• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ownership of Full Auto weapons for civilians: My objective quandary.

Miss Black Rifle Disease

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Ronaoke, VA
I wanted to get some input from gun owners as I have always debated in my mind the issue of civilian ownership of F/A weapons.

Firstly my current stance: I don't see that a fully automatic weapon in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is any more of a threat than a semi-automatic one. But I do see that should someone get a hold of that weapon through coercion or theft they could pose a threat to the public, but then again, so could a semi-auto weapon. This seems to be more of a take down issue for law enforcement than anything else. Obviously a villain armed with a F/A weapon would pose a larger threat to LEO lives than with a semi auto weapon. Insofar as a threat to civilians, i.e. a restaurant full of people is just as easily dispatched with an S/A rifle than a F/A one. But, at the end of the day what I ask myself is what practical reason other than just to have one for the sake of having one does a civilian have? Semi-weapons in trained hands are every bit as effective for self-defense as an F/A one so the self-defense issue really doesn't justify the need right? Or does it?

I want one to be prepared for the unthinkable. If a total breakdown of law and order were to occur for whatever reason, especially if it was very long term or permanent an F/A weapon has some very potent use insofar as tactical value, i.e. suppression fire, intimidation, deterrence. But is that enough justification? Would it be responsible of a government to allow fluid F/A ownership beyond the tight NFA and ATF form 4/Tax stamp restrictions for a weapon that only has value if we got invaded or the world went Mad Max? That is where it gets blurry for me. Ultimately I have to make up my own mind how I feel about it, but fresh perspectives are always good.

I'm not suggesting restricting F/A ownership and I still plan to get myself a transferable M16A2 lower for myself eventually. But it would be nice if we could buy new ones for 2 or 3 grand vs. the 10K and up price on the current ones out there. I'm just not sure that looser restrictions have any merit or justification...But then again neither does owning a hundred thousand dollar 220 mph sports car...

Thoughts?
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
Talking to a political candidate yesterday, I had the following conversation:
C: If someone wants fully automatic weapons, they should join the military.
Me: I did, and spent over 22 years. Why should I give it up just because I retired?

I'm still the same person I was then, and just as likely to use it in civilian life as in military (which is to say, highly unlikely since there is still no formal combat role for women). In fact, I didn't serve in combat, so statistically speaking am less likely to have combat-related psychological issues.

I don't really see it as an issue of need, and I certainly don't want the government determining I can only have what I need.
 

Miss Black Rifle Disease

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Ronaoke, VA
Isn't it in Sweden where everyone serves then you take your assault rifle home even after you have done your time on the military? I think, if I recall correctly, that even there an armorer removes the full auto capability of the weapon before it goes home with the citizen. My point is, though I believe you certainly should be able to have an F/A weapon, which you can legally in most states if you have the dollars, I don't see that military service entitles you to special consideration with this issue. A vet is no more or less likely to do evil with a machine gun then a citizen who never served. But all that being said your point is interesting and not lost on me nevertheless. Something to add to my deliberations on this topic for certain..

Yes I was in the military btw...
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Isn't it in Sweden where everyone serves then you take your assault rifle home even after you have done your time on the military? I think, if I recall correctly, that even there an armorer removes the full auto capability of the weapon before it goes home with the citizen. My point is, though I believe you certainly should be able to have an F/A weapon, which you can legally in most states if you have the dollars, I don't see that military service entitles you to special consideration with this issue. A vet is no more or less likely to do evil with a machine gun then a citizen who never served. But all that being said your point is interesting and not lost on me nevertheless. Something to add to my deliberations on this topic for certain..

Yes I was in the military btw...

Switzerland
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I thought it was legal?
I thought there was a stamp for it or something? I really don't know because I've never considered paying $20,000 for gun or what ever is was.
IMHO it is the same song and dance about disarming civilians. The only way to truly control people to the point of forcing them (without question) to do exactly what the governing body wants is violence. Since the governing body is the minority they must be stronger. Bigger, badder guns. Or NO guns for the people.
 

Miss Black Rifle Disease

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Ronaoke, VA
Switzerland

Thank you. I could not remember which country it was.

I thought it was legal?
I thought there was a stamp for it or something? I really don't know because I've never considered paying $20,000 for gun or what ever is was.
IMHO it is the same song and dance about disarming civilians. The only way to truly control people to the point of forcing them (without question) to do exactly what the governing body wants is violence. Since the governing body is the minority they must be stronger. Bigger, badder guns. Or NO guns for the people.

