Firearms Section

[jbotta]

Originally Posted by kalimus

You're only supposed to have them with the expensive "stamp" and other nonsense that comes with them. Even Texas abides by the National Firearms Act....

live in indiana, open carry for life, love it

[jbotta]

Originally Posted by camaroc5

Those are sweet sights. I was looking for that setup. Instead I have a variable zoom illuminated scope with a fixed scope mount that has a rail above each scope ring. Holograph site is mounted on top

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

nice

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by jbotta

live in indiana, open carry for life, love it

was talking about the machine guns

[Pappa Joe]

]no one successfully robed him


ok i have a question for you gun nuts, in the future (maybe 4 years or so) i wanna purchase a fire arm my question is can you LEGALLY purchase M14 or M1A1 Garand Rifle in the USA?

i know i would have to get a gun license (and other things )[/QUOTE]
You mean one of these I have one and im in Canada! exp though

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Look I'm all for the second amendment but in all the discussions I have with our opponents on this issue your point where we have the right to equal or greater firepower to the government is the losing argument.

It is and has been illegal to own a fully automatic weapon for some time. And you won't win many arguments that you should win an Abrahms tank, an F18 Hornet or an aircraft to park it on.

I laughed at Obsmas quote that weapons designed for the theater of war shouldn't be used in a theater simply because iv all out men and women had were AR15s Ed eould be in truly sad shape.

So I understand and respect your point but taken to the extreme I'm not sure how to suggest we should own stealth drone aircraft to defend ourselves from our government.

As for having GREATER force than anyone threatening my fily or home well I'm right there with you!!!! That's the argument ghat makes most people I debate this topic with at least take pause.

Why not? An Abrams tank costs almost $9 million and an F-18 Hornet costs around $60 million. It's not like a normal Joe on the street can just go buy one at the next gun show.

But if a billionaire got bored and wanted to buy one, why should he not be allowed to? If he has the money to buy military tanks or aircraft, he probably has the money to afford some training. And at the same time, I highly doubt even the most eccentric billionaire would be so bored as to take that tank or aircraft and use it to attack anyone.

Hell, the least expensive fully automatic firearm still costs upwards of $5,000. It's not exactly a readily available item that just anyone can go out and buy. Cost is a big factor in prohibiting most people from purchasing the heavier armaments. As it should be.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 doesn't ban anything. It simply requires that a person trying to buy one legally go through a few more hoops to prove that they're sane and don't have a record.

I should be legally allowed to purchase whatever I want if I have the money and am a sane law-abiding citizen. The 2nd Amendment protects this right.

And if your best argument for people not being allowed to buy something is that people don't need it, then the same could be said for a LOT of things, not just firearms. And who's going to be the person to make that judgement of whether an item is a need versus want item?

Do you need a Camaro SS with 400hp?

[Dznts]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Why not? An Abrams tank costs almost $9 million and an F-18 Hornet costs around $60 million. It's not like a normal Joe on the street can just go buy one at the next gun show.

But if a billionaire got bored and wanted to buy one, why should he not be allowed to? If he has the money to buy military tanks or aircraft, he probably has the money to afford some training. And at the same time, I highly doubt even the most eccentric billionaire would be so bored as to take that tank or aircraft and use it to attack anyone.

Hell, the least expensive fully automatic firearm still costs upwards of $5,000. It's not exactly a readily available item that just anyone can go out and buy. Cost is a big factor in prohibiting most people from purchasing the heavier armaments. As it should be.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 doesn't ban anything. It simply requires that a person trying to buy one legally go through a few more hoops to prove that they're sane and don't have a record.

I should be legally allowed to purchase whatever I want if I have the money and am a sane law-abiding citizen. The 2nd Amendment protects this right.

And if your best argument for people not being allowed to buy something is that people don't need it, then the same could be said for a LOT of things, not just firearms. And who's going to be the person to make that judgement of whether an item is a need versus want item?

Do you need a Camaro SS with 400hp?

