FLY Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago 7 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said: Machine guns have been regulated in this country since 1934. They cannot be sold without prior having obtained permission from the chief law enforcement officer in the county of residence, fingerprints, and extensive background search. Firearms generally available in local gun stores are not fully-automatic machine guns, but rather semiautomatic, firing one round with each separate trigger-pull. I hope that answers your question. But they have come for the machine guns. Specifically in 1934 and 1986 The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 "The Act also contained a provision that banned the sale to civilians of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."
Incorrigible1 Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago On 8/14/2024 at 11:46 AM, Incorrigible1 said: The last civilian-legal "machine gun" was manufactured in 1986. Unnecessary drama. As I've already noted.
Huntster Posted 3 hours ago Author Posted 3 hours ago 4 hours ago, FLY said: But they have come for the machine guns. Specifically in 1934 and 1986........... Correct to a point. To be precise, in 1934 automatic firearms were no longer legal to possess without paying a tax and possessing a permit, and 1986 was the last year of automatic weapon manufacture which could be owned. This is more a legal closing of possession than government actually "coming for" them. I submit that the legal strangling is in every way an "infringement". I do understand and agree with the legal principle of registering and regulating ordnance and crew-served weaponry. We just can't allow every Joe Blow to have hand grenades, artillery pieces, or belt-fed machine guns. I'm not sure that a select fire rifle qualifies as such a weapon, but (after a century of fighting crime with such weapons involved), I consider it a struggle beyond my influence. I don't need an automatic rifle, and I am not interested in buying and stocking the quantity of ammunition such a rifle can burn up,. I've fired machine guns, and it was fun, but Uncle Sugar paid for every bit of it (even paying me to do it). I'm not going to invest in it.
Incorrigible1 Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago They haven't come for the pre-1986 machine guns. They're still legally possessed.
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago Unless it's an M-14, it isn't going to be portable to carry around for protection from sasquatches while simultaneously of an effective caliber..............although there are cases in Alaska of people killing bears with AR-15's in 5.56x45. https://alaskapublic.org/news/2019-01-16/polar-bear-encounter-reported-in-arctic-village-many-miles-south-of-normal-range (Note; the above story appears to have become a matter of hidden information almost immediately for unknown reasons.........I'll note the involvement of the feds..........)
Recommended Posts