Going back to WW II gentlemen, the Thompson sub-machine gun ( 45 acp ) and the late model M-1 Carbine had selective fire levers, semi-auto, burst (2 or 3 rounds) and full auto.
The buyer or new owner must/shall have a Class III Federal Firearms License. These require the approval of your local county Sheriff among many others (local, state and federal).
@Bobby Cole "Automatic firearms are only legal if they were purchased prior to 1986. After that year no automatic weapon can be sold UNLESS it is sold by a federal or state agency and only to specific people with a whole lot of money and a heckova background. The weapon is registered by the feds the state and generally whatever police dept is responsible for where that person lives." @Bobby Cole Begging to differ again, you are quoting from the 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act, and fact is that was an incorrect interpretation. After that year ANYONE qualifying appropriately may have purchased a fully-automatic weapon already in the Federal Registry. Any Law Enforcement Agency is EXEMPTED from compliance with the NFA 34 law. What 1986 accomplished was to force the halting of adding any NEW weapons to the Federal Registry, thereby "freezing" the civilian-legal supply. An amendment to the 1986 law introduced by a congressman named Hughes at the last minute before signing, called for no further manufacture of fully-automatic weapons, among other things, was hardly looked-at by the others. The result was several lawsuits filed against the government, the first being aimed directly at the Hughes Amendment: "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) interpreted the Hughes Amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986. This led to freezing the number of privately-owned fully-automatic firearms at about 150,000 nationwide. This freeze led to great controversy. At the time there had been almost no record of a legally owned, civilian fully automatic firearm used to commit a violent crime. The director of the BATF, Stephen Higgins, testified that the misuse of legally-owned fully-automatic firearms was “so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem.” The feds backed down, as you can see, if you care to read all this boggy-business, the feds backed down. Next big case after that, below, feds backed down again, though in my thinking they were justified: "A Georgia man named Farmer purchased a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after the passing of the FOPA. When applying for registration of this fully-automatic firearm, the BATF rejected him. The interpretation of the amendment that the BATF was acting upon was, in his mind, incorrect. He questioned whether or not Congress had the power to ban a specific type of weapon, and if they exercised that power, would that be a violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution? The District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer’s favor. The federal government appealed, and later reversed the decision." Ruled a violation of the Second Amendment. In this last one, a large producer of firearms, Rock Island Armory, was charged with 1986 FOPA violations. Here's what happened: "Rock Island Armory was charged in 1987 to be in violation of the National Firearms Act registration requirements. The chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois threw out the case citing that NFA sections upon which the charges were based, were “without any constitutional basis.” The federal government appealed this decision, but later asked for dismissal of the appeal. The Rock Island precedent has been in use since then in cases such as U.S. v. Dalton, where Dalton, an attorney, accepted a firearm as fee from a client who was a licensed firearms dealer and who had converted the weapon into a machine gun in 1989." See: https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/today-in-history-the-hughes-amendment/ Finally, if what you provided were correct, how then was I able to SELL my legally-purchased and owned 1928 Thompson Submachinegun, fully-automatic, in 1998, with no hoopla at all. (Should'a got more money, though, today it's worth upwards of $20,000!) Frank
Sure it does, but at the grave price of releasing all law-abiding citizens' from their right to self-defense. It MIGHT reduce gun-related crime, but how does the crime rate really change? Anyone know? https://frontier.yahoo.com/news/gun-control-really-works-science-152300979.html
Dunno......what day and what month did you sell it? And another thing I “dunno”. Why are you having such a hizzy fit over the information I provided? It is as seemingly credible as yours is so you figure it out.
While drugs are on the streets, people will have weapons. Weapons and drugs go together so the good guy needs defence tactics. The type of weapon should be addressed though. If only we could rid the world of drugs, what a wonderful world this would be
Is there this option or are you pulling....? Just tried to figure that out but can't really simulate it if I don't want to actually post something. If I remember correctly, there's a spanner symbol for editing the title but that does not work as I said. Sorry for going OT.
I have done it, although it must be right after starting a new thread. You have a very narrow window. Click on the thread tools in upper right, to edit. I found it is best to highlight and delete entire title and re-type the new title and click save. (you may have to click "other options" to get to title screen)
Paper does not stop bullets. Gun control only works when there is a federal set of rules that all states have to abide by--in Alabama, there is no background check for buying a gun from the guy you met at the gas station or neighbor. It is perfectly legal. The only license needed is to carry and hunting. If a person buys at a store, yes, all the red tape applies. Having a set of rules as to who can buy a gun will not stop mass shootings. Congress would need to make gun control standard across the US and use the power of commerce to regulate what type of guns are legal. Then, it is a matter of rounding up weapons as they are found because no one is going to voluntarily turn in their uzi, machine gun, or AK15. Another thing they can do is make buying ammo fall under the same restrictions as narcotics. A set limit per 30 days, etc. I have a semi-auto Luger that I would turn in for a trade. I want one of these: Now, that's a beauty Just right for a purse.
@Frank Sanoica Too many people, both the good and the bad, have unregistered guns and know someone who makes ammo on the black market. I think the whole gun regulation ship has sailed. It's a moot point because it is not forceable.
Germany regulated ownership of firearms not types of firearms. There's a big difference between owning a Derringer than a Bazooka. The issue I see across news boards is that people tremble at the sound of gun control. The rhetoric begins with "Oh! They're taking away our 2nd amendment rights!" or "Oh! They're striping us of constitutional rights! Next they'll make me pay taxes!" The Constitution gives Congress the power of regulation for all things commerce, which guns are commerce. They can say what type of guns a person is allowed to own, but cannot say we cannot own guns. The US borders are too large for the military and law enforcement to protect. The thing that has kept the US safest is the fact that citizens are armed. 9/11 was atrocious, but that is the worst our adversaries can do. No country can outright invade this country. The government knows that and would never be foolish to take away the 2nd amendment. People need to follow Taylor Swift's advice and calm down.