Regarding the NFA itself...(I think)

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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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".
 
....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.
 
So my question to you is WTF 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter5.txt
 
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.
 
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.
Ok, good point. I didn't actually want anyone to produce a reciept :) but I see your point.

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.
I'm not saying they're impossible to get, I'm saying that it's not as easy as driving to McDonald's and ordering one at the drive-through.
We all know people who say "Oh yeah? If I wanted one I could have one in 20 minutes"... but will never be able to deliver because it's just a bunch of **** talking.
I know exactly how easy it is to get them in certain parts of 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.
Right...and that was how long ago? I remember in HS I knew people that had AK's available, and that was more than 10 years ago. I'm in the 4th largest city in the nation and it would have cost about $2,000. Significanly less than what it would cost to purchase one legally, true...but still not easily available.

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.

True. BUT, if you have experience with this kind of thing, the people who have access to this stuff are not the most trusting people. Certain requests up the chain tend to get certain types of responses and require certain types of relationships be built. At the very least, people are going to do everything they can to distance themselves and make everything "safe"...
Again, the point is that while it's not as difficult as convincing a recaltricant CLEO to sign off on your request, it's also not as easy as walking up to someone on the street and offering them some money.

Laws don't affect criminals directly. But I'd bet that the ATF has reduced the availability...which drives up both cost and risk, even on the black market.
 
Do NOT obtain an unregistered fully automatic firearm. You will be eventually discovered and you will go to prison. They enforce this. It is an open and shut case and you might as well plead guilty because you ARE going to federal prison. You don't want that.

If you want one, pay the price and purchase one that is transferrable. And yes, you will have the ATF looking over your shoulder from time to time.
 
22-rimfire -
Thanks for the advice, but I think you've missed the point of the thread. Catch up and then let's see what you have to say.
 
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?

I vote for "anything which can conceivably be used without infringing on the rights of others". That disqualifies nukes due to their fallout and environmental effect.

As to the other ones:

Apache helicopters?

Yes.

27mm chain-guns? 25mm cannons? M1A1 Abrahms? 105mm howitzers?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
 
Back
Top