Regarding the NFA itself...(I think)

[pickpocket]

For one, and again, the NFA does not say that you can't own a particular firearm. It allows for ownership and transfer of regulated weapons with the caveat that you have the Federal Government's permission.
What does it take to get permission? Why, simply a written request, a set of fingerprints, and your friendly local PD signing off that you have no criminal record or mental instability on record. It's not as though there's some power-hungry bureaucrat behind a desk giggling maniacally as he denies NFA requests..

I say that complaining about it is pointless because an activity being FUN isn't a criteria for legality, and that's what nrgetik's whole position was...that it was just FUN. It's one thing to take a position on the subject having some research under your belt...it's completely another to complain that the "man" is keeping you down after realizing that there's no loophole in the law that you can wiggle through to get what you want.

About the Supreme Court - on the contrary, what the Supreme Court says actually is truth, at least until the come back and change their minds. They are the highest judicial body in the country, and their job is to interpret the laws set forth by the other two bodies of government. Their point of view IS law.

I looked at the "Aux weapon" and I have to say I'm not impressed. I wouldn't want it in combat any more than I would want various other crap hanging off of my weapon. I spent two years in a combat zone and I have a healthy list of weapons I would want before we started talking about hanging a shotgun off the bottom of my M4.
I didn't forget about the M16..I didn't include it for two reasons: 3-round burst is not considered (except by civilians) to be in any way full-auto, and in my two years in Iraq the only time I EVER used 3-round burst was clearing houses. Close in, less than 10 meters, P&S. Clearing block after block of hostile houses is not something I'd think you guys here in the real world have to worry much about.

So my point is that it's not the NFA that is pointless. If you want a full-auto, then just comply with the regulations and buy one. So what if the gov't knows you have one? If our intentions are as innocent as we proclaim then does it really matter? After all... what are they going to do? Come take it away from you?

[OJ]

I think it is a mistake to assume the BATFE uses anything like logical thinking about anything.

IIRC, the NFA was passed in 1934 primarily to limit possession of Thompson submachine guns - because those guns were considered the "weapon of choice" for bootleggers - never mind prohibition was repealed the year before in 1933 when the 21st amendment was ratified.

Being able to get that law passed, they felt free to include all kinds of things such as silencers and such for which there was no logical reason to restrict.

I am well acquainted with those "other things" because I had an H&R Handy Gun - .410 pistol with 12" barrel, single shot, chambered only for a 2 1/2" shell. Now, that gun was no threat as an offensive or defensive weapon but it had to be registered and the cost was $200.00!!! A fair piece of change in 1934.

I had to list a reason for owning such a weapon and I stated I was a gun collector.

I was almost 8 years old!

Attempts to get that gun off the list over the past 72 years have not been successful - even though the BATFE reclassified it as a "Curio & Relic".

Never mind that T/C produces a similar gun which is OK because it has a rifled barrel.

The BATFE is probably the worst of government agency arrogance and, as far as I know, has never been found to be reasonable or rational in their actions.

Yesterday, I was at the range zeroing new sights on my M1A and the gentleman beside me was shooting his fully automatic weapons. He had his 14 year old son along to teach him to shoot. He helped me put up some targets and was as fine and upstanding a gentleman as you could meet anywhere and not the kind a lot of people usually claim the kind are who shoot such weapons. Just think how much he contributes toward supporting our ammo producers.

Rant over.

[pickpocket]

True...and it's exactly that artificial lack of supply and resultant increase in price that keeps a large majority of people from buying them - even underground.

There will always be exceptions, there will always be the guy who bought his illegal full-auto on the black market and killed people with it. But the NFA is the 80/20 solution.

[OJ]

The $200 tax is nothing. If that was the only issue, there would be no issue.

Today it's not but, it was pretty steep in 1934. That was a respectable monthly income for a family then and a new Chevy then cost $350.00!!

