The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 25, 2008, 08:10 AM   #26
HKuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 625
If it was gotten in the 70's, then No, there is no chance of that being the case. Those were all late '80 at the earliest.
HKuser is offline  
Old April 25, 2008, 08:18 AM   #27
wjkuleck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2007
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,220
I do have a "Devine, TX" M1A from circa 1972, but those are clearly marked, "M1A." Maunz produced rifles sometime in the late '70's, but I don't recall how they were marked.

However, if a PD, it's 99 44/100% certain to be a live USGI M14.

Regards,

Walt
__________________
Author, NEW! The M1911 Complete Owner's Guide
The M14
and M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guides
The M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guide
The AR-15 Complete Assembly
and (New 4th Edition) Owner's Guides
wjkuleck is offline  
Old April 25, 2008, 08:33 PM   #28
MisterPX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2006
Location: Amerika's Doyleland
Posts: 809
Put your old cop buddy in contact with David. He's been in the NFA game for a while now, and I'm confident he'll figure out teh deal with the M14.
MisterPX is offline  
Old April 26, 2008, 01:42 AM   #29
Long Tom
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2008
Posts: 7
Thanks for all the input from everyone. I will pass along all the info.
Long Tom is offline  
Old April 26, 2008, 11:56 PM   #30
dakid2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2007
Posts: 13
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge". I found this out from a guy who didn't want to pay like 15K plus for an MP5 and found out if he did it that way it would have been just something like 2K. Can't verify, but just like certain body armor, if you can get an leo or mil to sign off on it, you can buy it.
dakid2 is offline  
Old April 27, 2008, 08:35 AM   #31
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,978
Quote:
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge". I found this out from a guy who didn't want to pay like 15K plus for an MP5 and found out if he did it that way it would have been just something like 2K. Can't verify, but just like certain body armor, if you can get an leo or mil to sign off on it, you can buy it.
That is a very dangerous, and wrong, statement...
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old April 27, 2008, 12:13 PM   #32
dakid2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2007
Posts: 13
One it's not dangerous. Two it's not wrong prove it. The sheriff here has the option of doing that and if you know him and he knows you (especially with class IIIs and all) he can legally do that. I stand corrected when you show me how that is wrong or dangerous. This guy would not do anybody but a select few and it never hurts to ask worst he says is no. Just like having him sign off to order body armor. How is that wrong and dangerous? This is super rural VA though. At least stay chill and explain why instead of VERY DANGEROUS VERY WRONG....(but won't say why). Why respond then?
dakid2 is offline  
Old April 27, 2008, 12:28 PM   #33
DonR101395
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2005
Location: NWFL
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
One it's not dangerous.
The dangerous I believe he's referring to is legally dangerous. It wouldn't take much for the ATF to see through that type of scam.

Quote:
Two it's not wrong prove it.
Post 86 samples can be owned by an agency or SOT for demo purposes, not an individual.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm
Quote:
(M2) How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms? [Back]

Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFA firearms:

1.

By transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee.
2.

By obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.


Quote:
The sheriff here has the option of doing that and if you know him and he knows you (especially with class IIIs and all) he can legally do that.
No he doesn't. If he is deputizing people for the sole purpose of bypassing NFA tax laws he is conspiring to commit tax fraud.

Quote:
Just like having him sign off to order body armor. How is that wrong and dangerous? This is super rural VA though.
Unless there is a state law against owning body armor, the leo/mil sales are company policy not law.
DonR101395 is offline  
Old April 27, 2008, 02:57 PM   #34
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,978
OK, you asked for it....

Dangerous- a person can and will be prosecuted for tax evasion, and illegal posession of a machinegun if the scenario you posted turned out to be true. The sheriff or cheif or whomever would also be charged with conspiracy to commit tax evason and illegal transfer of a title II firearm. There is more than one 'loophole' way to own title II firearms, but a wise person wouldn't do any of it.

