Class III. Available to securit companies?

[MosinM38]

Sorry guys, all it seems I do is ask questions!

But at least I don't ask the same one twice (Usually ).

I wasn't sure if this should have gone into general discussion. As it is just research for a amateur gun fiction I'm writing. But figured it may be pertinant here.

Can Security/Armored car/etc. companies own Post-86 full automatics with the right paperwork?

I know Law Enforcement and the Military do, and I (Think) DOD contracters, but was not sure if a BIG security company, armored car, VIP company,etc.etc. were allowed to with the proper paperwork.

I sorta figured that they wouldn't be grouped in with "Us little guys", in regards to the law but had no idea.

Thanks!!!

[Willie Lowman]

If it is a big company it is conceivable that it has a class III FFL.

Many large companies have these kind of weapons for their private security. There is a Thompson out there that was once owned by Sears. $$$$$ for that one.

[MosinM38]

Okay thanks.

I wasn't sure, figured maybe the ATFE might be touchy to ANY civilian.

Maybe if I ever get around to getting it even 1/2 done I'll link it up Busy on MHI stuff right now.

[Bill DeShivs]

No.

[MosinM38]

Ummm....

No?

To what exactly

[Willie Lowman]

I am guessing that he means "No, they can't have post samples"

Unless you are wanting to write in a part in your story about armored car guards armed with the new KRISS sub guns... There's always all the transferable and pre-samples out there. MP5... Uzi... M-16... G3!

I think the Ohio Revised Code has some lines in it about security personnel possessing machineguns owned by their company only while on the clock.

All that aside, you are writing fiction, no?

[Bill DeShivs]

"No," to the only question asked.

[MosinM38]

Billy: Sorry I should have known that, but it seems like some people just comment to a 3rd or 4th post and don't say what they mean But thanks.

Yeah, I'm writing some. Putting up some MHI fanfic over on another site. Not sure about the rules here about it? So if you're interested PM me for the link. Not a real professional, but not the worst stuff out there either

I guess I know there's transferable stuff from earlier, but I figured even devious badmen wouldn't pay the $7000+ for full auto M16's just to have them legal.

Basic story on the gangsters/mobsters/etc.: It's around 2011. In a semi-fictionalized Montana. Basically a semi-legal Mobster moves to Montana to retire, He's into about all crime except for drugs, which he hates with a passion, then gets embroiled with a Mexican drug cartel that's trying to move in. Which turns out to be only the tip of an iceberg in regards to action.

The main "Character" however is sorta stuck in a rock and hard place. Mostly law abiding, but drug into something with big$$$ paychecks.

It'll have rednecks with AK's, Mexican Druggies, Mobsters wit rocket launchers.etc.

Uhhmm...I guess the point I sorta..wandered off of is this:
What I'd asked aboutw as because I had been considering that the mobster might possibly have started "security company". And although not all of his employees are in it, it was mainly a front to allow his men to legally carry full auto's without spending $7K-$12,000 for them. Ah well, I'll just make him more illegal

[Willie Lowman]

It'll have rednecks with AK's, Mexican Druggies, Mobsters wit rocket launchers.etc.

I think you threw "based in reality" right out the window with that one. If your mobsters have anti-tank weapons, I would say justifying people with machineguns is a moot point.

[jestertoo]

A security company, if it does GOVT contract business, can use post-86 machine guns. Think nuclear security, blackwater, etc. Most of these companies also have an 01FFL + 03SOT to take care of the transaction side of things.

Any company can use pre-86 and other title2 guns if they are legal in their area. Most choose not to due to liability. Most armed guards don't need SBRs, mgs or suppressors.

[MosinM38]

Willie Lowman wrote

I think you threw "based in reality" right out the window with that one. If your mobsters have anti-tank weapons, I would say justifying people with machineguns is a moot point.

Well taht'll only be really late And although rare, I'm betting that there's a VERY few stashed in the US of A in some wealthy group/person's arsenal.

[Hkmp5sd]

A security company, if it does GOVT contract business, can use post-86 machine guns. Think nuclear security, blackwater, etc. Most of these companies also have an 01FFL + 03SOT to take care of the transaction side of things.

No. Nuclear Power Plant security is regulated by the NRC/DOE. That is why they can have machineguns.

Private security companies fall under them same rules as everyone else. Every year for the past several years, lawmakers have been trying to get a clause into 922 to allow them to own post-86 guns, but nothing has passed. Here is HR2296, the current amendment in the House:

SEC. 202. POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF MACHINEGUNS FOR INDUSTRY TESTING AND SECURITY CONTRACTING.

(a) Machineguns for Federal Contractors- Section 922(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘except’ and all that follows and inserting ‘except--

‘(A) as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; or

‘(B) to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to such services;’.

(b) Sale or Delivery of Machineguns to Federal Contractors- Section 922(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘Paragraphs (2) and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to a sale or delivery to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services.’.

(c) Post-86 Machineguns for Testing, Research and Development, Training, and Security- Section 922(o) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)--

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (F); and

(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

‘(B) a transfer to, or possession by, a person to comply with a contract between that person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services;

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-2296

[freakshow10mm]

"No," to the only question asked.

False.

[Photohause]

Glad that's clear, now...

[MosinM38]

Okay. Think I got it now.