Question regarding the M-16 and M-4


PDA






one45auto
September 10, 2004, 11:36 PM
Please forgive my ignorance on such matters, but I am curious. I already know that, providing you're willing to jump through the hoops, you can own a fully automatic rifle provided that it's registered with the ATF. My question is, what can you purchase under such circumstances? If, say, I wanted an M16-A4 or perhaps an M-4 ~ the same models the police and military units possess, could I obtain one? I suppose that would be what they consider "class three" weapons? Do you have to special order those from a dealer?

Gun shop owners/employees, give me the benefit of your wisdom here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question regarding the M-16 and M-4" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Combat-wombat
September 10, 2004, 11:59 PM
My understanding is that newly-manufactured full-auto weapons are banned. If you want an MG, it has to be made before 1986- making the transferrable ones extremely expensive.

Atticus
September 11, 2004, 12:14 AM
http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html

Good info there. Not likely that you qualify for an M4. M16 probably. Generally you will need the approval of local Law Enforcement as well....assuming your state laws don't forbid it.

Geech
September 11, 2004, 12:19 AM
Is there some reason you couldn't just put an M4 upper on a transferrable lower?

>SHOCK<^>WAVE<
September 11, 2004, 12:48 AM
Legalities of Machine Gun Ownership.

http://www.impactguns.com/library/legalities/legal.htm


How to Buy a Machine Gun from Impact Guns.

http://www.impactguns.com/store/howtoorder.html

Machine Guns for Sale
http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html

444
September 11, 2004, 12:49 AM
No, no reason at all. It won't be a genuine M4, but it will be close enough.

The above post is correct. It is no longer legal to manufacture full auto weapons for sale to the general public. The only ones available for purchase are ones that were in private hands prior to the ban. Obviously the law of supply and demand is full in force here. The supply is now finite, therefore the prices skyrocketed. If you want an M16 or a legally converted AR15, plan on paying a pretty hefty sum: around 10x as much as a semi-auto AR15.
Contrary to popular internet myth, buying a machine gun is not a big deal. All the required paperwork/fingerprints/pictures can be done in an hour or two. The only sticky point is your local and state laws as well as the attitude of you local cheif law enforcement officer. Here where I live, there are no state or local laws against private ownership and the local sheriff was fully cooperative. The whole proceedure was quick and painless. YMMV

PMDW
September 11, 2004, 12:54 AM
All the required paperwork/fingerprints/pictures can be done in an hour or two.

Yeah, but the 2-4 month ATF backround check is a bitch. That waiting kills you.

An auto M16 variant is around $11,000 these days. Stupid, really. Thank you, Reagan.

Hkmp5sd
September 11, 2004, 12:58 AM
The M4 has a 3-round burst instead of true full auto, which sucks. The way I did it was to buy a Colt M16A1 and put a M4 upper on it. So, IMO, mine is actually superior to the US issue M4. And as 444 stated, it is very pricey to buy M16s these days.

Thank you, Reagan.
Don't blame Reagan. He offered to veto the '86 FOPA after the antis added the machinegun ban at the last minute and the NRA told him to go ahead and sign it.




Edited to correct typing boo-boo.

444
September 11, 2004, 01:03 AM
I agree, the wait with the ATF is frustrating. However, I often read posts about jumping through hoops etc. that make the process appear to be really intensive, time consuming, and possibly not worth the bother. In reality, the forms can be filled out on-line and printed out already completed. All that remains is the signatures. The pictures can be done here at Save-On drug store and the fingerprints are done at the sheriff's office while you are there to get the sign-off. It isn't a big deal providing you can get the signature.

Jeff White
September 11, 2004, 01:18 AM
Hkmp5sd said;
The M4 has a 3-round burst instead of true full auto, which sucks. The way I did it was to buy a Colt M16A1 and put a M4 upper on it. So, IMO, mine is actually superior to the US issue M4.