A Sheriff cannot simply say 'presto' you're my deputy, and here's an MP5! What would you tell an ATF agent if you happened to encounter one and they asked to see your paperwork. It would be something like '.....uh, I'm Sheriff Buford's special deputy and this is my duty weapon...' And then you would be in for a trip to the pen.


AND... I can reference a similar case RIGHT HERE IN INDIANA! The sheriff of Grant County (I belive it was Grant) was just indicted and prosecuted for a very similar type of scandal. He was buying back department weapons from the local .gov for very minimal $$ and then selling them for personal profit. It all appeared legit on the surface, but now a once respectable man is an inmate in a system that he once ran....


ETA: I am 100% sick of these scenarios dealing with 'free' or 'loophole' ways to own NFA items. It is this kind of stupid selfish immature behavior that may get it ruined for the rest of us law-abiding NFA owners. That may be harsh, but, damn, pay your $200 tax and GET OVER IT. If you don't like that $800 M16's are selling for $20k, then WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !

Last edited by VUPDblue; April 27, 2008 at 05:06 PM.
VUPDblue is offline  
Old April 28, 2008, 01:44 PM   #35
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,978
Here's one from this year, just for giggles...

Quote:
Gun offenses send three law enforcers to prison

Thursday, April 10, 2008
THE SAGINAW NEWS

MIDLAND -- A man who helped send people to prison is headed to prison himself. Former Midland County Assistant Prosecutor Frederick A. MacKinnon will spend five years in a federal lockup for abusing the authority of his office to obtain seven machine guns and nine silencers for personal use. MacKinnon was Ogemaw County prosecutor when the offenses occurred.

A jury in August convicted MacKinnon and Maxwell L. Garnett, 56, former Rose City police chief, of 51 charges. The jury found a third defendant, Gary J. Theunick, 59, a former Ogemaw County chief assistant prosecutor and Saginaw police officer, guilty of 26 charges. Theunick and Garnett are both of Rose City.

All of the counts involve unlawful possession of machine guns and silencers, including four .22-caliber silencers, a .223-caliber machine gun, a .45-caliber submachine gun and a 9 mm submachine gun.

U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland sentenced Mac-Kinnon, 54, of Hale on Tuesday. Cleland earlier sentenced Garnett to 71 months in prison and Theunick to 63 months.

The men started buying the guns in 1999. Federal law restricts the possession of machine guns. Authorities indicted them in 2005.

Former Midland Prosecutor Norman Donker hired MacKinnon in April 2001. Current Prosecutor Michael Carpenter took office on Jan. 1, 2005, and fired Mac-Kinnon on Jan. 19, 2005, immediately after reviewing the criminal allegations against MacKinnon. Theunick retired from the Saginaw Police Department in 1994 after 20 years as a patrol officer.
Bottom line: Don't be an idiot!
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old April 28, 2008, 02:59 PM   #36
Long Tom
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2008
Posts: 7
WOW. This started as a basic question. Apparently it is NOT legal to own a M14 with a selector lock even if it was bought from a dept. and and then sold as a semi-auto by an officer to a civi.
But what it also tells me, is the DOD is not keeping track of it's property.
The police can and do dispose of DOD property as they see fit.
If the DOD started inventory in 2002.. how long does it take to find out they
are missing a few?
It seems the only one's playing by the rules are the civilians.
As for myself I was'nt interested in the piece, I collect knives not guns.


LT
Long Tom is offline  
Old April 28, 2008, 08:53 PM   #37
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,485
It doesn't matter if DoD did or did not "lose track" of a gun, some gun, or all of them. If an individual is found with an M14, he will be arrested, indicted and possibly imprisoned. In one case I know of, a three star general testified that the Army had NEVER released ANY M14 rifles for civilian sale, period. And that, therefore, ANY GI M14 in civilian hands was not only illegal, but stolen property, period.

