View Full Version : Restrictions applied not just for "crime"?

September 15, 2004, 12:55 PM
What if the current 1934/1986 restrictions were put in place to not stop criminals getting FA, but rather to keep people in the US from coming up with better systems? I mean, I've designed a few rather interesting FA systems/actions, but I can't hash them out completely on my computer or ever make them, since they'd be illegal.

Another thought is that perhaps not only have we been failed in the case of crime vanishing by restricting FA, but we've been fail in the case of getting new in country developments in FA and "DD"s.

Just idle thinking.

September 15, 2004, 04:06 PM
You are not the first one to say that. John Ross makes that case in his book 'Unintended Consequences'.

But doesn't this belong in L+P anyway?

September 15, 2004, 07:05 PM
So wait a minute here, are you implying that it's illegal to even design a full-auto weapon?!?!?! :eek: :confused:

September 15, 2004, 07:17 PM
Constructive crime goes all the way back to having blueprints and knowledge.

Seems I'll have to read UC.

September 15, 2004, 10:45 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that is totally ridiculous. :barf:

So where can I pick up a permit to legally think?

September 15, 2004, 10:57 PM
Well, you'd need a class 2 manufacturer's permit, which IIRC is $3500 a year, plus you must be selling items to qualify, otherwise it's not legal.

Great country.

September 28, 2004, 05:13 PM
I've considered this as well, but it's a moot point most of the time for me - most of the time when I come up with a good design, I find that Eugene Stoner holds a patent for something very similar... :D

My beef was with the restrictions on large-capacity magazine design and now that's been lifted! It would be nice to be able to apply for an "inventor's exemption" or something similar, however...

September 29, 2004, 12:39 PM
There seems to be some bad info, here. The license to build anything NFA is $150 for three years, plus a $500 a year special occupation tax.

There is something of a catch-22 in that you have to be engaged in it as a business practice, but inventing for future sale seems to satisfy that.

As this is a bit up my alley, I'm waiting for a call from compliance to refine the business part.

September 30, 2004, 04:39 AM
So wait a minute here, are you implying that it's illegal to even design a full-auto weapon?!?!?!

Oh nos! I am a felon! :)

I don't see how the government can stop people from thinking. That is absurd.

I've designed a few MGs. Just waiting for that sweet, sweet C2 so I can build them.

Jake 98c/11b
September 30, 2004, 08:02 AM
Research is an acceptable reason for a manufacturers license. You need never sell a single item, just keep the paperwork straight.

October 6, 2004, 12:04 PM
1. You can design anything you want...no license.
2. You can't BUILD it without a license.
3. 1934 NFA was about criminals and machine guns...but all the other cool stuff got lumped in also.
4. 1986 was about limiting innovation and actually boosting domestic sales.
5. My FFL and Sot are as follows. $150 for my 07 FFL (3 years x $50), $500 for a reduced (under 1/2 mil revenue) SOT payment. It's no where NEAR $3500....
I pay full price for the SOT and that's only $1000.