Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/9/2004 5:15:14 AM EST
I know its old news but I was just wandering about it lately.
Poll coming.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:18:27 AM EST
Only flies if you live in Montana or Wyoming.

I checked it out. Every other state has a prohibition or restriction on Class 3.

The friendliest states allow full Class 3 rights when "In compliance with the NFA."
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:40:51 PM EST
you would still need a approved form 1.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:47:49 PM EST
I would build one if I gave a rat's ass about full auto, but I don't.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:30:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By cyrax777:
you would still need a approved form 1.




Negative, ATF allows you to construct 2 firearms for personal use.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:34:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By nationwide:
Only flies if you live in Montana or Wyoming.

I checked it out. Every other state has a prohibition or restriction on Class 3.

The friendliest states allow full Class 3 rights when "In compliance with the NFA."



Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, and it allows Title 2 firearms if they are owned and posessed legally under Federal Law.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:41:22 PM EST
Combat Jack,

What I meant was that Montana and Wyoming laws state that you may own a machine gun:

Montana- you may poses one for scientific study

Wyoming- you may poses one for "non-agressive purposes"

Every other state reg's that I've researched, and I went bonkers when I read US v. Stewart, only MT and WY do not make any reference whatsoever to compliance with the NFA
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:31:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By nationwide:
Only flies if you live in Montana or Wyoming.

I checked it out. Every other state has a prohibition or restriction on Class 3.

The friendliest states allow full Class 3 rights when "In compliance with the NFA."



Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit, and it allows Title 2 firearms if they are owned and posessed legally under Federal Law.


Yeah, AZ wants you to be legal with the feds, thats pretty much it.
If it were like Montana or Wyoming I'd have one.
Funny thing is they through out the charges on stewart.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 8:53:37 PM EST
Well., they threw out the NFA Violation charges...

He was in a world of shit to begin with. Some folks still don't understand you don't put a hit out on a Judge. Fed or otherwise!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 9:53:49 PM EST
Correct that whole attempting to hire someone to kill someone else is really stupid.

You do it yourself, silly
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 6:54:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By cyrax777:
you would still need a approved form 1.




Negative, ATF allows you to construct 2 firearms for personal use.



I havent heard this, would you please elaborate? building 2 NFA weapons for personal use? or two title 1 firearms?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:15:22 AM EST
I might hand carve on out of wood since I don't have CNC.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:26:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By markm:
I might hand carve on out of wood since I don't have CNC.



I have some large blocks of balsa that you're more than welcome to use.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:31:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 7:32:54 AM EST by Gloftoe]
Quoted from your other thread of the same title:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
You forgot the correct response in your poll:

"Fill out a Form 1, send it to the BATFE with a $200 check, and wait approval or denial."

That wacky 9th Circus ruling doesn't invalidate the NFA of 1934. You'd still have to apply a Form 1 asking permission to manufacture a machine gun.



The 9th's decision had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NFA OF 1934. It dealt with Interstate Commerce (something with the 1986 FOPA).

*********************HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION***********************
So you live in WY or MT. You build a machinegun, without a Form 1 sent to the
BATFE. You get caught with it. Guess what? That's a violation of FEDERAL law,
and doesn't make a damned bit of difference in what state you live. Your state
says it's legal? Fed doesn't care. It's trial and (most likely) jailtime.
*****************************************­**************************

Until the NFA of 1934 is modified or struck down (hasn't happened anywhere, not even in the 9th Circus), The Form 1 requirement for manufacture still stands.

Edit for the fakt that I kaint speel.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:39:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
Quoted from your other thread of the same title:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
You forgot the correct response in your poll:

"Fill out a Form 1, send it to the BATFE with a $200 check, and wait approval or denial."

That wacky 9th Circus ruling doesn't invalidate the NFA of 1934. You'd still have to apply a Form 1 asking permission to manufacture a machine gun.



The 9th's decision had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NFA OF 1934. It dealt with Interstate Commerce (something with the 1986 FOPA).

*********************HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION***********************
So you live in WY or MT. You build a machinegun, without a Form 1 sent to the
BATFE. You get caught with it. Guess what? That's a violation of FEDERAL law,
and doesn't make a damned bit of difference in what state you live. Your state
says it's legal? Fed doesn't care. It's trial and (most likely) jailtime.
*****************************************­**************************

Until the NFA of 1934 is modified or struck down (hasn't happened anywhere, not even in the 9th Circus), The Form 1 requirement for manufacture still stands.

