M14 Forum

that guy · January 9th, 2012, 08:41 AM

I am trying to understand NFA, and I have. A couple questions. When the ban happened did private owners of machine guns have to relinquish their automatic weapons? Can a regular Guy who is not an SOT own one if they have the money?

Also what is the difference between transferables and non transferable?

I also understand to own a full auto rifle you have to be a licensed dealer?

I am not by any means wealthy, but if I were to be one. I would rather own a full auto M14 or M16 over having super expensive sports cars and such.

Thanks,

Mike

1KPerDay · January 9th, 2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Can a regular Guy who is not an SOT own one if they have the money?

Yes, IF the full auto in question was made prior to the 1986 ban, and IF your state allows ownership/posession of NFA items. "civilians" can own new suppressors, new SBRs, new "any other weapon" (sawed-off shotguns, etc.) but can not own NEW full autos made after 1986. Stupid law, but that's what it is.

Therefore, any "transferable" full auto (one that was registered prior to the ban and is capable of being transfered/sold to non class III FFL holders) commands a premium. Transferable M14s run about 14 grand, M16s a bit more from what I've seen (I could be wrong on that; I haven't really kept up with prices).

Quote:

I also understand to own a full auto rifle you have to be a licensed dealer?

No... unless you mean a NEW, recent mfg full auto rifle. Then yes. Dealers licenced to manufacture or sell NFA items can get the new stuff. But they can't sell them except to other dealers, or military/police organizations, etc.

Us poor regular guys have to make do with the aging full autos made and registered before 1986.

Stupid, pointless law, but since when has firearm regulation made any sense.

CAVman · January 9th, 2012, 09:12 AM

Regarding the NFA In General...

I find this to be a very useful web-site:

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/

The only caveat is...his business is selling 'trusts'(I mean nothing Negative about having an NFA Trust whatsover)...however, the Info and Links and Forms on his site(Categories)is very accurate and up to date and very helpful and will tend to Accurately Answer Most Questions About The NFA!!!

CAVman in WYoming

Mindfield · January 9th, 2012, 10:17 AM

Short of a dealer w/ a SOT we cannot own any MGs made after the effective date of the registry being closed in 86. Any MG made before that date is transferable to us.

An FFL w/ an SOT can have newer(after the date in 86) MGs

So if you want say a G36, since it was made in the 90s youd have to have an FFL w/ an SOT

1KPerDay · January 9th, 2012, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by that guy

When the ban happened did private owners of machine guns have to relinquish their automatic weapons?

Nobody answered this yet. No, they didn't, because since the National Firearms Act of 1934, private owners of automatic weapons had to complete paperwork and get local law enforcement approval (like now) and pay a $200 tax to the feds (for each item), and register their full autos/suppressors. Any legally posessed full-auto in their possession was still legal after the ban. The relevant function of the 1986 act was to establish a cutoff date after which no more full-auto weapons could be added to the registry.

This is my understanding and may be subject to change.

Read up here on the Hughes amendment and wonder at the dirty nature of modern politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...ghes_Amendment

Quote:

Machine Gun Ban: The Hughes AmendmentAs debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

CAVman · January 9th, 2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1KPerDay

Nobody answered this yet. No, they didn't, because since the National Firearms Act of 1934, private owners of automatic weapons had to complete paperwork and get local law enforcement approval (like now) and pay a $200 tax to the feds (for each item), and register their full autos/suppressors. Any legally posessed full-auto in their possession was still legal after the ban. The relevant function of the 1986 act was to establish a cutoff date after which no more full-auto weapons could be added to the registry.

This is my understanding and may be subject to change.

Read up here on the Hughes amendment and wonder at the dirty nature of modern politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm...ghes_Amendment

That is all correct, however it doesn't fully answer the OP's Question Either...

IF...Someone Had One, And Did NOT Register it Before The Ban Took Effect...Then That Weapon Is Contraband!
An UN-Registered NFA Item IS Contraband, Period!
It Was Necessary To Not Just...'Legally Posess' It BEFORE The Ban...
But To Legally Posess It AND Register It before the ban.
I don't think I have ever seen a number as to weapons that have been surrendered/relinquished to BATFE AFTER The Ban, but no doubt there has been many...
And then there are the numerous stories, some we have discussed here, where all of sudden...The Widow, Having No Idea What A Particular Gun Really Is, Tries To List A FA M14, etc...For Sale, WithOUT Papers!!!
(I would love to read...The Rest Of The Story in a lot of those deals, but we virtually never do!)

