PDA

View Full Version : Living in the wilderness


lilguy
March 9, 2011, 02:54 PM
In Illinois no civilian is allowed to own an NFA item, It's part of the price we pay to live in one of the most politically corrupt states in the union. I live close to MG manufacturer in NE Illinois and a local Gun dealer has a collection but will not allow them to be handled. Is there any legal avenue to adding them to my collection other than going into "business"? Thanks all.

gearhounds
March 9, 2011, 04:09 PM
Move out of IL to an NFA friendly state.

lilguy
March 9, 2011, 04:43 PM
That was easy, Thanks

Skans
March 9, 2011, 05:31 PM
You have no options in Illinois. You cannot own a registered machinegun if you are a resident of that state, and don't fall under some special exception for a particular business, LEO agency, etc.

Rifleman1776
March 9, 2011, 05:49 PM
I moved out of Illinois when the ID card idea was only an idea.

4sarge
April 7, 2011, 08:54 AM
I'm in the same state/ situation.
Talking to a knowledgeable in state Class3 dealer, he said the law in Illinois states "individual ownership" is prohibited. He says corporate ownership is an option.

I haven't searched for a second opinion on the corporate part, as I have property in Indiana and I'm trying to use that as the logistical base for this activity.

James K
April 7, 2011, 02:59 PM
When I hear the phrase "only police should have automatic weapons" I think of a black uniformed SS man with an MP40 herding Jews into a boxcar.

Jim

kaylorinhi
April 8, 2011, 03:17 PM
I agree with JK on this one, I say move to VA/NC friendlier than most!

Old Grump
April 8, 2011, 05:20 PM
Join the Illinois NRA and Open Carry. Get involved in local politics, learn the position of candidates on gun control no matter what their office and tell everybody you know what you found out. Do not find excuses not to go to the polls on election day and actively support pro-gun candidates. It won't be fast, it wont be easy but it can be done. I am in the same boat as you are here in Wisconsin.

mnero
April 9, 2011, 02:11 PM
I personally have no use for an automatic weapon; especially a 'machine gun', as I have no forseeable need to fill an area with a volumn of lead. A well placed shot will serve me much better. Gun laws in all states seem to be a series of contradictions. I can walk into any gun store in Maryland and pick up a lever action rifle which chambers .44 mag ammo in 5 mins, but if I want a simple starter pistol, chambering .22lr ammo I have to fill out 5 pages of paper work and wait 7 days. It is a sad contridiction. I enherited an old .38 S&W and I guess it is the only pistol I will ever own. I won't go through all that crap just to buy a pistol, when I can fill out one page of reasonable questions(we don't want unstable people getting hold of weapons so easily, better they have to get them on the street which will deter at least some of them) and wait 5 mins and get a rifle. I have a lot of rifles and a few shot guns, I enjoy shooting them more then any pistol I have shot anyway. Grumpy is right get informed, decide where you stand on each existing and each proposed gun restriction and vote accordingly and let congress and your state delegates know where you stand. Get informed don't just agree with every gun restriction the government wants or disagree with every restriction they want. Some gun laws serve us well in my opinion, it is the pitifully undertrained and undersupported police that cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies that are the problem. I have no problem with a civilian having an automatic weapon if he can afford one, if he has no violent criminal record, is not a known drunk or drug abuser and not known to be mentally unstable, then why the hell not! What is the government afraid of?

Azimuth315
April 10, 2011, 06:32 PM
Any support for any more "REASONABLE" gun regulations is, in my opinion, nothing more than volunteering to be nibbled to death by ducks.


Regards - Al

mnero
April 10, 2011, 09:45 PM
I agree maryland has enough gun restrictions; can't speak for every state, but I think the national brady laws are enough, although there should be exceptions for .22 lr starter pistols that are not too short a barrel.

armoredman
April 10, 2011, 10:21 PM
Move to AZ, we'll let you CARRY your legal NFA firearm if you wish, with no permit required. Heck, we'll let you carry any lawfully owned firearm you own, with no CCW permit/license to own/FOID/waiting period/ammo ban/magazine limit/AWB/purchase permit/etc. Constitutional Carry down here in the sun.:cool:

mdd
April 11, 2011, 12:22 AM
MNERO: There is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" upon a right bestowed upon us by the very men who founded this nation. "Reasonable restrictions" is nothing more than death by a thousand cuts.

publius
April 24, 2011, 07:20 PM
There actually cannot be any restrictions or conditions on a "Right." What exactly is the definition of a "known drunk?" I am frightened of that stereotype:)

RAnb
April 25, 2011, 09:45 AM
Other than moving out of the state, your only option is to band together and take back your state. Change the stupid laws that you live under now.

I spent three years changing the law that bans silencer use in Washington State. Even though WA law bans silencer use by everyone (police and military included), the police and military behaved like the law did not apply to them. The only way to challenge this kind of corruption is to change the law.

You deserve the laws that oppress you because you elected those legislators that passed them. Do not complain if you can not act.

Ranb

mboylan
May 4, 2011, 08:27 PM
Take a look at this before you decide:

http://www.machinegunpriceguide.com/

It sounds like full-autos are what you are into. The only way to build a collection that you can keep in the present day is to become very wealthy.

Dealers and manufacturers can build a collection of post 86 arms at a fraction of the cost. However they own them through their business. When the business is gone, so are the guns. The ATF will not issue the SOT unless you are in the business of selling or manufacturing Title II firearms.

Skans
May 5, 2011, 02:08 PM
I wonder if anyone has ever used a directed investment option under a 401K to purchase machine guns as investments. Lots of folks have $100,000+ sitting around in 401K plans that they can't enjoy. What if you can turn those government bonds and Microsoft securities into M60's and Tommy Guns???

lawnboy
May 5, 2011, 03:03 PM
The ability to have different laws in different states is the whole point of our system of government. It was intended to be this way. It gives you someplace to go when you don't like where you are.

My feelings on this are summed up in the 2nd line at the bottom of this post. I'm glad to live in a fairly gun friendly state.

mboylan
May 6, 2011, 01:49 PM
In reference to replacing your 401k with machineguns, you are about 20 years too late on that idea. Trust me, they are expensive to maintain and feed. That was one of the primary reasons people would get rid of them pre-86. I guess you could keep them in the safe and shoot them once in a great while. I like my Lage too much to do that.

Their prices have pretty much plateaued. They have gone down a little bit because of the economy. However, they have only been fluctuating +/- 10% for several years. You reach a limit to what people can and will pay.

RAnb
May 6, 2011, 01:51 PM
The ability to have different laws in different states is the whole point of our system of government. It was intended to be this way. It gives you someplace to go when you don't like where you are.

Sounds good until you stop to think of the number of states that became safer as a result of making gun ownership a crime. I can not think of a single state that got safer to live in as a result of making the possession of certain types of guns a crime.

Ranb