The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 1, 2007, 12:22 PM   #1
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
List of owned NFA by state

A dealer I know from another board sent me the following list. It is a list of number of owned NFA items for each state. The list is current as of the last 5-10 years or so. I thought it was interesting, and thought some here would enjoy looking.

Alabama
MG: 12,055
Suppressor: 4,905
SBR: 481
SBS: 1,669
AOW: 1,019

Alaska
MG: 1,651
Suppressor: 913
SBR: 127
SBS: 912
AOW: 288

Arizona
MG: 12,808
Suppressor: 7,124
SBR: 1,252
SBS: 1,255
AOW: 816

Arkansas
MG: 3,991
Suppressor: 1,625
SBR: 215
SBS: 854
AOW: 470

California
MG: 20,637
Suppressor: 3,630
SBR: 1,537
SBS: 7,364
AOW: 3,493

Colorado
MG: 4,595
Suppressor: 1,804
SBR: 497
SBS: 1,125
AOW: 797

Connecticut
MG: 21,136
Suppressor: 3,003
SBR: 315
SBS: 1,097
AOW: 634

D.C.
MG: 2,531
Suppressor: 117
SBR: 170
SBS: 622
AOW: 65

Delaware
MG: 261
Suppressor: 229
SBR: 38
SBS: 361
AOW: 31

Florida
MG: 21,481
Suppressor: 11,016
SBR: 1,174
SBS: 3,342
AOW: 2,413

Georgia
MG: 16,968
Suppressor: 14,878
SBR: 710
SBS: 7,710
AOW: 1,507

Hawaii
MG: 365
Suppressor: 52
SBR: 43
SBS: 56
AOW: 34

Idaho
MG: 3,133
Suppressor: 3,487
SBR: 332
SBS: 263
AOW: 521

Illinois
MG: 12,419
Suppressor: 534
SBR: 656
SBS: 1,552
AOW: 942

Indiana
MG: 12,707
Suppressor: 4,952
SBR: 650
SBS: 7,624
AOW: 1,084

Iowa
MG: 1,613
Suppressor: 105
SBR: 232
SBS: 688
AOW: 853

Kansas
MG: 2,033
Suppressor: 185
SBR: 313
SBS: 700
AOW: 645

Kentucky
MG: 6,144
Suppressor: 2,650
SBR: 370
SBS: 1,321
AOW: 683

Louisiana
MG: 4,569
Suppressor: 1,301
SBR: 360
SBS: 1,141
AOW: 476

Maine
MG: 8,112
Suppressor: 494
SBR: 1,178
SBS: 322
AOW: 555

Maryland
MG: 11,322
Suppressor: 3,619
SBR: 452
SBS: 6,076
AOW: 796

Massachusetts
MG: 5,138
Suppressor: 406
SBR: 406
SBS: 678
AOW: 810

Michigan
MG: 8,092
Suppressor: 856
SBR: 445
SBS: 965
AOW: 1,002

Minnesota
MG: 5,941
Suppressor: 612
SBR: 523
SBS: 945
AOW: 1,847

Mississippi
MG: 3,848
Suppressor: 676
SBR: 219
SBS: 427
AOW: 348

Missouri
MG: 6,218
Suppressor: 1,228
SBR: 572
SBS: 1,752
AOW: 1,211

Montana
MG: 1,690
Suppressor: 414
SBR: 164
SBS: 263
AOW: 353

Nebraska
MG: 1,797
Suppressor: 583
SBR: 232
SBS: 651
AOW: 680

Nevada
MG: 4,651
Suppressor: 2,598
SBR: 413
SBS: 389
AOW: 590

New Hampshire
MG: 5,040
Suppressor: 1,292
SBR: 487
SBS: 261
AOW: 378

New Jersey
MG: 5,375
Suppressor: 652
SBR: 297
SBS: 2,060
AOW: 413

New Mexico
MG: 3,268
Suppressor: 1,104
SBR: 364
SBS: 447
AOW: 243

New York
MG: 5,915
Suppressor: 389
SBR: 619
SBS: 4,127
AOW: 1,685

North Carolina
MG: 8,566
Suppressor: 2,967
SBR: 560
SBS: 1,549
AOW: 731

North Dakota
MG: 1,110
Suppressor: 1,059
SBR: 83
SBS: 140
AOW: 163

Ohio
MG: 14,288
Suppressor: 4,206
SBR: 1,008
SBS: 3,170
AOW: 1,567

Oklahoma
MG: 6,239
Suppressor: 2,295
SBR: 495
SBS: 1,058
AOW: 977

Oregon
MG: 5,630
Suppressor: 4,322
SBR: 879
SBS: 1,001
AOW: 1,376

Pennsylvania
MG: 16,112
Suppressor: 5,082
SBR: 1,274
SBS: 7,929
AOW: 1,516

Rhode Island
MG: 519
Suppressor: 19
SBR: 72
SBS: 110
AOW: 42

South Carolina
MG: 5,533
Suppressor: 1,187
SBR: 282
SBS: 1,587
AOW: 584

South Dakota
MG: 1,180
Suppressor: 277
SBR: 103
SBS: 154
AOW: 333

Tennessee
MG: 8,282
Suppressor: 3,819
SBR: 685
SBS: 3,974
AOW: 1,296

Texas
MG: 21,980
Suppressor: 20,573
SBR: 2,033
SBS: 5,019
AOW: 3,413

Utah
MG: 5,327
Suppressor: 1,272
SBR: 624
SBS: 541
AOW: 297

Vermont
MG: 1,050
Suppressor: 50
SBR: 59
SBS: 68
AOW:
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old November 1, 2007, 01:21 PM   #2
Austin Cowart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2005
Location: Lumberton, Texas
Posts: 118
hooray

If i read right Texas won the MG and suppressor catagories! Good for us!
__________________
Clothes make the person. Naked people have little or no influence in society.- Mark Twain
Austin Cowart is offline  
Old November 1, 2007, 02:11 PM   #3
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Interesting, but with non-NFA states like CA, NJ , and NY showing numbers into 4 and 5 digits, that list must include post samples in LE armories. I doubt any held by military are included in those numbers, but a whole heck of a lot of those accounted for are not transferable. Would be very interesting (though probably impossible) to get a breakdown of transferable/pre-samples/post-samples by state.
shaggy is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 01:47 AM   #4
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Minnesota is a "No suppressor" state, that 600 some suppressors would have to be with LEOs.

