The American market for machine guns

Here's an extensive excerpt from a long article on thefirearmblog.com on the (complicated) legal status of machine gun sales in the U.S. (Machine guns have some similarities to artifacts made of elephant ivory: it is legal to own old ones but not new ones...)

Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto

"For the sake of this article, the word “machine gun” will meet the ATF’s definition: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The machine gun was invented by American Hiram Maxim, and interestingly enough, the USA is one of the few countries on the planet where regular folks can in fact own a fully automatic firearm. In fact, machine guns have never been illegal in the USA on a federal level. They are heavily regulated, but not illegal at all.

The timeline of machine gun legislation is as follows:

Prior to 1934, machine guns were not regulated any differently than any other firearm. You could quite literally order a machine gun from a mail order catalog… and people did. Thompsons for example initially did not interest the military too terribly much, but the gunsfound a niche with individuals seeking personal protection, police agencies, and unfortunately, gangsters.  ...

...

"Prompted by prohibition era gangsters and the rise of organized crime (law enforcement was seriously outgunned by the likes of bad guy like Dillinger), the United States drafted the National Firearms Act which passed in 1934. The National Firearms Act did not ban machine guns, but it made them impossible to afford for most people. To buy a machine gun under the 1934 NFA, an individual needs to submit the following (the procedure remains unchanged even today):

• Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500
• Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
• Submit photographs
• Submit passport photos
• Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application
• Wait for the results of your background check to come back

A violation of the national firearms act results in a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison, a $100,000 fine, and forfeiture of the individual’s right to own or possess firearms in the future.

The next big piece of legislation pertinent to machine guns occurred in 1968 with the GunControl Act. The Gun Control Act established that imported firearms that had “no sporting purpose” were not able to be sold to civilians. Machine guns as a whole were determined to have no sporting purpose, and thus any MG imported after ’68 are able to be owned only by dealers, military, and police agencies. One bit of good this act did was allowed for a registration amnesty. It became apparent that there were so many unregistered machine gunsin the US that had been brought back by veterans, that they should be able to register them tax free. Luckily many of them did, but the amnesty ended after just one month (the feds owe us another few months, this humble author believes).

The last piece of machine gun legislation is to many the coup de grace. In 1986 the FirearmOwners Protection Act was intended to prevent the federal government from creating a registry of gun owners. At the last minute, William Hughes added an amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Charlie Rangel said that the “amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.” However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed. The bill passed on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. Thus, Reagan’s signature banned the registration of new machine guns in the USA.

So what does this mean? This is where it gets complicated:

• Machine guns are not illegal, but it is illegal to make and register new ones on a form 1 (as you would do for an SBR)
• There is no way around the May 19th, 1986 date. if the machine gun in question was made after that date, you may not own it (unless you are a dealer)

Also, there are three types of machine guns that determine the gun’s legal status:

• Transferable: Guns registered prior to May 19th, 1986 that are able to be owned by everyone. There are only 182,619 transferable machine guns according to the ATF.
• Pre-Samples: Machine guns imported after 1968 but before May 19th, 1986. The 1968 GCA established that machine guns with no sporting purposes could not be sold to civilians. Dealers can however buy them and keep them after they give up their licenses. As a general rule, pre-samples cost about half that of a transferable.
• Post-Samples: Machine guns made after the May 19th, 1986 cutoff date. These are only for dealers, manufacturers, military, and police. A manufacturer who pays $500 a year is permitted by the federal government to manufacture these. A dealer (who is not a manufacturer) may acquire these if a police agency provides a “demo letter”. A demo letter is simply a letter from a PD asking you to acquire a sample gun for them to test and evaluate for potential purchase. Unfortunately dealers must sell or destroy post samples when they give up their license.

The market for hunting exotic animals without traveling to exotic places

The NY Times has a story about the Ox Ranch, which describes itself as offering  "18,000 acres of the best Texas Hill Country Hunting."  Some of the prey on offer are not native, however, and the business model arouses repugnance in some quarters.

Blood and Beauty on a Texas Exotic-Game Ranch

"The price to kill a bongo at the Ox Ranch is $35,000.

