How do you legally get a machine gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
if machine guns aren't useful practicality wise, why does the military and some law enforcement agencies have them?
Because their job dictates a significantly heightened level of preparation, warranting the otherwise significant inconvenience of keeping that much firepower at hand. They're advantageous in a few situations - which you probably deliberately avoid and most likely won't get into, and which they actively seek and try to get into.

You need to balance the need to carry something with the odds that you most likely will never need to use it, and that anything bigger than a certain size will cause more grief from cumulative lifetime annoyance than the marginal advantage it will give you should you need it. As others have noted, CCWing a SMG is cool for about a day, then quickly becomes "why bother" - for a reason.

It's kinda like why you don't wear a parachute when you fly: yes, you _might_ need it (lotto-winning odds here), but the drag on life doesn't balance with the vanishingly small chance of using it.

I also heard that there was a study that further away, semi-auto's are more accurate, but up close a fully-automatic is more likely to hit its target and in a lot less time?

Strictly speaking that's sorta true. Unfortunately it is usually misinterpreted as justification for "spray and pray" - the hope that by throwing a lotta lead thataway will hit something, which probably won't work ("you can't miss fast enough"). You MUST be sure that first round hits the target somewhere useful; full-auto only serves to get followup shots there quicker, at the price of reduced accuracy and using up ammo sooner ... vs. taking a moment longer to make sure each followup round is just as accurate as the first. The close-up scenario mentioned only works because it's at hard-to-miss distances (which are a lot shorter than you may think), and does not account for running out of ammo too early.

Put concisely: only take on full-auto if you have mastered semi-auto ... at which point you'll realize that for nearly all realistic scenarios semi-auto is the preferred choice for reasons of accuracy, capacity, concealability.
 
Hey if your defending a fortified structure against a horde of zombies and have tons of ammo MGs are great.
 
Yeah, FA NFA firearms and college roomates are not a cool mix, IMHO.

And yes, in many states it is illegal to CCW an MG, even if legally owned under the NFA. Heck, in NC you can't CCW a long gun, period. Also, if a MG is to be carried for CCW, one should practice with their CCW piece often. And to get meaningful practice with a MG will mean burning up HUGE amounts of $$$. Enough that you'd probably drive ammo prices up nation wide by 1/2 percent! A MAC 11 at over 1200 rpm, shooting 9mm can get REALLY expensive. Figuring $17 with tax per 100 rnd box of wallie world white box, 30 seconds of firing costs over $100. 45 ACP? $180 for 30 seconds of trigger time. Reloading would be a must, unless you have money coming out of your ears.

MGs are ammo hungry, so figuring in ammo cost is important, just like checking car insurance premiums before you buy.
 
At the last gun show I was at, I was talking to a class three guy and he said FA is the best blue chip stock you can invest in, they never go down in value. A friend in PA just bought an FA Uzi for I think, $9500. In PA it's CCW, as in Weapon not Handgun, so run what you brung.
 
They never go down in value, but the days of 400% increase in value are over, IMO. Even entry-level FAs (like my mac11) are $3500-$4000 now... and It's doubtful that they'll double in value any time soon, IMO.

I paid about $500 for it 10 years ago. ;) If I ever sold it I'd make a bit of profit... but I can't think of why I'd ever sell it. It was such a PITA to get in the first place. LOL
 
If the Heller case goes our way correctly, the blue-chip FA market could lose practically all value overnight. Even the feds are begging the Supreme Court to bury the case to maintain the post-'86 FA ban (hmmm...Cheney reportedly has a huge FA collection, maybe that's the reason for the SG's brief...).

If such a scenario DOES happen, then we WILL see a lotta [legal] threads about "why not a Glock 18?" and "how do I add 'da switch' to my G19?" ... and many responses will be "it's cheap, options are good, go for it, just keep it in 'semi' most of the time".
 
Glock 18's would not be cheap, right now new they are about $1,300.00.

That and we would still have NFA to deal with (that and the at least year long wait with the trillion other people applying for FA's).
 
In PA it's CCW, as in Weapon not Handgun, so run what you brung.

However if you use an NFA firearm in self defense and then even a single minor charge sticks to you in court you qualify for a few serious federal enhancements.
You can get 10 years for using it in a crime, 10 years for conspiracy to use it, and a few others that can be added in there as well.

That means if the jury decides to give you a "compromise" charge after hearing the family and friends of the poor dead criminal sobbing, you can be put away for a long time.
So you could beat all the big charges, and have something minor stick and be put away for over 20 years.

Something minor sticks as often as not in self defense cases in public.
 
