search
top

Private Security Contrator NFA

Armed and Safe expresses some concerns about the contractor provisions on HR4900.  One thing I’d urge folks to consider is that if security contractors don’t have to compete for very limited transferable Title II firearms, it should take some pressure off prices.  I think it’s good to keep transferable Title II firearms in the hands of collectors, rather than having security firms gobbling them up.

5 Responses to “Private Security Contrator NFA”

  1. One thing I’d urge folks to consider is that if security contractors don’t have to compete for very limited transferable Title II firearms, it should take some pressure off prices. I think it’s good to keep transferable Title II firearms in the hands of collectors, rather than having security firms gobbling them up.

    Hmm–that’s a point I hadn’t considered. My objection is to the idea of applying laws to the general populace that don’t apply to the government’s hired guns.

    Really, though, as I said, I don’t think this issue is worth raising much of a stink over–the reason I brought that up again today was my interest in finding out what specific part of federal code does what the Billings Gazette article mentioned–the already in place law that supposedly allows military contractors to bypass the Hughes Amendment.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I don’t really like creating more “only ones” either, but if it puts more holes in the Hughes Amendment, I’m not sure I’m convinced it’s necessarily a bad thing.

  3. I’m with you–and I promise I won’t advocate scrapping this bill over what is, admittedly, a fairly minor philosophical annoyance.

    I’m shaking my head–not my fist.

    I suppose that with my feet held to the fire, I might even acknowledge some possible value in an incremental approach to nibbling away at the edges of the Hughes Amendment.

  4. Chris Pugrud says:

    I agree in that I would much rather see the Hughes amendment go away, and I’ve been relieved in several conversations with NFA collectors that they would like to see it go away, even though it would wipe out the market value of their collections.

    As for the “PMC exemption”, I know first hand that what happens in at least some cases is that the government “purchases” the weapons for us and then assigns them to us as GFE (Government Furnished Equipment). More accurately we purchase them for the Government with government money and then they get assigned to GFE property books.

  5. Thanks for the information, Mr. Pugrud.

    By the way, I might have come across a little harsh about private military contractors. That’s probably not fair, and I realize that many (or indeed most) are honorable people doing a hard, dangerous job. I also have little doubt that what most of us hear on the news paints a distorted picture.

    I still cannot muster any enthusiasm for the practice of governments hiring private contractors to fulfill military roles. That’s not a reflection on the people who work those jobs–it’s just not what I see as the way to fight a war.

top