Austin Cowart: If i read right Texas won the MG and suppressor catagories! Good for us!

Not on a per capita basis.

Texas: 1 suppressor per 1142 people
North Dakota: 1 suppressor per 600 people.

The machinegun numbers are similar.

I'll forward this to my SOT and ask him if these numbers look right.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 02:22 AM   #5
G-Cym
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2006
Posts: 366
It can't be military. It says Michigan has about 400 SBRs. I know there are more than that in military possession. I helped clean about 200 14.5" M4s a few weeks ago, and that's just with one MP company.
G-Cym is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 12:14 PM   #6
1064chubbs
Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2007
Posts: 16
California has so many NFA items because if you had them prior to the AW ban you could keep all the items and just register them, also Hollywood does help because the movie people can still get permits to bring in NFA items into the state to use in movies.
1064chubbs is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 12:18 PM   #7
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
California has so many NFA items because if you had them prior to the AW ban you could keep all the items and just register them, also Hollywood does help because the movie people can still get permits to bring in NFA items into the state to use in movies.
I'm not sure that anything above makes much sense. The AW ban has little if nothing to do with NFA items. The only way they made their way onto the registry in CA is if they were registered before CA enacted laws that banned MG's. If CA banns MG's then noone, including movie studios, can register them. I'm not sure if you can bring a registered MG into CA for a short time, like a vacation or movie filming, because I am not that familiar with CA law.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 12:27 PM   #8
1064chubbs
Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2007
Posts: 16
Not the National AW ban, the California AW ban. and there is a form that you can send to the DOJ to get NFA items but they would never approve regular civies.
1064chubbs is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 12:34 PM   #9
1064chubbs
Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2007
Posts: 16
Heres the application, but like I said you probably will just get rejected.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/FD030DWApp.pdf
1064chubbs is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 12:54 PM   #10
9mmHP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2007
Location: Indiana/Indpls Metro Area
Posts: 318
Where are all those registered MGs in D.C?
9mmHP is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 02:46 PM   #11
ffxmike
Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Posts: 95
where are the rest of the states?

I know VA has at least a couple silencers & machine guns in it.
ffxmike is offline  
Old November 2, 2007, 02:50 PM   #12
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
That's the list exactly as it was sent to me. I'll ask about the remaining states.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old November 4, 2007, 01:50 AM   #13
rkba_net
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2000
Posts: 153
Note: these numbers reflect the totals from the beginning of NFA registration... and is in NO WAY accurate... in addition many of the weapons may have been registered PRIOR to a state ban... ie in CA and NY...
rkba_net is offline  
Old May 12, 2008, 11:56 AM   #14
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
Seeing as how the forms required for manufacturing and transferring NFA weapons are tax documents I seriously doubt those are accurate numbers or even that they were distributed legally. The ATF cannot discuss the NFA stuff to anyone other than the tax payer.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old May 12, 2008, 12:55 PM   #15
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
Transfer forms are no more tax documets than are the packs of cigarettes you may or may not have bought today. Just because you are paying a 'tax' doesn't mean it is a tax document. In fact, all NFA information is available via the FOIA. Check out this thread for more accurate info http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=292053
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old May 12, 2008, 06:01 PM   #16
freakshow10mm
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2008
Location: MI
Posts: 1,398
From: Title II.com's FAQ

