U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-22-2018, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,111 posts, read 858,540 times
Reputation: 1130

Advertisements

If it cost 15 Gs to own one I guess I don't need it that bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2018, 01:38 PM
 
Location: The Commonwealth of Virginia
598 posts, read 311,782 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Again, the stamp is ONLY evidence that the transfer tax is paid. It isn't called a license because it ISN'T a license. The Form 4 is the registration and the "permission" to own the item.....
So, as I understand it, to legally own a fully automatic weapon, you need the tax stamp and the form 4, and it has to be for a weapon that was manufactured before 1986. Is that correct? As I understand it, these weapons were "certified" for the lack of better word, and there are a limited number "legal," fully automatic weapons available. Which is whey they're so expensive. Or can somebody get a fully automatic weapon certified for legal sale if they can demonstrate that was manufactured before 1986 (say it's been in somebody's attic for decades, and was found when the person died)?

--
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 01:51 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,378,942 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790 View Post
So, as I understand it, to legally own a fully automatic weapon, you need the tax stamp and the form 4, and it has to be for a weapon that was manufactured before 1986. Is that correct?

That is correct.



Quote:
As I understand it, these weapons were "certified" for the lack of better word, and there are a limited number "legal," fully automatic weapons available. Which is whey they're so expensive. Or can somebody get a fully automatic weapon certified for legal sale if they can demonstrate that was manufactured before 1986 (say it's been in somebody's attic for decades, and was found when the person died)?

There is a "Registry" of transferable machineguns. If a gun isn't currently on the Registry, there is no way to add it, unless the BATF declares a limited amnesty period, as they did prior to the implementation of the GCA '68.


The gun in the attic would be contraband.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 02:08 PM
 
1,326 posts, read 528,365 times
Reputation: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
Thoughts on this?


Those of us who are gun enthusiasts have a healthy respect for gun laws. I seriously question what problem the ATF solved with this one though. The guy purchased the weapon in the early 1980s, and apparently the serial number was scratched off. That's illegal (and I assume it was back in the early 1980s). Owning a fully automatic is only illegal if done without the appropriate license (a detail the linked story fails to acknowledge, nor does it address if this veteran, described as a "collector" has said license).


I am also a little disturbed at the timing of the raid and the probable cause for said raid. The timing is purely emotional. Two weeks after the man's wife passed away is certainly not law enforcement's problem but that should have definitely been considered at sentencing and it does not appear to have been. But the bigger issue to me is what prompted the raid to begin with? Did someone share with authorities that this individual was in possession of a weapon that had been rendered illegal? And if that's the case was that all it took to convince a federal judge there was probable cause enough to authorize the raid? Seems like a pretty low threshold (read: "nonexistent threshold") for probable cause. Again, I have to wonder what problem the ATF solved here.


Sure, the weapon is illegal. It's a safe guess the guy knew this and took a risk he shouldn't have taken. But collectors keeping a weapon like this in a case for sentimental reasons are not the threat that justify the laws on the books. From what I've been able to discern this guy was a solid citizen outside of this gun purchase.


If the ATF had been trying to locate this weapon and somehow traced it to him, that's great. But a 7 year sentence seems absurd. Owning a weapon that has the serial number scratched off is against the law so I can definitely understand seizure of the property, and perhaps a fine and/or probation. But a 70 year old who is a decorated veteran and from the sound of it kept the weapon in a display case...a 7 year sentence makes me question the sentencing judge's discernment. Again I ask, what problem did this federal judge solve with her ruling?


I think the lesson to be had here is even in an era where jurisdictions at all levels selectively enforce their own laws, violations of gun laws are going to be crushed. Legal gun owners have zero margin for error, and no matter how clean your nose may be, if you make the slightest mistake you will be shown no mercy in the courts.


Be smart, everyone. And please, if I'm missing something about this guy I'd love to know more. I've searched a few different articles now for any hint that maybe he isn't the upstanding citizen he appears to be but haven't found anything to indicate as much.


