gyvel
Member
I gotta call balogna on this one... the guy works for H&K and he "carries" a Ruger
Just coz a guy works for H&K doesn't mean he can afford one.
I gotta call balogna on this one... the guy works for H&K and he "carries" a Ruger
The answer is to use the amnesty power not for an 'amnesty", but for a "re-registration". No questions asked - if the gun could have been owned legally, the assumption is that it IS owned legally but the paperwork is missing. Get the paperwork and records straight. Give people access to valuable assets that can be sold to cover bills.
1) The cost of the weapon is only high because of the limited supply.The $200 tax stamp is not the serious impediment to FA ownership. The serious impediments are, in order: (1) the high cost of the weapon itself, (2) the hodgepodge of state laws and prohibitions, (3) the need for a CLEO signoff, or, alternatively, the complexity of setting up a trust or corporation, and (4) the inordinately long wait for the paperwork to be approved. If the cost of the stamp is increased (and I'm not in favor of that), the increased revenues should at least be dedicated to hiring more examiners in the NFA Branch in order to expedite the paperwork processing.
1) The cost of the weapon is only high because of the limited supply.
2) State laws really have nothing to do with it ... either they are allowed or they are not.
3) I spent $10 for software and set up my own trust ... as long as its signed and notarized its legal ... maybe there is a state difference on this.
4) I can't believe its still $200 ... back in 1986 that was a good chunk of money ... in 1965 it was a months wages for a lot of people. Even if it was a $1,000 now, thats only a case or so of ammo ... but 30 day processing would be nice.
I wouldn't purchase a machine gun as an investment in anything but freedom.