It is currently legal depending on your state, paying your $250 Tax stamp to the ATF and your local chief LEO's willingness to sign off on your ATF Form 4 unless you have a trust set up. But you cannot purchase new F/A arms. They must have been manufactured prior to March of 1987 I believe and the weapon must have been originally registered as a civilian full auto weapon for it to be legally transferable. The limited amount of Pre-Brady ban F/A weapons out there has inflated the price to absurd levels. For example the cheapest I have ever seen a transferable F/A M-16 was an A1 model and it sold for $9000. The cheapest F/A weapons out there are probably Uzis (around 4 to 5k) and MAC10s (around 5 and 6 thousand) followed by MP5s, then M14's and then M16's with every other F/A weapon dropping in between those popular models in various order depending on condition.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Miss Black Rifle Disease said:
It is currently legal depending on your state, paying your $250 Tax stamp to the ATF and your local chief LEO's willingness to sign off on your ATF Form 4 unless you have a trust set up.
$200, & while I can't find the info on the ATF site, I remember reading that they were either doing away with or considering doing away with the chief's stamp of approval. :banana:

They must have been manufactured prior to March of 1987 I believe
Close... had to be "lawfully possessed" before May of 1986, actually.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

Firearm Owners’ Protection Act
In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer. The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns. Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.
 
Last edited:

Miss Black Rifle Disease

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Ronaoke, VA
$200, & while I can't find the info on the ATF site, I remember reading that they were either doing away with or considering doing away with the chief's stamp of approval. :banana:


Close... had to be "lawfully possessed" before May of 1986, actually.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

Thanks for the fact check! Good news on the LEO signature req. being dropped.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I would argue that full-auto weapons are less of a threat to public safety. Full auto serves well for area denial in military operations, but not so much for hitting a specific target.

Probably the best active shooter scenario, in terms of stopping the shooter, is one in which the shooter thinks he's playing a video game with a real-life bullet hose. He'll quickly be out of ammo, and easy to take down, after probably hitting not much except dirt and sky.
 

altajava

Newbie
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
228
Location
Occupied Virginia, USA
"Ownership of Full Auto weapons for civilians: My objective quandary."

It is no quandary to me. The second of the first ten amendments. The first ten amendments, i.e. The Bill Of Rights, was put in place by some very smart gentlemen. The Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the citizen from the government and as such the citizen should be well armed. I would love to see the NFA act of '86 repealed as I think it would drive the cost of select fire guns down. They still wouldn't be cheep to feed though. I would love to see the NFA act of '34 repealed so I could buy a select fire gun with less paperwork involved than currently needed for a handgun.
 

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
"Ownership of Full Auto weapons for civilians: My objective quandary."

It is no quandary to me. The second of the first ten amendments. The first ten amendments, i.e. The Bill Of Rights, was put in place by some very smart gentlemen. The Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the citizen from the government and as such the citizen should be well armed. I would love to see the NFA act of '86 repealed as I think it would drive the cost of select fire guns down. They still wouldn't be cheep to feed though. I would love to see the NFA act of '34 repealed so I could buy a select fire gun with less paperwork involved than currently needed for a handgun.

This is the only answer you ever need.
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
The "political candidate" is a moron.

1. Your question was not about the military.
2. Most military arms are NOT full auto. Three round burst but not FA. (or so I've been led to believe)
3. Does he think the military GIVES you a FA weapon as a parting gift?
4. Many Colonial Americans had a weapon identical to the military. Heck many brought their own to the fight.

I'm torn on unrestricted FA. The Libertarian in me says Heck Yeah, and let the free market determine the price. My prudence says gangbangers and terrorists should have a couple walls between themselves and FA. My primary reason for thinking this is that criminals could deploy FA weapons against even a heavily populated CCW crowd with police presence and still hold a strategic advantage, and the police would have that much more incentive to militarize.

I think a proper solution would be to alter the existing registration procedure for FA weapons to make it more user friendly, while maintaining accountability. Further restoration of FA freedom could be implemented in stages as long as there are no systemic problems.
 

Miss Black Rifle Disease

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Ronaoke, VA
"Ownership of Full Auto weapons for civilians: My objective quandary."

It is no quandary to me. The second of the first ten amendments. The first ten amendments, i.e. The Bill Of Rights, was put in place by some very smart gentlemen. The Bill of Rights was put in place to protect the citizen from the government and as such the citizen should be well armed. I would love to see the NFA act of '86 repealed as I think it would drive the cost of select fire guns down. They still wouldn't be cheep to feed though. I would love to see the NFA act of '34 repealed so I could buy a select fire gun with less paperwork involved than currently needed for a handgun.

I agree in the spirit of this , but not completely in the content. I don't think unrestricted F/A is as simple as a "gun rights" issue. But I too would love to see the NFA act repealed for many reasons.

The "political candidate" is a moron.

1. Your question was not about the military.
2. Most military arms are NOT full auto. Three round burst but not FA. (or so I've been led to believe)
3. Does he think the military GIVES you a FA weapon as a parting gift?
4. Many Colonial Americans had a weapon identical to the military. Heck many brought their own to the fight.

I'm torn on unrestricted FA. The Libertarian in me says Heck Yeah, and let the free market determine the price. My prudence says gangbangers and terrorists should have a couple walls between themselves and FA. My primary reason for thinking this is that criminals could deploy FA weapons against even a heavily populated CCW crowd with police presence and still hold a strategic advantage, and the police would have that much more incentive to militarize.

