HK MP5
- Thread starter Sherwin
- Start date
- Status
If you live in a state that allows civilians to own title II weapons, you need a $200 tax stamp and a lot of money since there hasn't been an MP5 (or any other machine gun) added to the NFA registry since May of 1986 and the registered ones are fetching premium prices now.
Jeff
Jeff
Rem700SD
Member
Someone I know has one for sale if you have $18,500, it's legal for you to own in your state, $200 to cover the form 4, as well as the CLEO signed form 4.
That gives you an idea of how common/easy they are to come by.
That gives you an idea of how common/easy they are to come by.
MudPuppy
Member
These are rules for civilians, not government, military, or law enforcement. Keep that in mind every time you hear "land of the free".
Fly320s
Member
Have you seen the prices of transferable MP5s lately? Sheesh, they are up there with transferable Thompsons!!
Go look at www.Subguns.com/classifieds/?.
Go look at www.Subguns.com/classifieds/?.
Fly320s
Member
wdlsguy, yep, our elected leaders are protecting us, doncha know.
Over the last three years the average MP5 price seems to have risen quicker than other transferable submachine guns.
I should have bought one when they were "only" $12,000. :banghead:
Over the last three years the average MP5 price seems to have risen quicker than other transferable submachine guns.
I should have bought one when they were "only" $12,000. :banghead:
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
for clarification, before you pee in your pants with delight, the military/law enforcement exemption is for the agency itself, not the individual officer or soldier. simply because you have a police ID or a military ID will not afford you any sort of special treatment or pricing when owning a Title II weapon.
you'd just be treated like everyone else!
Perhaps you should actually take the time to read the case before you make allegations like that.....
Jeff
Jeff
Thin Black Line
Member
There was an MP5 in a neighboring state a couple years ago for $5000, but I
was not living in a MG legal state at the time. :banghead:
Then again, $5k is a lot of $$$ to put toward semi-auto EBRs, aimpoints,
trijicons, ammo.....see where I'm going with this?
was not living in a MG legal state at the time. :banghead:
Then again, $5k is a lot of $$$ to put toward semi-auto EBRs, aimpoints,
trijicons, ammo.....see where I'm going with this?
Thin Black Line
Member
$18k, $12k, $5k are all too much for this weapon. Go to a state where
you can do rental and actually shoot a few 100 rds out of this girlie gun
before you part with that amount of money.
you can do rental and actually shoot a few 100 rds out of this girlie gun
before you part with that amount of money.
Thin Black Line
Member
All girlie men --pumping up prices instead of iron...or lead!
gunsmith
member
it's a great gun
a friend owns one as well as a class 3 G91 ....As soon as I win the lottery I'll buy one.
a friend owns one as well as a class 3 G91 ....As soon as I win the lottery I'll buy one.
wdlsguy said;
No I am not. There is no provision in the law for a civilian to won a post ban machine gun. However there is a provision for a law enforcement officer to own one. The case was only dismissed against the troop who purchased the M4 on a department letterhead. The judge ruled the law was unconstitionally vague in how it defined the exact procedures for a law enforcement officer to possess a machine gun.
I'm sure if the law had a clause that allowed blue eyed people born on the third Tuesday of the month to possess a post ban machine gun and the blue eyed person who was born on the third Tuesday followed the administrative procedures set out by the BATFE to legally possess said post ban machine gun and the US Attorney charged him anyway, the judge would have ruled the same way. If you had bothered to actually read the decision you'd have found that it revolved around Congress clearly intending to permit Law Enforcement officers to possess post ban machine guns, but not wirting clear enough instructions on how that was to be accomplished into the law.
This case is a huge chink in the 1986 Machine Gun ban and may have implications on how other NFA matters are adminstratively handled or prosecuted. But most of the members here couldn't look past their initial reaction of it's another sign we're second class citizens.
Jeff
No I am not. There is no provision in the law for a civilian to won a post ban machine gun. However there is a provision for a law enforcement officer to own one. The case was only dismissed against the troop who purchased the M4 on a department letterhead. The judge ruled the law was unconstitionally vague in how it defined the exact procedures for a law enforcement officer to possess a machine gun.
I'm sure if the law had a clause that allowed blue eyed people born on the third Tuesday of the month to possess a post ban machine gun and the blue eyed person who was born on the third Tuesday followed the administrative procedures set out by the BATFE to legally possess said post ban machine gun and the US Attorney charged him anyway, the judge would have ruled the same way. If you had bothered to actually read the decision you'd have found that it revolved around Congress clearly intending to permit Law Enforcement officers to possess post ban machine guns, but not wirting clear enough instructions on how that was to be accomplished into the law.
This case is a huge chink in the 1986 Machine Gun ban and may have implications on how other NFA matters are adminstratively handled or prosecuted. But most of the members here couldn't look past their initial reaction of it's another sign we're second class citizens.
Jeff
- Status