CAVman in WYoming

that guy · January 9th, 2012, 01:21 PM

I would thank everyone for enlightening me on this topic. I have thought of another question about NFA. Being that transferable (pre 86) machine guns are either held by folks that owned them before the ban and current dealers. Who have these weapons now have time on their side. The transferable guns are only going to get more expensive? Those that have them now would not want to see NFA being overturned I imagine.

Also and lastly, why in the hell have not organizations like NRA attacked these laws in attempt to overturn them? Perhaps if all the gun rights advocate organizations got together, could overturning NFA be a possibility?

Had I not been a child when this legislature been enacted I would have invested in full auto weapons.

CAVman · January 9th, 2012, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by that guy

I would thank everyone for enlightening me on this topic. I have thought of another question about NFA. Being that transferable (pre 86) machine guns are either held by folks that owned them before the ban and current dealers. Who have these weapons now have time on their side. The transferable guns are only going to get more expensive? Those that have them now would not want to see NFA being overturned I imagine.

Also and lastly, why in the hell have not organizations like NRA attacked these laws in attempt to overturn them? Perhaps if all the gun rights advocate organizations got together, could overturning NFA be a possibility?

Had I not been a child when this legislature been enacted I would have invested in full auto weapons.

1. That is indeed part of the problem...Here it is often said members have 'investments'... He who has an investment, will not work to decrease the value of his 'portfolio'!

2. 'Gun Rights Advocacy Organizations' often have as members those same rich and powerful folks that own many 'investments'...if someone bought a FA M16 Pre-Ban For $1,000 and now it's worth, say---$18,000---it's doubtful that investor would work hard to overturn a law that created that huge return on investment...so that YOU could now buy a Semi-Auto AR-15 for $900 or a Full-Auto AR-15 for, say---$935.50 !?

Of Course The OTHER SIDE Of The Coin Is That Every Gun Rights Group Also Fears That Just 'Opening Up' The Issue In Congress COULD Result In More, Not Less Restrictions!
My 'favorite' example is the $200 ONE TIME NFA Class III Tax !
While Advocates Would Argue It Should Be Eliminated, Advocacy Groups Fear It Could Be Turned Into An ANNUAL TAX, Or Adjusted For Inflation From 1934!, Could Be A $2,000 TAX!

3. We All Wish We Actually HAD The Money, Back Then, To INVEST, Big Time!
But, If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride!

CAVman in WYoming

brassmagnet · January 9th, 2012, 02:42 PM

I wish I would have had the wisdom to invest in NFA back then ( 40 years ago).

CAVman · January 9th, 2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmagnet

I wish I would have had the wisdom to invest in NFA back then ( 40 years ago).

Me Too...

I Can Just See Myself Saying To My (Ex-)Wife...

Honey, I know the kids are in school, and need new clothes, and we need a new washer and dryer...but I really think Buying Full-Auto Miltary Rifles Should Be Our Priority Right Now!

Just Saying...

CAVman in WYoming

steve12 · January 10th, 2012, 05:05 AM

Not only are the guns expensive now, but replacement parts are getting hard to find and are expensive, especially for foreign made guns do to the import ban on such weapons and parts.

ww9853 · January 10th, 2012, 08:13 PM

I know a lot of people that own Class III firearms. I think most of them would like to see the ban over turned. A lot of people that could afford to buy Class III firearms before the ban are priced out of the market. They may not make as much money selling the guns they now own, but they can't afford to buy any more then what they now have.

m14forme · January 10th, 2012, 08:20 PM

Well, lucky me I don't have to know any of this stuff because I reside within the People's Republic of California.

medalguy · May 16th, 2012, 09:42 PM

FWIW I have several registered MGs and I for one would LOVE to see the '86 ban revoked. Yes, the value of the guns I have might plummet, but it's also possible that the increased availability of new made guns would greatly increase interest in owning machine guns. This would lead to more guns being made, more machine gun shoots, more sales.... it's a vicious cycle, isn't it?

And of course, there will never be any more WWII Saginaw SG .50 cals made, no matter what the law is. Guide Lamp M3s will never be made again, so the real value of the older guns might not go down nearly as much as some people think. Would you rather have a nice original Colt 1921 Thompson, like mine, or a newly made Kahr?

philip26p · May 16th, 2012, 09:59 PM

I was ONE when the ban happened and it is not fair that I am punished and have my 2nd amendment right violated because a bunch of politicians have no backbones or hate that WE can own guns. Now as to why the NRA and other organization aren’t fighting the ban, IMHO I think they are afraid of losing and spending all those funds for nothing, and the points CAVman made. I won’t ever own a full auto unless I am a class III dealer and am going to be able to at least pay for the fees that go along with the license, or the NFA gets overturned, to me spending 10+ grand to hold the trigger down is a waste of ammo I can buy 3-4 really nice guns for that price.