I think a proper solution would be to alter the existing registration procedure for FA weapons to make it more user friendly, while maintaining accountability. Further restoration of FA freedom could be implemented in stages as long as there are no systemic problems.

I agree with this completely and well put. You framed some of my thoughts better than I did. The biggest thing I disagree with over the NFA act is the restriction on purchasing new arms. This really makes no sense. We can have F/A, just not a brand new one. What's the difference? F/A is F/A. At minimum that aspect of the NFA should be dropped. I mean the ridiculous part about it is you can get a F/A weapon on the black market for as little as $500 and there are plenty of them. Yet to purchase one legally you will be well over $10,000 by the time it's all said and done. If this restriction was imposed to drive up prices and make F/A or S/F weapons too expensive for just anyone to own and to limit their numbers in civilian hands then that was a major fail.
 
Last edited:

Mas49.56

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
308
Location
Florida, USA
Shooting "full auto" is not like in the movies, literally not two seconds later and the full auto AK is empty, one cool looking rainbow of empty shells though. Most of the rounds will have went into the sky from the skill level of your average gang banger. Criminal types can get them now, so that's a non issue IMHO.
Now, three round burst on the other hand oooohhhh yaaa:banana:

That being said I would love to FA my PS90's if it were legal! A Glock18 would be tasty too. Most ranges these days have banned full auto weapons, so it would be hard for most folks to find a range to train with them anyway.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Are they worth the price under current conditions? No, not to me. If you are a good marksman, an M-4 fired semi-auto will do the job at least as well as the 'spray and pray' taught in Vietnam. 30 rounds goes fast in full auto, hence the 3 round burst which is now pretty standard. 9 or 10 large buys an awful lot of ammo to practice with, imo.
 

Miss Black Rifle Disease

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Ronaoke, VA
Shooting "full auto" is not like in the movies, literally not two seconds later and the full auto AK is empty, one cool looking rainbow of empty shells though. Most of the rounds will have went into the sky from the skill level of your average gang banger. Criminal types can get them now, so that's a non issue IMHO.
Now, three round burst on the other hand oooohhhh yaaa:banana:

For anyone that has not actually fired an F/A weapon these are valuable words and something to consider.

Are they worth the price under current conditions? No, not to me. If you are a good marksman, an M-4 fired semi-auto will do the job at least as well as the 'spray and pray' taught in Vietnam. 30 rounds goes fast in full auto, hence the 3 round burst which is now pretty standard. 9 or 10 large buys an awful lot of ammo to practice with, imo.

Yep! But one day I hope to have enough financial worth to where 10K for a rifle won't be that big of a deal...I'm probably dreaming...
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Semi-weapons in trained hands are every bit as effective for self-defense as an F/A one so the self-defense issue really doesn't justify the need right? Or does it?

In trained hands, an auto is more effective for self-defense than a semi-auto, for one specific reason: Seven shots downrange in less than a second compared to one or two. However, beyond a burst of about three, you're likely to walk off target.

I want one to be prepared for the unthinkable. If a total breakdown of law and order were to occur for whatever reason, especially if it was very long term or permanent an F/A weapon has some very potent use insofar as tactical value, i.e. suppression fire, intimidation, deterrence. But is that enough justification?

Enough justification for what?

Would it be responsible of a government to allow fluid F/A ownership beyond the tight NFA and ATF form 4/Tax stamp restrictions for a weapon that only has value if we got invaded or the world went Mad Max?

If someone will be using an auto for illegal purposes, they shouldn't own a firearm at all. If someone will be using an auto for legal purposes, what's the point of trying to restrict them?

Back to that three round burst... Machine guns go through a whole lot of rounds in a hurry. Your 1,000 round stash can get used up in a couple of firefights that way, and lugging around ammo isn't easy. That's why some machine guns with selectable fire had single, 3, and full auto. Distance targets - single for taking them out, three-shot for suppression fire. For closer work, three-shot for taking them out, and full auto for suppression fire against many targets.

Wasting ammo is fun on the range! It can cost you your life in combat.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
The AF changed up their weapons qualification training for the M4/M16 and we now get to fire it on burst a few times. The very first time I pulled that trigger I couldn't hold the gun on target. In fact while the first round hit center mass, the third round hit the heavy-duty metal clip that holds up the target (which caused the frangible round to shatter, slide down the angled clip, and the shards cut the head off at the throat, causing my target to fall to the ground). So honestly, I wouldn't be too scared about 99% of badguys having a FA gun as it would likely end up pointing straight up if they tried to hold the trigger down too long.

As for should we be able to, yes. I mean simply looking at the intent of the 2A (and ignoring the whole "...shall not be infringed" bit which should be the end of the arguement) it was for the citizens to be properly armed should our government become so corrupt that there is a need to overthrow it just as how they had just overthrown the British. And even in the SCOTUS case where they erroneously rule the NFA of 1934 to be Constitutional, they state that if the weapon in question (a sawed off shotgun) had any use in the military then the law would have been unconstitutional.
 
Top