Quote:
axpayer Privacy

The transfer paperwork is nominally a tax return; the purpose of the registration, and the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR or Registry) is keeping track of who owes the tax. Taxpayer privacy laws apply to a transfer form, and ATF may not discuss a pending transfer with anyone but the taxpayer. They sometimes claim that the taxpayer on a tax paid transfer is the transferor (seller), as he is responsible for the tax by law. This also serves to allow ATF to refuse to discuss why a transfer is taking so long with the party who is most interested in that question, the transferee (buyer). However, in another context (releasing information under the Freedom of Information Act) ATF has decided that as to a Form 4, the tax form is a joint return between the transferor and transferee (see 1980 memo re Auto Ordnance Corp. FOIA request on my web page). The transferee should be entitled to the information about the status of the application on the same basis as the transferor. That is not ATF's usual practice, however with pending transfers.

These taxpayer privacy restrictions do not apply to disclosure of the form by other persons who might have access to it, a local LE chief who provided the certification, for example, and retained a copy of the form. Nor do they apply to a court ordered disclosure by anyone who might have a copy (buyer or seller for example), by subpoena or similar measure.

The NFA law also prohibits the use of Registry information obtained from natural persons (only) for any law enforcement purpose except prosecutions for making a false statement on a transfer form (26 U.S.C. sec. 5848). Other tax laws prohibit the release of transfer information by the Feds, as a tax return, except for certain narrow law enforcement type circumstances. See 26 U.S.C. sec. 6103. The Feds may not legally disclose whether someone has a registered NFA firearm, or not, to any state or local law enforcement agency or personnel.

However, as most NFA weapons are also regulated by the GCA, purchases from a dealer in NFA weapons requires the completion of the standard 4473 yellow form, as well as dealer bound book records, and this source of information is not so similarly restricted. ATF may release this information to local law enforcement for a host of law enforcement purposes. See 18 U.S.C. sec. 923(g)(1)(D).
According to this, the only legal way they can share this information is from the bound books and 4473s. The ATF cannot share who is a SOT and who is not, as this is a tax document.
freakshow10mm is offline  
Old May 12, 2008, 07:02 PM   #17
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
The key to that excerpt is the word "pending". After the transfer is complete, the information isn't as guarded. All of the categories of NFA items in the registry is in the public domain. You can ask for them yourself via a FOIA request, however, you cannot ask for information such as ownership stats on any given individual but yourself.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old May 12, 2008, 07:36 PM   #18
TEDDY
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2006
Location: MANNING SC
Posts: 837
no. of mgs

The list is total number of MGs presently licensed it does not include military as they have no access to the inventory.the small arms review has the list every yr.yhe magazine is published monthly.check their web site.
TEDDY is offline  
Old May 14, 2008, 09:38 AM   #19
lilguy
Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2007
Posts: 54
A civy can not legally own a NFA weapon in Illinois. All those MGs must be LE or the list is wrong.
lilguy is offline  
Old May 14, 2008, 09:41 AM   #20
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,981
Or they may have been registered before the Illinois state MG ban was in place... Not too many states regulated MG's in the first half of last century.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old May 14, 2008, 11:36 AM   #21
J.Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 7, 2008
Location: Hampton Roads,VA / Wise Co. VA
Posts: 157
Would still like to know about VA any word?
J.Smith is offline  
Old May 23, 2008, 08:13 PM   #22
GA Limited GM
Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2008
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 73
SBR's in AL???
GA Limited GM is offline  
Old May 23, 2008, 09:18 PM   #23
PTK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2008
Posts: 442
Odd, it seems most states have more NFA than Colorado. I must know most people here with MGs, since I've seen quite a few.
PTK is offline  
Old May 28, 2008, 05:30 PM   #24
davlandrum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Lane County Oregon
Posts: 2,547
Freakshow - The way I read your post is the way health records are private, that is medical information that contains individual identifying information is totally off-limits. If you strip off the identifying information, it is OK.

That is how they get wonderful numbers like "Oregon had 560 reported cases of flu".

The information on the form is private, the fact that a form was filled out is not.

The amount collected in taxes is public record, just not who it is collected from (in most cases).

Just based on my experience with privacy laws (no, I'm not a lawyer).
__________________
U.S Army, Retired

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. -Potter Stewart
davlandrum is offline  
Old May 28, 2008, 06:16 PM   #25
MeekAndMild
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
Dave,

Would you happen to have info on Washington? I've heard that private citizens can't own machine guns there but I went to a range near Seattle which rented them.

Quote:
SBR's in AL???
+1 ???
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.
MeekAndMild is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12587 seconds with 7 queries