"Himalayan tahrs, wild goats with a bushy lion-style mane, are far cheaper. The trophy fee, or kill fee, to shoot one is $7,500. An Arabian oryx is $9,500; a sitatunga antelope, $12,000; and a black wildebeest, $15,000.
...
"The ranch’s hunting guides and managers walk a thin, controversial line between caring for thousands of rare, threatened and endangered animals and helping to execute them. Some see the ranch as a place for sport and conservation. Some see it as a place for slaughter and hypocrisy.
....
"The ranch has about 30 bongo, the African antelopes with a trophy fee of $35,000. Last fall, a hunter shot one. “Taking one paid their feed bill for the entire year, for the rest of them,” said Jason Molitor, the chief executive of the Ox Ranch.

"To many animal-protection groups, such management of rare and endangered species — breeding some, preventing some from being hunted, while allowing the killing of others — is not only repulsive, but puts hunting ranches in a legal and ethical gray area.

“Depending on what facility it is, there’s concern when animals are raised solely for profit purposes,” said Anna Frostic, a senior attorney with the Humane Society of the United States.

"Hunting advocates disagree and say the breeding and hunting of exotic animals helps ensure species’ survival. Exotic-game ranches see themselves not as an enemy of wildlife conservation but as an ally, arguing that they contribute a percentage of their profits to conservation efforts.

“We love the animals, and that’s why we hunt them,” Mr. Molitor said. “Most hunters in general are more in line with conservation than the public believes that they are.”

**************

The ranch also offers other activities, including these related to guns, which in the U.S. are sometimes regarded simultaneously (by different parts of the population) as both repugnant and protected transactions.

Guns & Shooting

Tank Driving

Drive a WWII Sherman Tank, shoot it's guns, and run cars over!

Machine Gun Shooting

Shoot Machine Guns... MP5, SAW, M4, PKM, P90, and .50 BMG!

Skeet Shooting

Learn to shoot Skeet, Trap, 5 Stand, and Wobble Trap.

.50 cal Shooting

Shoot the biggest and scariest semi automatic gun in the world!

Market design in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, edited by Kominers, Teytelboym and Crawford

Market Design

ARTICLES

An invitation to market design 

Scott Duke Kominers; Alexander Teytelboym; Vincent P Crawford

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 541–571, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx063

• Abstract 
 
• View article

The design of environmental markets: What have we learned from experience with cap and trade? 

Richard Schmalensee; Robert N Stavins

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 572–588, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx040

• Abstract 
 
• View article

Electricity market design 

Peter Cramton

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 589–612, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx041

• Abstract 
 
• View article

Broadening the market design approach to school choice 

Estelle Cantillon

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 613–634, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx046

• Abstract 
 
• View article

The market design and policy of online review platforms 

Benjamin Edelman

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 635–649, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx043

• Abstract 
 
• View article

Toward a fully continuous exchange 

Albert S Kyle; Jeongmin Lee

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 650–675, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx042

• Abstract 
 
• View article

Market design for living-donor organ exchanges: an economic policy perspective 

Tayfun Sönmez; M Utku Ünver

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 676–704, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx048

• Abstract 
 
• View article

Ethics and market design 

Shengwu Li

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, 2 November 2017, Pages 705–720, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx047

• Abstract 
 
• View article

Payday lending and check cashing

In the WSJ:
The Hand-to-Hand Combat to Save Payday Lending
Payday lenders and consumer advocates fuel letter-writing campaigns ahead of the introduction of regulatory oversight

"Florida payday lender Amscot Financial Inc. in the summer of 2016 rounded up about 600,000 letters from customers protesting a regulator’s plan to clamp down on high-interest loans. The letters, many handwritten, were scanned, packed in 131 cartons and shipped to Washington.

The unusual campaign by Amscot was part of a fight between the payday industry and consumer advocates to try to sway the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is expected in the coming days to introduce federal oversight of the $38.5 billion industry.

Payday loans are used by an estimated 10 million to 12 million Americans every year, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck. The loans are typically a few hundred dollars and due in two weeks, or on the borrower’s next payday. Their annualized interest rates, which can rise to nearly 400%, have long troubled regulators.

The CFPB rule would supplement a mishmash of state rules. It would likely require lenders to assess borrowers’ ability to repay and make it harder to roll over loans, a lucrative part of the business. The practice, where customers take out new loans to repay old ones, often leads to snowballing fees. Lenders say such requirements would wipe out the market for short-term payday loans."
...
"The CFPB’s payday rule is among a handful of recent regulations that generated millions of comments. In recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule to curb carbon emissions from power plants drew 4.3 million comments. The “net neutrality” plan governing internet-service providers attracted more than 22 million comments."