Edit for the fakt that I kaint speel.


1934 NFA deals specificaly with the clause interstate commerce.
I have a copy somewhere, I will have to look it up.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 7:44:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By sonofbp:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
Quoted from your other thread of the same title:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
You forgot the correct response in your poll:

"Fill out a Form 1, send it to the BATFE with a $200 check, and wait approval or denial."

That wacky 9th Circus ruling doesn't invalidate the NFA of 1934. You'd still have to apply a Form 1 asking permission to manufacture a machine gun.



The 9th's decision had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NFA OF 1934. It dealt with Interstate Commerce (something with the 1986 FOPA).

*********************HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION***********************
So you live in WY or MT. You build a machinegun, without a Form 1 sent to the
BATFE. You get caught with it. Guess what? That's a violation of FEDERAL law,
and doesn't make a damned bit of difference in what state you live. Your state
says it's legal? Fed doesn't care. It's trial and (most likely) jailtime.
*****************************************­**************************

Until the NFA of 1934 is modified or struck down (hasn't happened anywhere, not even in the 9th Circus), The Form 1 requirement for manufacture still stands.

Edit for the fakt that I kaint speel.


1934 NFA deals specificaly with the clause interstate commerce.
I have a copy somewhere, I will have to look it up.



No, I think that'd be the 86 FOPA that dealt with the ICC.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 8:13:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 8:15:34 AM EST by nationwide]

Originally Posted By jtb33:

Originally Posted By sonofbp:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
Quoted from your other thread of the same title:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
You forgot the correct response in your poll:

"Fill out a Form 1, send it to the BATFE with a $200 check, and wait approval or denial."

That wacky 9th Circus ruling doesn't invalidate the NFA of 1934. You'd still have to apply a Form 1 asking permission to manufacture a machine gun.



The 9th's decision had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NFA OF 1934. It dealt with Interstate Commerce (something with the 1986 FOPA).

*********************HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION***********************
So you live in WY or MT. You build a machinegun, without a Form 1 sent to the
BATFE. You get caught with it. Guess what? That's a violation of FEDERAL law,
and doesn't make a damned bit of difference in what state you live. Your state
says it's legal? Fed doesn't care. It's trial and (most likely) jailtime.
*****************************************­**************************

Until the NFA of 1934 is modified or struck down (hasn't happened anywhere, not even in the 9th Circus), The Form 1 requirement for manufacture still stands.

Edit for the fakt that I kaint speel.


1934 NFA deals specificaly with the clause interstate commerce.
I have a copy somewhere, I will have to look it up.



No, I think that'd be the 86 FOPA that dealt with the ICC.



No, he's right. Where do you think Congress gets their legitimate authority to regulate machine guns from? It's their power to regulate commerce among the several states. That's why you have to buy a TAX Stamp

The decision of US v. Stewart addressed the fact that since the machine guns Stewart made, mostly from scratch, we're not talking assembling kits, the dude had machinist skills, and the fact that the completed weapons nor the majority of the critical parts never crossed a state line in their final (or usuable form) and since he never offered them for sale to ANYONE, the machine guns in question were neither transported INTERSTATE, nor involved in COMMERCE.

It's important to note, the court did say the the state (Arizona's) laws regarding machine guns were legitimate.

But you need a license to build a gun, right? um, no.


This is from the ATF...



(A7) Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? [Back]


With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms.
However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from
imported parts.


In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machinegun will not be
approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a federal or state agency.
[18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105]


Technically, within the ruling of the 9th Circuit you could do it because the text above in blue is not constitutional when applied to a homebuilt machine gun that never is sold, borrowed etc or leaves the state. However, State laws still apply. I would reccommend a good lawyer and a lifetime membership in the NRA prior to attempting to test this ruling.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:01:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By nationwide:

Originally Posted By jtb33:

Originally Posted By sonofbp:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
Quoted from your other thread of the same title:

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
You forgot the correct response in your poll:

"Fill out a Form 1, send it to the BATFE with a $200 check, and wait approval or denial."

That wacky 9th Circus ruling doesn't invalidate the NFA of 1934. You'd still have to apply a Form 1 asking permission to manufacture a machine gun.



The 9th's decision had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NFA OF 1934. It dealt with Interstate Commerce (something with the 1986 FOPA).