[Hkmp5sd]

One thing to consider is that the restrictions DO make it more difficult to get your hands on a full-auto weapon, whether your intentions be innocent or not. And I'm fairly happy that the odds against me having to use my carry weapon against someone with a full-auto are pretty slim. -pickpocket

And the drug laws make it more difficult to get your hands on some crack cocaine, heroin, pot, or any other drug, eh?

I don't know where you live, but if I desired an illegal machinegun, I could obtain one within 12-24 hours. That is a factory manufactured machinegun, not some converted piece of junk. It took about 60 days for each of my legal machineguns.

Are you aware that there is absolutely no difference in your opinion of gun laws and those of Sarah Brady? You both support restrictions on classes of firearms based on your fear of them. The only difference is you draw the line at full-auto weapons and she draws the line at semi-automatic weapons.

[pickpocket]

Do you see my point? Criminals have them. The police have them. The military has them. Law abiding citizens generally can't, because of artificially inflated cost.

The only hole in your logic is that it costs criminals a pretty penny as well because of the huge vacuum in supply due to legislation and the ATF. A fully-auto AK is not as easy to get as many people make out. It's really not as though all you have to do is walk down the street to your local drug dealer and fork over $400. If anyone has an experience to the contrary, I would welcome a refute. If you want to buy a full-auto on the black-market, you're STILL going to spend several thousand. Why? Because the people who sell weapons underground know that full-autos are a high-value commodity and that they're only used for one purpose. Add to that the fact that only certain types of criminals are more likely to have several thousand to spend on a weapon - esp. if they're shopping underground. Your everyday thug isn't going to have the money to carry around a full-auto AK.
So we're talking about percentages, just as with everything else: Car crashes, smoking deaths, stabbings, chopsticks in the eye....whatever. There are going to be people out there who have full-autos illegally. They are not as prevalent as some doomsday theorists would have you believe...that's why things like this:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tmotive29.html
And Columbine - and a hundred other shootings over the past several years - aren't worse.
If you really want one, you're going to do whatever you can do find one. If your intent is just to go shoot someone, then chances are you're going to take whatever you can get and aren't going to spend a lot of effort in getting a full-auto on the black market. It's all percentages, people. The increased cost and decreased availability have impacted both sides of the legal line.

We already have enough of a battle keeping the bliss-ninnyies from taking our right to carry away. I don't wish to try to justify a desire to own a fully-automatic weapon without registering it in the same breath.

[pickpocket]

I don't fear them. I simply don't believe that arguing for the right to own one is productive when we're already fighting off people wanting to take away what we DO have. I support the law because it's already in place, and it doesn't PREVENT you from getting a machine gun if you want one. If your intentions are innocent and responsible, then 60 days shouldn't bother you too much...especially since many states take that long to approve a CHL. There are CCW holster makers that take that long to deliver a holster, so again...shouldn't be a problem to wait, right?

YOU can get one within 24 hours? You are an exception....I would also be interested to know if that could REALLY be done or if that is simply an assumption that you can walk down to the crack dealer's house at the end of the street and order one at the drive through. Many people assume it can be done...few can actually do it. An interesting consideration would be how much would it cost you, and that's if your "source" is even legit.
If you actually can, then you are an exception. I have known unsavory people my entire life and I can tell you in my experience it's not as easy as you imply for EVERYONE...and I live in Houston, not Smallville USA.

The difference between weapons and drugs is the difference between supply and demand. There are a LOT more drugs in this country - and a LOT more willing importers - than there are for illegal weapons.

[nrgetik]

I do not have time to read everything that was posted since my last post, unfortunately.

One statement caught my eye however...

he's trying his hardest to find a LOOPHOLE in the pre-existing law so that he can get around it and purchase new ones.

This is NOT what I am trying to do and WAS NEVER my intention. I take GREAT offense to this statement, so pickpocket: you are officially an a*shole.