So who will a judge or jury believe? An Army general, or Joe Slob, who says he bought the M14 from his cop cousin, and that the guys on some web site said it is OK? If he is lucky, he gets probation, but no matter what, he is a felon who can never again own any kind of gun except an antique.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is online now  
Old April 28, 2008, 09:22 PM   #38
BerettaFox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 144
machine gun

for it to be a machine gun, it must fire automatic. if it's semi-auto only.... it's semi-auto only, and there aren't issues.... you said this was a semi auto m14. so it's just a cool gun, not a class 3 weapon, unless the barrel is chopped.
BerettaFox is offline  
Old April 28, 2008, 09:59 PM   #39
HKuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 625
No, most M14s were locked to shoot semi only, but are still machine guns. The ATF, backed up by case law, considers any gun that was ever a machinegun to be a machinegun and subject to the registry, or contraband.
HKuser is offline  
Old April 28, 2008, 11:57 PM   #40
wjkuleck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2007
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
No, most M14s were locked to shoot semi only, but are still machine guns. The ATF, backed up by case law, considers any gun that was ever a machinegun to be a machinegun and subject to the registry, or contraband.
This is entirely correct. There are about 50 M14s on the registry, legal to own. Some came out of H&R when it closed, some from TRW, etc. There is one TRW M14NM that was adjudicated to be semauto, but that's it. All the others are on the registry—or contraband.


Regards,

Walt
__________________
Author, NEW! The M1911 Complete Owner's Guide
The M14
and M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guides
The M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guide
The AR-15 Complete Assembly
and (New 4th Edition) Owner's Guides
wjkuleck is offline  
Old April 29, 2008, 01:04 AM   #41
Long Tom
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 9, 2008
Posts: 7
Mr. Keenan,
If you would have bothered to read my last post, I said my question was answered, NO ONE CAN BUY OR SELL A USGI M14..
As to the DOD not keeping track? Not my problem.
Go back to the first post and see who was trying to sell the item.
Long Tom is offline  
Old April 29, 2008, 01:17 AM   #42
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,160
Quote:
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge". I found this out from a guy who didn't want to pay like 15K plus for an MP5 and found out if he did it that way it would have been just something like 2K. Can't verify, but just like certain body armor, if you can get an leo or mil to sign off on it, you can buy it.
Negative. Full stop. Halt.

It is NOT now, nor has it EVER been (since the closing of the NFA register) legal to do as you suggest, ANYWHERE, here in the United States.

Can an individual LEO purchase a fully automatic firearm? Yes, without a doubt. HOWEVER, they still have to jump through ALL the hoops that a non-LEO would have to. This includes FULL compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws. As an example, I live in WA State--which means that I cannot legally own full auto, SBS/SBR or AOW, EVEN as a police officer for private use.

Can an individual LEO purchase a full-auto as a DUTY gun? Yes--and it CAN be of recent manufacture, and of any current model.

HOWEVER...

The firearm will be NON-TRANSFERABLE. The firearm MUST be purchased on Department letterhead, with the Chief's signature, and MUST be used as a duty weapon. Here's the important part...

WHEN the officer leaves the Department, the FA firearm MUST REMAIN WITH THE DEPARTMENT, unless the officer is rehired by another Department, AND they agree to a transfer of custody between Departments.

If the LEO leaves the law enforcement profession--as in fully sworn police officer, THEY LOSE THE FIREARM, WITHOUT HOPE OF COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT.

Even though this is legal, I have NEVER heard of ANY Department in the United States approving the private purchase of a full auto firearm by an individual officer for duty use.