*********************HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION***********************
So you live in WY or MT. You build a machinegun, without a Form 1 sent to the
BATFE. You get caught with it. Guess what? That's a violation of FEDERAL law,
and doesn't make a damned bit of difference in what state you live. Your state
says it's legal? Fed doesn't care. It's trial and (most likely) jailtime.
*****************************************­**************************

Until the NFA of 1934 is modified or struck down (hasn't happened anywhere, not even in the 9th Circus), The Form 1 requirement for manufacture still stands.

Edit for the fakt that I kaint speel.


1934 NFA deals specificaly with the clause interstate commerce.
I have a copy somewhere, I will have to look it up.



No, I think that'd be the 86 FOPA that dealt with the ICC.



No, he's right. Where do you think Congress gets their legitimate authority to regulate machine guns from? It's their power to regulate commerce among the several states. That's why you have to buy a TAX Stamp

The decision of US v. Stewart addressed the fact that since the machine guns Stewart made, mostly from scratch, we're not talking assembling kits, the dude had machinist skills, and the fact that the completed weapons nor the majority of the critical parts never crossed a state line in their final (or usuable form) and since he never offered them for sale to ANYONE, the machine guns in question were neither transported INTERSTATE, nor involved in COMMERCE.

It's important to note, the court did say the the state (Arizona's) laws regarding machine guns were legitimate.

But you need a license to build a gun, right? um, no.


This is from the ATF...



(A7) Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? [Back]


With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms.
However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from
imported parts.


In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machinegun will not be
approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a federal or state agency.
[18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and 179.105]


Technically, within the ruling of the 9th Circuit you could do it because the text above in blue is not constitutional when applied to a homebuilt machine gun that never is sold, borrowed etc or leaves the state. However, State laws still apply. I would reccommend a good lawyer and a lifetime membership in the NRA prior to attempting to test this ruling.


Thanks That is what I have been looking for.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:37:56 AM EST
No problemo.
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 1:33:56 PM EST
So if you register a gun as a short-barrel, does that count as one of the two you're allowed to build? As I recall you have to mark the side of it with name and city/state because it's "manufacturing" an NFA weapon.
Anyone know for sure on this?
Balisong
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 5:40:42 PM EST
Now if an ordinary person who lives within the 9th Circuit Court area submits all the appropriate paperwork, signed application, pays the $200 tax and rereceives an approved Form 1 from the BATFE can that person then make a DIAS for personal use???
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 5:44:43 PM EST
I thought that some people had already tried that but that the BATF wasn't approving them...
Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:31:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 4:26:54 AM EST by innocent_bystander]
I think this topic has been beat to death here and on subguns. ATFE has said that they will not approve these. Rumor has it there was one form that was accidentally approved.

Full auto in AZ is only legal if it's registered with the NFA.



7. "Prohibited weapon" means, but does not include fireworks imported, distributed or used in compliance with state laws or local ordinances, any propellant, propellant actuated devices or propellant actuated industrial tools that are manufactured, imported or distributed for their intended purposes or a device that is commercially manufactured primarily for the purpose of illumination, including any of the following:

(a) Explosive, incendiary or poison gas:

(i) Bomb.

(ii) Grenade.

(iii) Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces.

(iv) Mine.

(b) Device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.

(c) Firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

(d) Rifle with a barrel length of less than sixteen inches, or shotgun with a barrel length of less than eighteen inches, or any firearm that is made from a rifle or shotgun and that, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

(e) Instrument, including a nunchaku, that consists of two or more sticks, clubs, bars or rods to be used as handles, connected by a rope, cord, wire or chain, in the design of a weapon used in connection with the practice of a system of self-defense.

(f) Breakable container that contains a flammable liquid with a flash point of one hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit or less and that has a wick or similar device capable of being ignited.

(g) Chemical or combination of chemicals, compounds or materials, including dry ice, that are placed in a sealed or unsealed container for the purpose of generating a gas to cause a mechanical failure, rupture or bursting of the container.

(h) Combination of parts or materials that is designed and intended for use in making or converting a device into an item set forth in subdivision (a) or (f) of this paragraph.

B. The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 7, subdivisions (a), (b), (c) and (d) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are registered in the national firearms registry and transfer records of the United States treasury department or any firearm that has been classified as a curio or relic by the United States treasury department.

Link Posted: 9/13/2004 6:50:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander:
(1) ATFE has said that they will not approve these. (2) Rumor has it there was on form that was accidentally approved.



Where'd you get that info?
Top Top