The story:


https://www.foxnews.com/us/vietnam-w...urchase-report
Missing from the story is some crucial details. Also looks like his family led the ATF to his gun collection, as his daughter said he was unstable and a drug user https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns...rifle-purchase. He also admitted to stealing the gun. He wasn't a man who was without trouble as he threatened the hospital his wife was in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,111 posts, read 858,540 times
Reputation: 1130
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthofHere View Post
Missing from the story is some crucial details. Also looks like his family led the ATF to his gun collection, as his daughter said he was unstable and a drug user https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns...rifle-purchase. He also admitted to stealing the gun. He wasn't a man who was without trouble as he threatened the hospital his wife was in.
The plot thickens...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 04:16 PM
 
724 posts, read 255,943 times
Reputation: 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Semantics. It requires a TAX STAMP, a $200 fee, and an EXTENSIVE background check much more thorough, and time consuming than most "licenses" including a driver's license, and in my State, an LTCF (License to carry a firearm). In addition due to the 1986 ban on new full auto rifles, their cost is $15K and UP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 04:21 PM
 
724 posts, read 255,943 times
Reputation: 1039
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
You misunderstand the purpose of the Stamp.

Again, the stamp is ONLY evidence that the transfer tax is paid. It isn't called a license because it ISN'T a license. The Form 4 is the registration and the "permission" to own the item. The Form 4 isn't called a license because it ISN'T a license. NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO OWN AN NFA ITEM. Period.

And you are completely, 100% incorrect about this. You really ought to study up on the laws before spouting off false information. It makes you look rather silly.
I don't know what state you live in but in my old state of Massachusetts when you went to the local PD and spouted this information you would NEVER be recommended to get your Class 3.Just sayin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 04:37 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,378,942 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben young View Post
I don't know what state you live in but in my old state of Massachusetts when you went to the local PD and spouted this information you would NEVER be recommended to get your Class 3.Just sayin

By all means, tell us what part of what I have written is incorrect. And tell us what sort of "class 3" is required to own a full auto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 04:41 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,378,942 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
You must have missed my follow up where I addressed this issue. Here it is again:



If you believe that I am incorrect, then by all means, educate us, and explain precisely what “license” one must possess in order to own a full auto weapon.

I’ll wait while you do your research. . .

bergun, I'm still waiting for you to back up what you've said. You called me out, time to back up your claims.


My guess is that you have done your research, realized that I am in fact 100% correct, and you've tucked your tail and scurried off in silence to avoid any embarrassment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2018, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Under Moon & Star
1,576 posts, read 559,406 times
Reputation: 8825
All right.

So...

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns...rifle-purchase

Quote:
Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also found Pick to be in possession of cocaine and marijuana, according to his indictment. He pleaded guilty to the charge in April in a deal with federal prosecutors.
Quote:
But in court, prosecutors presented a much different story, saying that Pick had admitted to others that he had stolen the illegal weapon while in the military. They also recounted how in October 2017, Plano police had been called to a local hospital regarding "a belligerent individual."

There, officers encountered Pick, who, upset about his wife's treatment in the hospital, told medical staff and others that he would return with a gun and "shoot [them] in their kneecaps and elbows first and let them bleed."
Quote:
Prosecutors also informed the court that Pick had been repeatedly cited for criminal trespass at area hospitals for his aggressive behavior and that police had twice been called in 2014 to defuse situations in which Pick had brandished handguns and threatened others.
...a guy in unlawful possession of drugs is arrested for unlawful possession of a weapon. Said guy also has an extensive history of threatening people with firearms.

And the talking point is "Why are they picking on this poor war hero?"? I guess meritorious service is supposed to mean that you can break laws and threaten people and not face the legal consequences that anyone else would face...

Imagine how ATF would have been raked over the coals had they done nothing with the information that was passed onto them, and then this guy had done something... like what he threatened to do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top