Actually you have an M4A1 clone. The M4A1 has the safe-semi-auto trigger group not the 3 rd burst.

Jeff

Hkmp5sd
September 11, 2004, 01:59 AM
Actually you have an M4A1 clone.
Ok. :) I still love it.

PMDW
September 11, 2004, 02:32 AM
Don't blame Reagan. He offered to veto the '86 GOPA after the antis added the machinegun ban at the last minute and the NRA told him to go ahead and sign it.

Ahh, so the NRA is the real enemy here. Thank you.

Dionysusigma
September 11, 2004, 02:36 AM
And there are those who wonder why I'm not a member... :fire:

Main protector of firearms rights indeed.

wasrjoe
September 11, 2004, 02:39 AM
To be fair to the NRA, it was my understanding that a ban on newly manufactured machine guns was the cost of more far-reaching freedoms, as far as firearms goes.

PMDW
September 11, 2004, 03:02 AM
Ahh. So my interests are not as important as the interests of others? I see now.

I don't want to start a flame war, so this is as far as I'm taking this here.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 11, 2004, 11:15 AM
The 1986 FOPA had been offered as a bill every year since 1979 - and every year since 1979, it never even left committee because the Democrats had a lock on the House.

In 1986, they finally managed to sneak it through using a procedural method that caught the Dems with their pants down. Normally, the committee would have marked up the proposed bill to insure there were a bunch of undesirable amendments in it; but the Dems had killed this one so often and so easily that they didn't bother to do it in 1986.

As a result, with just minutes left they attached the machinegun ban on a controversial voice vote.

The Republicans had the Senate so they could pass the bill; but if they tried to strip out the MG ban it would go to conference committee where the whole thing would likely die. Rather than see that happen, NRA decided to swallow the poison pill to get the protections offered by FOPA.

Here are a few of these protections:

1) People travelling with firearms interstate cannot be prosecuted as long as the firearm is legal at their destination

2) ATF can no longer "inspect" a dealer out of business with repeated inspections until they go bankrupt. Only one warrantless inspection per year is allowed no.

3) No more registration of ammo.

4) Mail order ammo sales made possible.

5) Private sales (at a gunshow or anywhere else) are specifically exempted from the "engaged in the business of selling firearms" clause of the 1968 GCA - short form of that is gun shows would not exist without FOPA.

There are more; but recommend you check out:
http://www.hardylaw.net/FOPA.html

For those who would blame NRA for that decision, I think it is worth pointing out that just eight years later, the Clinton Administration will have the votes to ban things that just LOOK like machineguns. Would the NRA really have been acting that smart to give up all of those protections for eight more years of cheap MGs?

Chipperman
September 11, 2004, 12:54 PM
Bartholomew is right. We gained more than we lost for the average citizen with FOPA.

As much as I'd love to get more MG's at lower prices, by now we'd have lost more than that.

corncob
September 11, 2004, 04:06 PM
So with things going the way they are, what are the chances of getting the mg ban repealed by having some of the "good guys" in the House tack it on to something else, a la DiFi's poison pill on the lawsuit ban. I mean, this really sucks. I actually got to handle an M249 SAW two days ago and it was immediately aparent that I have to get one. It sucks!

deej
September 11, 2004, 11:16 PM
You wouldn't even need anyone to pass a bill; you'd just need an upper-level drone at BATFE (or maybe a judge?) to reinterpret the "under the authority of" part of "a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."

corncob
September 13, 2004, 09:59 AM
That is interesting. Are you saying that we could, in theory, get a ruling saying we are all exempt from the new-machineguns ban because due to the NFA requirements we would be possessing our post-86 machine gun "under the authority of" the US Government? Or is that an excerpt from the NFA? (Please forgive my ignorance of the law, but I've never really looked into it, since the full-autos that are transferable cost more than my wife's car)

If you enjoyed reading about "Question regarding the M-16 and M-4" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!