I don't know the law NEARLY as well as some of the people on this forum, and I realized that, so as different ideas and notions came to me, I simply ASKED if they were legal or not; if they would work. Following some of that, I privately messaged a couple people and straight out asked them what the BEST route for me to take would be in LEGALLY OBTAINING A FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARM. Because, I knew there was more than one and I didn't have the time to research it myself, so I thanked those that gave me their input. I attached a screenshot of one such PM.

Again, pickpocket is a certified ass.

[Hkmp5sd]

...shouldn't be a problem to wait, right?

What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do you not understand?

....I would also be interested to know if that could REALLY be done

I'm well known as a gun fanatic among friends and co-workers. I get guns offered to me all of the time. Occasionally, that includes machineguns. So I know who has some and/or someone that can get them. The last one offered me was a .380 MAC for $250.

And Columbine - and a hundred other shootings over the past several years - aren't worse.

Have you ever fired a machinegun? It is my opinion that had the idiots at Columbine been using full-auto weapons, fewer people would have been killed. Why do you think the military did away with full-auto M16s and use 3-round bursts? Without extensive practice, hitting anything with a machinegun is very tough with sustained firing.

[pickpocket]

Originally Posted by hkmp5sd

What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do you not understand?

None. What I obviously missed was the part in the dictionary where "infringed" was exchanged for "inconvenienced".

I'm well known as a gun fanatic among friends and co-workers. I get guns offered to me all of the time. Occasionally, that includes machineguns. So I know who has some and/or someone that can get them. The last one offered me was a .380 MAC for $250.

Then, as I stated, you are a statistical exception.

Have you ever fired a machinegun?

Actually, yes. And there are probably only a handful of people here who have as much experience.

It is my opinion that had the idiots at Columbine been using full-auto weapons, fewer people would have been killed.

Or maybe their tactics would have changed. What do you think a full-auto would have done in the hallways between classes? Or in the crowded cafeteria during lunch?

Without extensive practice, hitting anything with a machinegun is very tough with sustained firing

Thank you for arguing my original point for me. So you're saying that without extensive training that people wouldn't be able to effectively employ the fully automatic weapons that you're all vehemently arguing about? What would you do with them then? Use them ineffectively? Some argument for repeal of the NFA that makes.


And for nrgetik:

Originally Posted by nrgetik

This is NOT what I am trying to do and WAS NEVER my intention. I take GREAT offense to this statement, so pickpocket: you are officially an a*shole

Additionally, are there any loopholes that I should know about that WOULD enable me to own such things, legally and practically? I live in Florida.

What if I went to another country, procured an automatic weapon of some kind, took it COMPLETELY apart, and shipped every individual piece back to the United States? What would happen then?

what if i purchased a fully automatic firearm in/from another country that was produced before the ban went into effect in the U.S. and had it shipped to a class 3 dealer in the U.S. or something?

Obviously it is more important to you that you do your best on every shot, but I wouldn't necessarily say we're on other ends of the spectrum. Although, I'm extremely glad I'm not like you. Extremely.

Yes, it is important to me. In my world people get killed if you're an idiot, choose fun over practicality, or make stupid decisions. We most definitely ARE on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I've been called much worse, and by people whose opinions I hold in higher regard.

[gunslinger555]

3-round burst is not considered (except by civilians) to be in any way full-auto

obviously the atf does and the nfa defines them as a full auto

A fully-auto AK is not as easy to get as many people make out. It's really not as though all you have to do is walk down the street to your local drug dealer and fork over $400. If anyone has an experience to the contrary, I would welcome a refute. If you want to buy a full-auto on the black-market, you're STILL going to spend several thousand. Why? Because the people who sell weapons underground know that full-autos are a high-value commodity and that they're only used for one purpose. Add to that the fact that only certain types of criminals are more likely to have several thousand to spend on a weapon - esp. if they're shopping underground. Your everyday thug isn't going to have the money to carry around a full-auto AK.

the last time i was ofered an ak full auto it was 200 bucks he also sead he would sel me a tec-9 full auto for 100 the ak was imported illeagaly and made in egypt never converted to semi the tec was an open bolt converted to full. if i take a 2 hour trip back to my home town i can get a full auto ak under 400 within 20 min of getting into town

[pickpocket]

Ok, I'll take the hit on 3-round burst.

