relevant, as the SC is the final authority when it comes to the US banning handguns. Their word on the matter will effectively be the law. They heard a case relating to this very matter, not two months ago. If they word their decision appropriately, the US could very well ban handguns the next day. Or they may rule that such a ban is completely unconstitutional and that cities that have such bans are in violation. If they rule as such, your hopes of a handgun ban will be quite far off, if ever realized.

You think the US will eventually ban handguns. I say the SC is about to rule on that very matter. Where's the disagreement?

I say that a court ruling on the constitutionality of a ban is relevant to discussion of that ban. Do you disagree?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The number of NFA items listed on the ATF rolls vs the number of handguns in the US.

Care to do some math and then proudly say who will pay for this bureaucracy?

Just so you know, the NFA registry currently is not capable of financing itself. That one-time $200 tax does not go very far in paying the lifetime saleries/pensions of the employees charged with upkeep/maintenance of the registry, much less field investigations etc etc etc.

You said: "Care to do some math and then proudly say who will pay for this bureaucracy?"

In the event such a "registry" were to be enacted into law some decades down the road, one would expect a VAT on every item even remotely related to firearms - including the firearms themselves at every stage of production and shipping. Ditto ammo, gunpowder, reloading equipment, the works.

And, of course, the declining social costs over time of the current free-for-all gun mayhem on our streets day after day would pay for themselves, in the form of lives not lost/ruined. Truly a day worth holding out hope for. :thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

Now Kansas is like pretty much every other state.

Let the hand wringing begin.

cannot just go in and buy machine guns- that would be a federal felony

Maybe it'll finally get the majority of the country to realize how badly they've been bamboozled and stand up against the NRA.

Really? What difference does it make? Most other states allow this already, with a negligible rate of problems.

If you want to have an actual effect, try to get the BATFE to actually pursue straw purchases. That's a large issue with firearms being misused and their refusal to do so actually puts guns in the hands of criminals, as opposed to the safes of collectors. The NRA (and most gun dealers) would support you there, and you might actually have a chance at doing something good, as opposed to pissing on one of the most law-abiding groups of gun owners.

.... to re-enact a law against weapons that have not been used in any crimes.

Won't make any logical sense, and won't prevent any crimes - since they aren't used in crimes - but man will it "feel" like something was done.

as Kansas just passed a law that Oregon already has.

http://www.mp5.net/info/sbsconr.htm

Newsflash: the majority of the voting public sides with the NRA. Your attitude is the reason we can't have nice things.

Why do you think Hillary and Obama have both (unconvincingly) changed their tune on guns this year? If you were correct about the voting public, you would think that they would both be trying to emphasize their strong anti-gun records while John McCain would be running to cover up the time he voted against the AWB in 1994. But the exact opposite is happening.

I honestly don't understand why so many liberals are just fine on most of the bill of rights but have some sort of fascist seizure when they hit the 2nd amendment.

:eyes:

not only here, but at the voting booth.....especially in Kansas ;)

misplaced

as to the hoops that NFA owners have to jump through on occasion. subguns.com has an excellent if not the best representation of NFA enthusiasts in the US and worldwide. Great education as to what the actual laws/regulations exist for NFA items are, not the rumors etc that you might see here in the gungeon or GD.

hope this helps.

Any insight as to why that is? Did the gov sign the NFA simply because it was an economic injustice to dealers?

I think it was because she is up for re-election and the CCW veto will likely be used to alienate her from pro 2nd voters. I expect to hear her use this bill to counter that argument. She has been a pretty good governor and the only disagreement I have had with her is her veto on CCW (which was overturned). Contrary to the writings of many on this site, CCW in Kansas was supported by the majority of voters in Kansas.

the amount of fear this incites in the uneducated. I have read in this thread "easily converted" which is nonsense in fact many of us have seen the video of the LA PD armorer who states in nearly 20 years on the jo he has NEVER seen an illegally converted automatic weapon nor has an automatic weapon been used in a crime in LA. Kansas is a vast state with plenty of safe places to shoot NFA firearms. And as many others have stated, this bill only brings KS in line with most other states.

http://www.mp5.net/info/sbsconr.htm

Kansas just joined the other 42 states which already have a similar law.

still post any disinfo possible.

Seen on a chatboard:

"...prove that someone in Topeka couldn't convert a 50cal to a machine gun and shoot it and easily ventilate a mall in Missouri!"


Ban 50cal autos, for the satellites.......