question about new transferable machine gun registration?


PDA






wlemay
March 6, 2012, 06:35 AM
Ok I know that no new machine guns can be made by individuals and be transferable as of 1986.

I want to know more about this; is this a federal law or a policy made within the ATF.

I personally think that this policy is unconstitutional, unfair, and unreasonable. Due to the fact that requires the average American citizen who is otherwise 100% legal to own firearms to pay an outrageous amount for the very small number of "transferable" machine guns (not to mention the $200 tax, extensive paperwork, finger printing, and other hoops you have to jump through to exercise your right to bear arms (which is apparently not so much a right as a privilege; depending on the "arm")).

I am aware of the NFA act and all that stuff but I want to specifically know more about the origins of the "no new machine guns after 1986" policy: Why, how, and by who (what government entity) it was implemented.

Right now I am under the impression that this was an ATF policy (more of a way to ban machine guns, without having to pass a law that might be challenged in court.)

If you enjoyed reading about "question about new transferable machine gun registration?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bubbles
March 6, 2012, 09:38 AM
It is federal law, not ATF policy, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Reagan as an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922)

(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) 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; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

mboylan
March 6, 2012, 02:15 PM
It was upheld in court. However, the Supreme Court has never agreed to hear a case challenging the Hughes amendment. In recent Supreme Court pro gun decisions, machine guns have been explicitly excluded from the ruling.

Jim K
March 6, 2012, 09:20 PM
Why do people keep coming out with nonsensical, and usually ignorant, rants like "such and such is unfair, why is it that way?" when the answer is that such and such is the law. If the law says the speed limit is 65, and I want to go 90, I can rant and rave until cows fly across the road upside down, but I will get speeding tickets and probably lose my drivers license.

If someone doesn't like the law, he can 1) work and lobby to get it changed or 2) allow himself to be used as a test case, with the understanding that if he loses he could go to jail (and never again be allowed to own a gun legally).

Anyone who choses to do neither of the above, please go away and stop screaming about the supposed injustices you are suffering.

Jim

medalguy
March 7, 2012, 12:42 AM
:banghead:

Ingsoc75
March 8, 2012, 08:56 AM
I am thinking of joining the NRA so I can help lobby them to bring NFA issues to their attention more.

oneounceload
March 8, 2012, 10:25 PM
Move to Mogadishu for cheap and plentiful automatic weapons if you don't like them here

alsaqr
March 8, 2012, 10:31 PM
Move to Mogadishu for cheap and plentiful automatic weapons if you don't like them here

i moved to Saudi Arabia for several years. Bought a rock and roll Steyr AUG at the souk at a very good price. It's kind of pitiful when a foreign country trusts one with a full auto weapon and the political hacks in our country do not.

If you enjoyed reading about "question about new transferable machine gun registration?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!