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Why not? An Abrams tank costs almost $9 million and an F-18 Hornet costs around $60 million. It's not like a normal Joe on the street can just go buy one at the next gun show.

But if a billionaire got bored and wanted to buy one, why should he not be allowed to? If he has the money to buy military tanks or aircraft, he probably has the money to afford some training. And at the same time, I highly doubt even the most eccentric billionaire would be so bored as to take that tank or aircraft and use it to attack anyone.

Hell, the least expensive fully automatic firearm still costs upwards of $5,000. It's not exactly a readily available item that just anyone can go out and buy. Cost is a big factor in prohibiting most people from purchasing the heavier armaments. As it should be.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 doesn't ban anything. It simply requires that a person trying to buy one legally go through a few more hoops to prove that they're sane and don't have a record.

I should be legally allowed to purchase whatever I want if I have the money and am a sane law-abiding citizen. The 2nd Amendment protects this right.

And if your best argument for people not being allowed to buy something is that people don't need it, then the same could be said for a LOT of things, not just firearms. And who's going to be the person to make that judgement of whether an item is a need versus want item?

Do you need a Camaro SS with 400hp?

I have mixed feelings about tanks and fighter jets myself. I don't necessarily think a person should not have them... but I don't think there is even a mild justification to have one. However I see them as less of a risk as a typical handgun. The one argument you would never get around though, in my opinion, is the standard... uhhhh... "left" argument: "That was designed for military combat". There really isn't a "demilitarized" version of them. They truly are machines designed for wartime. They are not personal protection devices. Even the president doesn't get driven to work in a tank lol.

However.... I would be curious to the legalities. US vs Miller is what passed judgement to say that you do NOT have the right to own a weapon that does not have some reasonable use for a militia. For example, sawed off shotguns. The statement in the ruling was this:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

A tank though... that DOES have that reasonable relationship. But now you've got another problem... "Miller" also protected the rights to bare arms that were "common use". A tank or a fighter jet does not qualify as "common use". Because they aren't commonly owned.

From a legal standpoint, the same ruling that provides our right to keep weapons that have "reasonable relationship" to militia, also prohibits someone from buying a tank because of the "common use" clause.

[CamaroSkooter]

There's affluent individuals who privately own several tanks, mostly World War 1 and 2 era tanks, but still tanks.

Check out this collection.

There are also wealthy individuals who own several military aircraft. Again, mostly from World War 1 and 2 era, but still military aircraft.

Most currently used military aircraft contain a hefty amount of classified technology. So, in that respect, I completely agree that private citizens should probably not be legally allowed to own classified military technology.

However, if an aircraft or tank has been fully declassified, then I believe it should be completely legal for a private citizen to be able to purchase that piece of machinery. Someone with the kind of money and time to be able to purchase, restore, and maintain these machines is likely a pretty civilized individual and it's doubtful they'd ever attempt to use their collection to attack other people.

There's a guy in California who owns a Harrier jet. When's the last time you heard of him straffing the closest public mall with 50-caliber machine gun fire?

Here's a pretty good link showing what kinds of aircraft you can get if you've got the right amount of dough.

[EM1/SS]

Originally Posted by kalimus

You're only supposed to have them with the expensive "stamp" and other nonsense that comes with them. Even Texas abides by the National Firearms Act....

I do have the stamps that go with them. They are all legal, why would you think they aren't.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by EM1/SS

I do have the stamps that go with them. They are all legal, why would you think they aren't.

I think it was the way you said it.

"You should look into moving to a free state. I lived in Illinois before I moved to PA 17 years ago. I oun 7 machine guns"

Because getting the license to own machine guns has little to do with how free your state is. Made it sound like you just rolled up somewhere and picked them up in a shop as common practice. The stamps are a Fed thing, not a state thing. That's why I was confused when you talked about moving states.

[driyac]

Originally Posted by kalimus

I think it was the way you said it.