As far as being "buddy buddy" with the Sheriff, and having them "deputize" you for this purpose, there are so many things ethically wrong--and ILLEGAL--about that statement that I won't even comment on them.
Powderman is offline  
Old May 12, 2008, 09:15 AM   #43
GunnyPig
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2008
Posts: 1
Quote:
The M14 is not a machinegun nor was it ever to include the full auto models. It is a "Battle Rifle". The full auto M16 A1 and the M16A2 with the three round burst is not a machine gun either, it too is a "rifle". I was a marine and my job was "machinegunner'. A M2 50cal and an M60 E2 and E3 are machineguns.
Patrol: In the eyes of the BATF&E for civilian use, any firearm that fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger is dubbed a MG. An automatic weapon or three round burst is considered a MG. This includes M16's, M4's MP5's, etc. It has nothing to do with the purpose built light & heavy MG's procured by the mil. Even a guy that has malfunction on the range with his semi-auto AR unintentionally firing more than round with one pull of the trigger can, and has been in one case that I know of WHERE THE WEAPON WAS FOUND TO HAVE NOT BEEN ILLEGALLY MODIFIED TO DO SO, be prosecuted for possession of a MG without a stamp.
GunnyPig is offline  
Old May 17, 2008, 08:55 PM   #44
dakid2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2, 2007
Posts: 13
Powderman and VUPD chill. The buddy buddy thing was taking out and beaten like a dead horse. If you ARE WILLING TO become a true deputy and uphold that position not just for the gun and can get that weapon in the process why not. You totally misread that or I wrote it wrong. If I asked to due that I would in fact BE a deputy and fulfill my duties as one, not get a hook up like the deputy **** your talking about that happens out in Cali and stuff that I read on the War on Guns blog. Relax and have a calm conversation, it does wonders and keeps people around to discuss. This is one reason I hear so many people say they stay away from forums. You can't "read" a person through text so don't assume and start a calm discussion and go from there. Geez
dakid2 is offline  
Old May 18, 2008, 12:17 AM   #45
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,160
Sorry if I offended.

When I read something along the lines of using your badge or position for personal gain, or signing up to be a cop just so you can get to shoot cool stuff, it raises my blood pressure somewhat.

Again, sorry if I offended you.
Powderman is offline  
Old May 18, 2008, 07:09 AM   #46
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,978
Quote:
Sorry if I offended.

When I read something along the lines of using your badge or position for personal gain, or signing up to be a cop just so you can get to shoot cool stuff, it raises my blood pressure somewhat.

Again, sorry if I offended you
+1 here, but it seemed like something sinister at face value the first time around....
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old May 18, 2008, 05:46 PM   #47
dlseeber
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2008
Location: new york
Posts: 11
I don't care what it is, it truly is and always will be a beautiful rifle. IMHO, it is the best "battle rifle" ever made, hands down!!
dlseeber is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 12:36 AM   #48
SCLEstudent
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Posts: 1
I've not used bulletin boards on the internet much; in fact I just recently started searching these firearm boards. I am currently a Criminal Justice student with a emphasis on Law Enforcement, and hold two suppressors that I purchased both of which have their own tax form. I am asking about buying a SWD M11:

The article says that this gun is civilian transferable gun so I assume that it's pre 1986. I am only getting this for sport and fun (not even hunting), and I will make sure that I get the tax stamps (one for gun, one for suppressor) approved by my local PD chief before I put the money down on the weapon (which is 4k). I just want to make sure that I am going through this process legally because I have always strived to keep my record pristine and as a student I recognize the law to its utmost. I have two suppressors already that I had no problem getting after a three month wait. So, any advice will be much appreciated - even if its to tell me that it not possible to own one of these weapons. I have read about owning pre86 SMGs for individuals of my state, South Carolina, and found out that as long as you pay the $200 tax stamd you can buy any pre86 machine gun, and even destructive devices as long as you get that $200 stamp for each mortar or grenade. As you can expect that adds up to ALOT of taxes. I anly want a sport gun that runs through rounds to have fun with and hone my skills on my own 1,000 acre property. By doing this will I be inside the law still?
SCLEstudent is offline  
Old May 10, 2009, 09:39 AM   #49
VUPDblue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2005
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 1,978
If it's a transferable, the process to obtain it is the exact same as the process you went through to get your suppressors.
__________________
Silencers have NEVER been illegal !
VUPDblue is offline  
Old May 10, 2009, 11:42 AM   #50
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge".
Interesting that back in the Clinton administration, members of congress and their staff used this very method to bypass Washington DC gun laws. They were issued credentials as US Marshals.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd 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 10:25 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 0.13733 seconds with 7 queries