Glock 18's would not be cheap, right now new they are about $1,300.00.
That's actually not a bad price for a low-production highly-desirable handgun (contrast "custom" 1911s).
Quick search shows used ones for $500.

I also know there's a manufacturer (a little hard to find as he has little business) who makes a drop-in select-fire switch for G17/19/26s for around $350.
 
I heard that there's only been 2 homocides by civilians with legally owned machine guns since the 1930's when these restrictions were made with NFA? I heard that one of the killings was by a police officer. Less than 10 crimes have been committed with machine guns and some of these were failure to follow firearm regulations? So how do people like Massad Ayoob really know that you'll be in big trouble if you use a machine gun in self-defense if you reasonably fear for your life, if it's not really happened before, besides speculation? I was just curious.
 
So if machine guns aren't useful practicality wise, why does the military and some law enforcement agencies have them?

Short of dedicated full auto weapons (M240's, M249's) most military units don't train their members to flip "da switch" to full auto or burst mode unless they need suppressive fire. When I was a squad leader, I designated who on my squad would fire their M-16 on auto when directed. Otherwise, it's a waste of ammo. Also, in a military or law enforcement situation, making the other guy keep his head down while you assault his position may be necessary. It's not so important if you don't have a duty to apprehend or terminate someone.
 
Gunnerpalace said:
That and we would still have NFA to deal with (that and the at least year long wait with the trillion other people applying for FA's).

Would we? Depending on what the Supreme Court says, that might mean taxing a fundamental individual right. Sort of like a poll tax.
 
Get to know a politician or a guy high up in the ATF. Get signed up as a reserve LEO for the Forest Service or something. Use your connections to get a full-auto as a Federal LEO.

Wrong. DEAD wrong, sorry to say.

First of all, to be a Reserve Officer, you have to go through the same selection process as the full timers do. This can take a LONG time, and includes a PT test, oral board, written exam, psychological exam, a trip to the shrink, a LENGTHLY background exam, a polygraph exam--and that's all BEFORE the Chief's interview, who is the final hire/don't hire authority.

You then have to go through a probation period (typically 1 year) and an FTO phase--and PASS them--before you are recognized as a full Reserve Officer.

Even with that, different departments have different guidelines. Some restrict their Reserve Officers to simple prisoner transports. Some restrict to only off duty functions. Others are more realistic, and utilize their Reserves to a much better degree.

Our Department (by the way) has four levels of Reserve Officer. Level IV means you don't sneeze without a full time Officer present. Level III means that you can, at least sneeze--but you don't initiate any action, and a full timer STILL has to be there.

Level II means that you CAN initiate law enforcement action on your own--but you're still in the car with another full timer, or senior Reserve Officer.

Level I means that you can go in for duty, get your own car, go in service, and function just like any other Officer on the road. You initiate your own actions and handle any type of call that comes down the pike.

Finally, most departments mandate that Reserves bear the cost of their own training and equipment. Frequently, the only thing the Department owns that you have is your badge, commissioning card and radio.

Back to the subject of the thread: You CAN request the purchase of a FA weapon--however, usually it is kept AT THE DEPARTMENT--and when you leave the department, THE GUN MUST BE LEFT BEHIND. Note: this only applies to recent manufacture machine guns. Transferable full autos can still be bought and sold.

Something that has been mentioned--concealed carry of a machine gun. WHY? Just use the handgun of your choice, and apply in the normal manner for a concealed permit. Leave the full auto at home.

Cordially,
Powderman
Patrol Officer/Armorer (Level I Reserve Officer)
 
First of all, to be a Reserve Officer, you have to go through the same selection process as the full timers do. This can take a LONG time, and includes a PT test, oral board, written exam, psychological exam, a trip to the shrink, a LENGTHLY background exam, a polygraph exam--and that's all BEFORE the Chief's interview, who is the final hire/don't hire authority.

You then have to go through a probation period (typically 1 year) and an FTO phase--and PASS them--before you are recognized as a full Reserve Officer.

True.

Finally, most departments mandate that Reserves bear the cost of their own training and equipment. Frequently, the only thing the Department owns that you have is your badge, commissioning card and radio.

Also true. Try $600 for a vest, $450-$650 for a sidearm, $500-$800 for good duty gear, cuffs, baton,flashlight, $100+ for good footgear, supply your own rifle and shotgun (another $1200-$1500), time off from work for training and qualification. Also you're typically required to work a certain number of hours per month (16 for us, two extra work days) and suddenly being a Reserve Officer gets to be something that isn't casual any more. I've lost count of the part timers that have come and gone as they figured out what was actually involved. Add to that all the other stress and frustration of actually being an LEO and you realize that you've really gotta have it in your blood to make the commitment. I've had to take time off from my regular job to be in court for felony cases, only to find out at the last minute that the defendant had plead out and I was no longer needed to testify. Think jury duty sucks? Try being a Reserve Officer. Doing it just to get access to full auto weapons?