As for you getting an AK - you and HK are two out of how many? I accept that there are exceptions to the rule, and you two are obviously exceptions. That being said, if it's that easy and AK's are THAT easy to get....can you explain why most of the gun crimes are still being committed with semi's? That's my point.

Of all the methods I know of to get one illegally, the least would cost is 1G. So I guess it just depends.

If they were univerally that easy to get, then people would be using them - and then the NFA would have already been attacked on that front and we would have either SUCCEEDED or gotten what rights we DO have restricted even further.

I'm sorry guys, but exceptions don't prove the rule. I'm all for people having a blast with whatever is legal for them to have, and I just don't see the caveats placed on NFA-governed weapons as oppressive and overly restrictive. They're still legal to own, you just have to follow a few simple rules. It seems that THAT is the rub in this thread, not the legality.

[gunslinger555]

True...and it's exactly that artificial lack of supply and resultant increase in price that keeps a large majority of people from buying them - even underground.

you mean legally because like i sead it would cost me 200 buck for a f/a ak illegaly

Why, simply a written request, a set of fingerprints, and your friendly local PD signing off that you have no criminal record or mental instability on record.

what if the cleo does not want to sign it? thair are police that are against private firearms ownership and would never sign of for a f/a

So what if the gov't knows you have one? If our intentions are as innocent as we proclaim then does it really matter? After all... what are they going to do? Come take it away from you?

history tends to repeat itself look at all the countries that passed registration. they are just waiting until all the firearms are regisered hire

[pickpocket]

As for America following allong with all of the other countries to require registered firearms...could you imagine the backlash if Uncle Sam started taking them away from the entire nation? It doesn't even stand to reason that the government would attempt it on that scale.

As for the CLEO not signing because of personal views... this is something I'm sketchy on. Seems to me if the legal requirements were met then he can only stall for so long. That's the thing about living here...we have legal recourse to address these kinds of things. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has knowledge or experience on this particular subject.

[nrgetik]

I admit to my mistake, I used the wrong wording, my intention is not to dodge the law.

You're still an ass.

[gunslinger555]

ive heard of a guy on these forums in origon not being able to get a nfa item simply because his local cleo's would not sign the paper work but i dont know from expirience

nrgetik, hire is a good page for you the also have a forumhttp://www.nfaoa.org

[Phobos]

The problem is not that the NFA artificially increases prices; if that was the problem, then there would be no problem. The problem is that I can NOT own NEWLY MANUFACTURED MACHINE GUNS, per the 1986 ban.

It's a problem of price AND "illegal technology".

[Hkmp5sd]

....can you explain why most of the gun crimes are still being committed with semi's?

Because most criminals do not want full-auto weapons. In addition to the federal law violations, a normal handgun meets their requirements much better.

[MicroBalrog]

So my question to you is [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] would you do with it that you feel SO strongly about?

Only a basic civil, human, and (for Americans) constitutional right, Pickpocket.

Nothing really IMPORTANT or anything.

[pickpocket]

This whole thread and you choose that ONE line to quote? We've moved well past that at this point.

But you know what? That's just the thing of it...and why I take the opposing stance an many arguments.

People are quick to hold up the "My rights have been infringed" sign... but there's no substance to your argument. Anyone can argue that it's a RIGHT. As for this SINGULAR subject - nobody's rights have been infringed...they've only been inconvenienced.

Some people here have compared me with Sarah Brady. They say that the only difference is that I draw the line in a different place than she does. I may draw the line at full-autos while she draws them at semi's. Well, doesn't the line have to be drawn somewhere? Who, then, decides where? Who decides what gets restricted and what doesn't? SOMEONE is going to complain no matter what - because that's the American way...to complain when we don't get our way. And with several hundred million people in this country, it's damn difficult to please everyone.
If the line isn't drawn at fully-automatic weapons, then where does it get drawn? Apache helicopters? 27mm chain-guns? 25mm cannons? M1A1 Abrahms? 105mm howitzers? Tactical nukes?

