Gunco Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have heard talk about paying the $200 tax and filling out the paperwork to build a full-atuo AK in some states. This would be considered "manufacturing" a MG and requires the Class 3 paperwork. Can someone give me some firsthand experience with this and the legalities of it. I am very interested in owning a MG for collection and investment purposes. Any info. would be greatly appreciated. I have been checking into Recguns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Well I have been hearing rumors of approved from 1s in the 9th Circut Courts jurisdiction?? But I haven't seen anyone claiming that they have one step up to bat and post a scan...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Mike I heard something similar to that. I couldn't remember, though, who all was in this "area" that I remember reading in the article. If I'm not mistaken, Florida was in this Circuit. Couldn't remember if Georgia was,though. Where might one find out more about this? I've searched all over and can't find much of anything.

What are the requirements to have the FFL that allows you to manufacture MG's legally? Is it a Class 2 FFL that allows you to do this? And if it is, who are you able to make them for? Can you make them to sell to individuals who pay the tax stamp?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,900 Posts
Being able to own one, and being able to build one, are two totally different subjects.

The manufacture of full autos for the civilian market was banned in 86
Since then they can only be built for Military/LEO use
The only way you can own one is to find a transferable pre 86 model
plan on spending $8500 to $10,000 on it.
 

·
Master Endmill Breaker
Joined
·
1,367 Posts
Yep, It's really the pits! A brand new FN P90 is only about $1300 for LE or military types...

The 86 ban cuts off some really decent stuff and drives prices ridiculously high. I'd love to see an end to the draconian gun control bullshit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,143 Posts
I guess the transferable sten MK II I could've bought for $2500 would've been a steal. That was only a month ago. The person I know selling it is letting it go for half of what he sees them going for because of a non-original part that he had to put on there to fix a crack. Funny thing is the sten still runs excellent with the repair and if someone didn't know where the non original part was - well they probably wouldn't be able to tell. Even though I always enjoyed shooting it when he brought it to the range - I couldn't see spending that kind of cash on one gun (besides my wife wouldn't let me, lol). I think he still has it for sale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I've been thinking really hard lately about getting a MG for investment purposes. I've checked out Subguns.com and recguns.com and read quite a bit of material on so many different types out there. For those of you who know quite a bit about them, what would be a decent low-end (price wise) MG that looks like it is moving up in the pricing pyramid of MG's. I know that most all MG's are constantly moving up in value, but I'm looking for one that seems to be running away in price but is near the bottom of the totem pole in price now. Maybe the MAC 10's or Sten's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Subguns.com has a lot of stuff about the 9th circuit court ruling. Also, you can do a google search of stewart gun appeal and you should get to the actual decision of the 9th circuit.

Basically as I understand it, the 9th circuit said that the BATF's jurisdiction to regulate firearms only extends as far as regulating interstate commerce. Since this Stewart guy made his own machinegun from unique parts in his own machine shop, the gov't could prove he had participated in interstate commerce. Therefore, from this ruling, some have assumed that if you make your own machinegun from unique parts that you could never have gotten through interstate commerce - your legal. Now state laws are another thing. The kicker is that the feds have until 9/18 to appeal the decision to the US supreme court or the ruling stands like a law which would most likely be upheld in other districts as well. From what I can gather, the feds haven't done anything.

I haven't heard of anyone getting an approved form 1 returned to them after the Stewart case - has anyone else?

I've thought a lot about this and I often wonder what the decision means to the average Joe like me.

Before the '86 law outlawing all new mg manufacture, any old Joe could just fill out the proper form, get a CLEO endorsement, fingerprints, $200 and the BATF would approve you to manufacture your own mg.

I tell ya what - those days must have been good! I was too young then to take advantage of it. I can imagine what it must have been like to say purchase a full auto uzi, or better yet convert your own homebuilt AK!

Did the law do anything to stop crime - yeah right! After '86, we saw the rise in the drug gangs who didn't give a hoot about filing the proper form with the BATF before they obtained approval . . .

Does the '86 law effect the 2nd amendment? Hell yes! How can we protect ourselves from a tyranical gov't without them? Do I need a mg for self protection, probably not, but I bet if someone could ask Thomas Jefferson what kind of gun the typical American should have to exercise their 2nd amendment rights - he'd probably say a full auto AK! Old Tommy boy and friends didn't make it the 10th amendment - it was too important - they made it the 2nd!

I do know this - if Kerry gets elected, he will be a poster child for Sarah Brady and her cult like followers like Fineswein. I imagine a Kerry administration would try to fight it tooth and nail. Maybe the BATF is just trying to hold on until after the election?

Another thing - most guys who own pre '86 mg have no interest in having the ban repealed. They have thousands if not 10s of thousands of dollars in investments that would deflate overnight if the BATF approved form 1s. Think about it, if you had a pre ban registered M-16 and paid say $750, they're now going for about $15-20. Do they want the BATF to approve guys like me to make my own M-16 yeah right!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
So, since he wasn't involved in interstate commerce that couldn't regulate it...hmmm. Sounds really good to me. But, how then would you register the MG if you legally owned it. Kinda like a catch 22. If you didn't register it, you would be breaking the law for not having your MG registered. I'm pretty sure the other circuits have ruled against such similar situations. But, if all goes well and you live in the 9th circuit you may be able to convert your own some day. I would have to move to Florida....nice beach and MG's!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
saintarctangent said:
Another thing - most guys who own pre '86 mg have no interest in having the ban repealed. They have thousands if not 10s of thousands of dollars in investments that would deflate overnight if the BATF approved form 1s. Think about it, if you had a pre ban registered M-16 and paid say $750, they're now going for about $15-20. Do they want the BATF to approve guys like me to make my own M-16 yeah right!
Here is where you are absolutley positively 199% wrong!!! Most if not all folks that have pre-86 MGs would rejoyce at the repeal of the 86 MG ban, and they would care a shit less about their money lost.. They would be more happy to have our freedoms garunteed by the 2nd restored.