It would be cheaper and easier just to buy your own and pay the tax.
 
If the Heller case goes our way correctly, the blue-chip FA market could lose practically all value overnight. Even the feds are begging the Supreme Court to bury the case to maintain the post-'86 FA ban (hmmm...Cheney reportedly has a huge FA collection, maybe that's the reason for the SG's brief...).

Without revealing how I know... you're more correct than you realize.
 
Yeah, buying something that's price is so artificially inflated because of a law seems risky to me too. It seems unlikely the law is going to loosen up, (Heller or no), but you never know, some arbitrary decision by the govt could instantly knock 80% or so off the value of your very expensive gun.
 
I heard that there's only been 2 homocides by civilians with legally owned machine guns since the 1930's when these restrictions were made with NFA? I heard that one of the killings was by a police officer. Less than 10 crimes have been committed with machine guns and some of these were failure to follow firearm regulations? So how do people like Massad Ayoob really know that you'll be in big trouble if you use a machine gun in self-defense if you reasonably fear for your life, if it's not really happened before, besides speculation? I was just curious

I think you mean there have been two criminal homicides (murder or manslaughter) with legal machine guns, there have been more homicides in general, which would include justifiable or lawful homicides.

Massad Ayoob has written up at least two self-defense uses that I remember. One was a store owner in Florida who used a S&W submachinegun against robbers and didn't run into any legal trouble I am aware of. Another was an HK employee in Virginia who used a ruger AC556 rifle and went through legal hell because of it.

Neither was a CCW situation, BTW. Neither state allows NFA weapons to be carried for CCW.
 
Last edited:
how do people like Massad Ayoob really know that you'll be in big trouble
Because Mas was talking about LAWFUL use, of which there have been a number of cases - and which show the user usually got hammered on in court. Half his job is closely following, and often active participant in, self-defense cases.

This is different from CRIMINAL use, which further splits between legally registered items vs. contraband.

The legality of the act combinded with the legality of the tool make for 4 distinct categories, each of which provides little insight on the others.
 
Talked to gun shop worker the other day

I was at a firearms shop the other day asking about defensive firearms. I asked about the military-style semi-automatic rifles, and he said get a pump shotgun instead. I then asked him about buying a machine gun for home defense. He responded with a hysterical evil laughter, "You'll be out of ammunition too quickly. I myself don't have a need to own a machine gun."

The thing I'm confused about, if so many people out there, including many law enforcement, want to ban them from civilian use, it seems like it would be good in lethal force, which could be used to prevent or stop the imminent use of unlawful deadly force on oneself or another innocent?

Let's say that in the Virginia Tech incident, machine guns were legal to CC and Virginia Tech allowed CC? Let's say that some student happened to have a legally owned machine gun in his backpack. Let's say it was belt fed and his backpack had a separate compartment for all the ammunition ready to feed into his personal defense device. After Cho shot that many innocent people, let's say that this student with the machine gun fires on Cho stopping the threat immediately and one of the bullets strays and hits a bystander? Wouldn't a lot of people be thanking this one student saying that he saved their kid who was also in the room who could have died, even though this bystander was shot? What legal and media fate would happen to this student who just saved perhaps a hundred students plus the 32 (minus Cho) from dieing?
 
A belt fed machine gun that fits in a backpack? That's hot! I gots to get me one of those. Maybe even two. :p
.
 
There are two main reasons people don't carry machine guns on their person for regular SD:

1. Legal problems. If you use a MG for SD your chances of prosecution are way higher. It's unfair but that's the way it is now. In addition, if you do get convicted, even if for manslaughter or such instead of homicide, you are now subject to extra federal prison time and fines for using a NFA weapon to commit a felony...

2. The Hughes Amendment pretty much cuts off any concealable MGs. If/When the Hughes Amendment is non-existent, I can see people using MGs for SD much more. I'd love to have a PDW as a truck gun.... or a travel gun that fits in a suitcase. I'd probably also get 'da-switch' for one of my Glocks. (The Glock 18 with ported barrel is very controllable on FA from what I've seen)
 
The thing I'm confused about, if so many people out there, including many law enforcement, want to ban them from civilian use

Whoa there, "not advising their use as routine concealed carry weapons" is a long way from "want to ban them from civilian use." Just because I advise you not to use a chain saw to cut your steak doesn't mean I don't like chain saws or have a legitimate use for them. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top