"You should look into moving to a free state. I lived in Illinois before I moved to PA 17 years ago. I oun 7 machine guns"

Because getting the license to own machine guns has little to do with how free your state is. Made it sound like you just rolled up somewhere and picked them up in a shop as common practice. The stamps are a Fed thing, not a state thing. That's why I was confused when you talked about moving states.

The Stamps are yes, however you need to have the police chief of that county you reside in sign off on the application. MANYYY MANNNNYYYYYYYY police chiefs will not sign off on it in counties across the country. Here in OHIO the Police Chief of my county is very strict and rarely signs them from what I have heard.

In a free state the chief has no discretion.

So no, you are incorrect in the getting a machine gun has little to do with how free your state is.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by driyac

The Stamps are yes, however you need to have the police chief of that county you reside in sign off on the application. MANYYY MANNNNYYYYYYYY police chiefs will not sign off on it in counties across the country. Here in OHIO the Police Chief of my county is very strict and rarely signs them from what I have heard.

In a free state the chief has no discretion.

So no, you are incorrect in the getting a machine gun has little to do with how free your state is.

Which "free states" are those? Do you know a state code that says the CLEO "shall sign" the document? I'm curious. There are none that I'm aware of, and Federal law states "may sign", not "shall sign".

And even if they choose not to sign, it doesn't NEED to be the CLEO that signs it. There are other authorities you can get to sign, and you can even go as far as to set up the deal with a Trust Lawyer (which is fairly inexpensive as I understand it), bypassing the CLEO completely. In addition, the NFA states that the CLEO has to give reason to not sign, and there have been a few successful court cases forcing them to sign (along with a couple that said they don't).

So still... unless you're one of the few states that they are outright illegal (amazingly CA not being one of them), the process has little to do with the state.

[driyac]

Originally Posted by kalimus

Which "free states" are those? Do you know a state code that says the CLEO "shall sign" the document? I'm curious. There are none that I'm aware of, and Federal law states "may sign", not "shall sign".

And even if they choose not to sign, it doesn't NEED to be the CLEO that signs it. There are other authorities you can get to sign, and you can even go as far as to set up the deal with a Trust Lawyer (which is fairly inexpensive as I understand it), bypassing the CLEO completely. In addition, the NFA states that the CLEO has to give reason to not sign, and there have been a few successful court cases forcing them to sign (along with a couple that said they don't).

So still... unless you're one of the few states that they are outright illegal (amazingly CA not being one of them), the process has little to do with the state.

Alright so you agreed with me that a CLEO or other will need to sign. If not than yes a corporation can be created and be used instead.

THen you disagreed with me that it is not a state issue????

Yes it is, example being OHIO does not auto sign and it is up to the Chief of police or sheriff of the county to sign. And Since Ohio is not a non nfa state, me having them sign it is completed based on if they want to or not.

They are acting on behalf of the state of Ohio. Therefore = state issue.

line 17 of federal form 4. Says to reference 2e. Line 17 HAS TO BE SIGNED.

Here is line 2e
Law Enforcement Certification. Item 17 must be completed for an
individual transferee, unless the transferee is licensed as a manufacturer,
importer, or dealer under the GCA and is a special (occupational) taxpayer
under the NFA at the time of the submission of the application for transfer.
The chief law enforcement officer is considered to be the Chief of Police for
the transferee's city or town of residence; the Sheriff for the transferee's
county of residence; the Head of the State Police for the transferee's State of
residence; a State or local district attorney or prosecutor having jurisdiction
inthe transferee's area of residence; or another person whose certification is
acceptable to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives. If someone has specific delegated authority to sign on behalf of
the Chief of Police, Sheriff, etc., this fact must be noted by printing the
Chief's, Sheriff's, or other authorized official's name and title, followed by the
word "by" and the full signature and title of the delegated person. The
certificate must be dated no more than one year prior to the date of receipt of
the application.



The gentlemans point is that instead of the Officers having the upper hand in nfa states, a free state (non nfa) the citizen has the upper hand.

[driyac]

Here is me trying the magpul B.A.D. lever for the first time!