The arguments that many on this thread have made time and again is that the 2nd Amendment allows citizenry to possess militia-style weapons such as are in current use (arguably by the military) at the time. So by that same logic if you remove all restrictions on full-autos then private citizens should also legally be allowed to own an AH-1W attack helicopter. It sounds ludicrous, and it is. But the logic people are applying doesn't allow for anything less without contradicting themselves by suggesting that certain types of weapons systems be limited or restricted. You are simply advocating moving the line, implying that you are more qualified to determine what should and shouldn't be restricted than the next guy...which is how this whole situation got started in the first place.

So my whole point is that if we're going to argue for the repeal of the NFA (and all the rest of the restrictive firearms legislation) then it really should be done in a more intelligent manner than by simply saying "It's my right to own whatever I want to own".... because we all know that we live in a society..and societies must have rules, no matter what people think of them.

[Hkmp5sd]

As for the CLEO not signing because of personal views... this is something I'm sketchy on. Seems to me if the legal requirements were met then he can only stall for so long. That's the thing about living here...we have legal recourse to address these kinds of things. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has knowledge or experience on this particular subject.

(M20) Is the chief law enforcement officer required to sign the law enforcement certification?

No. Although ATF cannot approve an application to make or transfer an NFA weapon without a law enforcement certification, no official is required to sign the certification.



(M21) If the chief law enforcement official whose jurisdiction includes the proposed transferee's residence refuses to sign the "law enforcement certification," will the signature of an official in another jurisdiction be acceptable?

No.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m20

Actually, yes. And there are probably only a handful of people here who have as much experience.

You would be surprised how many people on this board have shot machineguns. BTW, I currently own three machineguns.

[JohnBrowning]

"A fully-auto AK is not as easy to get as many people make out. It's really not as though all you have to do is walk down the street to your local drug dealer and fork over $400. If anyone has an experience to the contrary, I would welcome a refute."

This seems to be a touchy subject on TFL, because every time its brought up, you see a flood of responses about getting pounded in the ass in federal prison, and/or a thread lock.

The truth is, price of black market MG's all depends who you get them from. Every time the guns change hands, the price goes up. Typically, black market machine guns are smuggled in from other countries. It is indeed much easier than you think to get machine guns off the black market, and that goes for anywhere in the world.

When I was in high school, I knew several nefarious punks, and they offered me many guns, the most notable being my choice of BXP's or Israeli Uzi's for $800. each, and leftover world war II thompsons for $1,000. each. I was offered AK's, but I don't remember a price.

The thing to remember is, laws do not effect criminals, so they do not stop the flourishing black market. If you wanted to take your chances and get an illegal full auto, you could do it very easily by getting in touch with someone in the drug trade. Most small time dealers don't sell guns, but they certainly have contacts.

[pickpocket]

You would be surprised how many people on this board have shot machineguns. BTW, I currently own three machineguns.

No, I wouldn't be surprised. The comment was not designed to dismiss anyone else's experience or training... so if the shoe fits, wear it.
We certainly don't need to sit around thumping our chests to see whose is bigger, do we? The argument is over the moment people feel compelled to start throwing credentials around.

Rather than have this turn into a pissing match, I think we can just accept that people may have varying degrees of experience without being condescending. My point was that I do have experience with fully-automatic weapons systems, and more than the average bear.

Good call on the FAQ from the ATF. My feeling, however, is that there MUST be some kind of accountability or policy governing this - otherwise it is simply up to the whims of an individual that may or may not be based in any legal foundation. THAT would be infringement, and I imagine you would most certainly have legal grounds to pursue means to move the process forward. If you get denied, I would imagine that the law provides a mechanism for obtaining an explanation, especially if you fit all the criteria set forth by the federal government. A CLEO might be able to stall..but like I said before, I think it could only be for so long without an explanation.
It might be a real pain in the neck at that point, but it would be interesting to see how that turned out.

