Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Permits and legality (two issues)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ddgrc84, May 31, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ddgrc84

    ddgrc84 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    I have a colleague who maintains that his fully automatic weapons are fully legal for him to own and shoot without a permit of any sort. Have things changed in the last few years? I recall that a special permit and form were required for owners of fully automatic weapons.

    Issue two is suppressors. The same colleague also steadfastly argues that his suppressed .22's (among others) are not regulated, indeed suppressors are not illegal at all.

    he keeps using the phrase "NFA."

    I'm nearly certain that he is in the wrong, but i need some backup to help. i don't want to see him in trouble.

    JJ
     
  2. insidious_calm

    insidious_calm Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    337
    NFA = National Firearms Act of 1934

    As far as I understand it, and I am not in a state that permits suppressors or automatic weapons, your friend is technically right. There is no permit per se, but the items must be registered and a tax paid on them. You must have proof that you have paid the tax on those items with the items at all times. Anyone of legal age with no criminal history is technically able to own the aforementioned so long as they are legal under your state laws. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I will be along shortly.

    Out of curiousity, what state is it?



    I.C.
     
  3. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    I dunno if your friend is playing with fire, or just using technical terms.

    When he got the weapon and supressor, he had to pay a $200 tax on each. He should have the paperwork. That is pretty much a permit.

    Regardless of what he calls it, he has some sort of paperwork saying he did indeed pay his tax to own those weapons. If not, and the ATF comes a knocking, he may not be shooting for a while.
     
  4. ddgrc84

    ddgrc84 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    Sorry, forgot to incude my state earlier.

    I'm in Georgia.

    JJ
     
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    That's the way I read the Second Amendment.
     
  6. fjolnirsson

    fjolnirsson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,746
    Location:
    Oregon, in the Willamette Valley
    That's what my copy of the Bill Of Rights says. The BATFE is apparently not reading from my copy.
     
  7. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    Your friend is right, at least as far as Federal laws are concerned. There is no special permit required to own National Firearm Act (NFA) stuff like machine guns, suppressors, destructive devices (e.g. rifles larger than .50-cal), and AOW's (any other weapons). A lot of people get that confused with the $200 excise tax collected by the government every time an NFA device is transferred on a BATFE Form 4 between private owners.

    Some states do have their own laws regulating NFA firearms. For instance, in Virginia, machine guns have to be registered with the State Police, but not suppressors, destructive devices, and AOW's. Also, some states don't permit hunting with a suppressed rifle, while others do. Fortunately Virginia permits it, so after several decades of deer hunting I won't have to deal with tinnitis. :)

    Check out James Bardwell's FAQ on NFA Firearms if you're interested in more info.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page