Turkey to toughen laws on surrogacy, which contains "elements of adultery."

Turkey to toughen laws on surrogacy
The URL is more graphic than the headline: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/09/turkey-to-introduce-jail-for-surrogate-mothers.html

"Under the present law, surrogate motherhood is in a gray area. The 282/1 article of the Turkish Civil Code says that the relationship between mother and child is established through birth. This means that surrogate motherhood “has no basis in Turkish law” and that the surrogate mother is the mother. Should a couple try to have a child by a surrogate mother, establishing parenthood becomes a legal muddle. In vitro fertilization, on the other hand, is possible, and there are regulations in the Turkish bylaws about Assisted Reproduction and Infertility Centers, which can be used by married couples only.

If they want to have a child through a surrogate mother, most Turks simply choose to go abroad and come back with a baby, which they have registered under the name of the genetic parents. There are numerous stories about couples who go to Northern Cyprus, Ukraine or Georgia, where surrogacy is legal. Allegedly, the price for the process varies from $40,000 to $70,000. A simple Google search results in a list of websites of companies that advertise surrogate motherhood as part of their services. Turkish media has in the past published some personal stories of women who decided to become surrogate mothers in Northern Cyprus, describing the process and explaining the uneasy choices and decisions.

But the new law, reported by Hurriyet journalist Meltem Ozgenc, aims to fill in the gray area and ban surrogate motherhood altogether, including abroad, by Turkish citizens. It also bans “mediation,” “assistance,” “encouragement” or “advertisement” for surrogacy.

According to information that Al-Monitor has obtained, several provisions will be added to the current Law No. 2238 on the “Harvesting, Storage, Grafting, and Transplantation of Organs and Tissues.” The revision of the law is expected to pass within the scope of one of the upcoming decrees by the power of law — the main ruling mechanism since the government declared a state of emergency in July 2016 after the attempted coup.

The new draft law says: “Having a child or serving as a surrogate mother is banned if the pregnancy is undertaken through the reproductive cells taken from one or both of the partners, or if the embryo acquired from these cells are inseminated into others.”

According to the Hurriyet Daily News, the new draft law prohibits “undertaking a donation procedure to use someone else’s reproductive cells or embryo, as well as to donate, sell, use, stock, transfer, import and export reproductive cells or embryos for this purpose.”

The draft’s last paragraph adds that the penalties foreseen in the law are applicable even if the surrogacy takes place in a country where it is legal.

Besides introducing prison time between two to five years for those involved in surrogate motherhood, the law also clarifies legal eligibility for in vitro fertilization. More precisely, the additions to the existing legislation would confirm that the in vitro fertilization process could be applied if the couple cannot have a child in natural ways and if there is a medical necessity. Yet the procedure would be allowed just for married couples, and it can only be performed in licensed centers and by medical professionals granted authority by the Ministry of Health.

The emphasis on married couples is undoubtedly in line with mainstream Sunni religious interpretations of Islam in Turkey, as the statements by the country’s top religious affairs body have confirmed in the past. In 2015, the High Council’s platform of the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) said that in vitro fertilization between unmarried individuals “offended humane feelings and contained elements of adultery.” At the same time, it was stated that surrogate motherhood is also deemed religiously unacceptable, as it is viewed to contain elements of adultery. This view has been confirmed by some prominent religious figures, including Hayrettin Karaman and renowned televangelists such as Nihat Hatipoglu.

The adultery argument is a common basis for banning surrogacy within Sunni Islam, as the sperm of a man is introduced into the uterus of a woman other than his wife, which is prohibited by verses in the Quran. Other reasons for banning surrogacy, according to Ruaim Muaygil, are “preservation of lineage, exclusion of third parties in reproduction, upholding the rights of the child and protection from the negative effects of surrogacy.” On the other hand, more progressive professionals and scholars such as Muaygil clarify between traditional and gestational surrogacy, and use Islamic law and bioethics alongside medical evidence to show that “surrogacy is not only consistent with Sunni Islamic teachings, but is also both ethically justified and medically necessary.”