[Hkmp5sd]

is that there MUST be some kind of accountability or policy governing this - otherwise it is simply up to the whims of an individual that may or may not be based in any legal foundation.

Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226

Mr. ..........
..............
..............

Dear Mr. ..........

This is in response to your recent follow-up inquiry to our May 5, 1992
letter about law enforcement officers in the State of Kentucky having
authority to execute the law enforcement certification on Part 3 of ATF
Form 4, application for Taxpaid Transfer and Registration of Firearm.

State and local officials are not legally obligated to execute the
certification on the Form 4, even if the transferee is qualified to
receive the firearm and has no criminal history. In Steele v. National
Firearms Act Branch, et al., No. 82-2013-Civ.-ARONOVITZ, (S.D. Fla. Dec.
6, 1985), the court held that the sole burden imposed by 27 CFR section
179.85 is upon the transferee to obtain the certification and that no
requirement is imposed on any law enforcement officer by virtue of the
regulation. The court noted that action by a law enforcement officer
in this regard is purely discretionary, and that the officer may certify
the transfer or may refuse to do so.

As you know, the provisions of 27 C.F.R. 179.85 require that the Form 4
transfer application include "(a) certificate of the local chief of police,
sheriff of the county, head of the State police, State or local district
attorney or prosecutor or such other person whose certificate may in a
particular be acceptable to the Director." In several instances, judges
have been to be acceptable certifying officials if they preside over courts
of general jurisdiction having original jurisdiction in all civil and
criminal matters, and if they have jurisdiction over the district where the
transferee resides. Therefore, you may wish to check with the judges in
your area.

In order to determine the jurisdiction of the State criminal court judge,
it is necessary to get an overview of the court system in Kentucky. The
Constitution of Kentucky, sections 110-113, provides for the establishment
of a Supreme Court, court of Appeals, circuit court, and district court.
The Supreme Court and Court of appeals have appellate jurisdiction only.
Ky. Const. Paras. 110 and 111. Therefore, judges from these courts would
not be acceptable as certifying officials on ATF Form 4.

The circuit court is a court of general jurisdiction; it has original
jurisdiction of all cases not exclusively vested in some other court.
KY. REV. STAT. ANN. Para 23A.010 (Baldwin 1991). Thus, a circuit court
judge would be an acceptable certifying official. Finally, the district
court is a court of limited jurisdiction, with original jurisdiction over
civil cases which do not exceed $4,000 and over misdemeanor criminal
violations. However, the district court does have concurrent jurisdiction
with the circuit court over felony cases. KY. REV. STAT, Ann. Paras.
24A.110-24A.130 (Baldwin 1991). Therefore, a district court judge would
also be an acceptable certifying official.

Accordingly, if the State criminal court judge in question is a district
court judge or a circuit court judge, he or she would be an acceptable
certifying official. However as previously stated, to be acceptable, a
certifying official must also have jurisdiction over the place where the
transferee resides.

We trust this has been responsive to your request.

Sincerely.

[signed]

Wayne Miller
Chief, National Firearms Act Branch

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wb...tf_letter5.txt

[pickpocket]

Well I guess that settles THAT. I didn't happen to have one of those letters on hand..
However, there IS this:

As you know, the provisions of 27 C.F.R. 179.85 require that the Form 4 transfer application include "(a) certificate of the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, head of the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor or such other person whose certificate may in a particular be acceptable to the Director." In several instances, judges
have been to be acceptable certifying officials if they preside over courts of general jurisdiction having original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters, and if they have jurisdiction over the district where the transferee resides. Therefore, you may wish to check with the judges in your area.

So it's not as though you've hit a brick wall. I still would think that at some level you are due an explanation.