Ohh you will have a few that will cry the blues baout the loss of money, just as there is a few crying about loosing the value of their preban guns.. But to me these folks that worry more about their money, than ther freedom are pinko-commies ***s, no different than the anti gun liberals that wish to control this country..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
We need to go back to pre 1934 laws with maybe a few mods, but it will never happen.

Can you imagine going to the hardware store and buying a full auto Sub gun?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Mike,

Just my observations from talking to wealthy class 3 owners at work. I showed one guy the 9th circuit court decision and he nearly turned pale white. He literally has 10s of thousands of dollars invested in old WWII class 3 weapons. If this 9th circuit thing is upheld, he stands to lose a hell of a lot of money.

I guarentee he won't be writing his congressman to change a thing. In fact, maybe he'll start donating money to Sarah Brady's group . . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
yosuthnmasa said:
So, since he wasn't involved in interstate commerce that couldn't regulate it...hmmm. Sounds really good to me. But, how then would you register the MG if you legally owned it. Kinda like a catch 22. If you didn't register it, you would be breaking the law for not having your MG registered. I'm pretty sure the other circuits have ruled against such similar situations. But, if all goes well and you live in the 9th circuit you may be able to convert your own some day. I would have to move to Florida....nice beach and MG's!
Yosuthnmasa-

I wish I had buckets of money.

The proper way to challenge this would be to send a form 1 to the BATF for manufacturing your own unique mg, have it denied and then file a civil suit against them. Unfortunately, the gov't has a hell of a lot of tax $ to use against me. I don't think the ACLU would take this one on gratis - do you?

The risky way to challenge this would be to make your own mg and hope you don't get caught. If you get caught, challenge the charges based on the Stewart ruling.

Oh, the state's jurisdiction is much greater than interstate commerce, so you need to be cognizent of those laws as well.

Either way, only the lawyers will make $$.

In my case, since I live in KY, there are no state laws against mg - at all - nil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
saintarctangent said:
Mike,

Just my observations from talking to wealthy class 3 owners at work. I showed one guy the 9th circuit court decision and he nearly turned pale white. He literally has 10s of thousands of dollars invested in old WWII class 3 weapons. If this 9th circuit thing is upheld, he stands to lose a hell of a lot of money..

Then I'm sorry to say, he is misguided..

If you value money more than freedom, you do not belong in this country...

I don't have any full autos, but I do have quite an investment in pre-ban semi's that I am going to lose money on in 4 weeks.. Do I care? HELL NO!!!! I am estatic that we have won some freedom back... All gun owners should be... Because freedom is our number one most valuable possesion, not costly pre-ban semis, or transferable MGs.. Without freedom you have nothing!!!!



saintarctangent said:
I guarentee he won't be writing his congressman to change a thing. In fact, maybe he'll start donating money to Sarah Brady's group . . . .
And if he would donate to the Brady bunch, he should be thrown from the country.. What kinda of gun owner would think that, let alone say it...


Gun owners have enough enemys, we don't need our own kind turning against us..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
I think the 9th district is on the other side of the country.I beleive it takes up nevada utah Arizonia and a few other states in that part of the country.Seening how Bob Stewart was living in Mesa Arizona I doubt he would have gone to court in Florida.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
The Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal
circuits and includes all
federal courts in
California, Oregon,
Washington,
Arizona,
Montana, Idaho,
Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii,
Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands.

( I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY )I believe the stewert case boiled down to the question of what does possession of a machinggun have to do with interstate commerce which is the basis for the feds authority (Section 8. The Congress shall have power to To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes)

It seems the 9th circuit decided that sec 922 (o) had nothing to do with interstate commerce and was not constitutionaly supported

The law

sec 922 (o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

The 9ths decision

Findings

The court finds that (1) possession of a machine gun is not economic in nature, (2) the connection between possession of a machine gun and interstate commerce is attenuated, (3) the statute has no explicit jurisdictional hook into the Commerce Clause and (4) legislative findings purported to support the constitutionality of ? 922 (o) actually have no bearing.

Conclusion: The conviction under ? 922 (o) is reversed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
SangRun Hunter said:
We need to go back to pre 1934 laws with maybe a few mods, but it will never happen.

Can you imagine going to the hardware store and buying a full auto Sub gun?
My grandfather s brother bought a Thompson in about 30 or 31 I cant remember which but he paid $175 for it back then.He refused to register it in 34 and rather than turn it in he destroyed it.I get sick every time I think about it as he had no kids so I could have possibly ended up with it after my uncles all died off.BTW he bought this in a hardware store in a little town that doesnt even exist anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
I began a topic today on the 9th Circuit decision. You can review it at: http://www.gunco.net/forums/showthread.php?p=21584#post21584

Just my observations from talking to wealthy class 3 owners at work. I showed one guy the 9th circuit court decision and he nearly turned pale white. He literally has 10s of thousands of dollars invested in old WWII class 3 weapons. If this 9th circuit thing is upheld, he stands to lose a hell of a lot of money.
No, the decision only allowed possession without intent to sale or transfer. It will not open commerce of automatic weapons. Remember, it is also a decision on Federal law in one of the Country's many appellate Circuits. It does not change State laws, and Federal courts in other Circuits are not required to follow it.

Federal Prosecutors are seeking to have the matter heard by the United States Supreme Court. I would be astounded if the High Court accepted the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,071 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Wouldn't that just be nice....possession wouldn't be illegal. So...we could start building our own. I still don't see how he got around having it and it not being registered in the database.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top