Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Well, interpreted as that tells me it's the right to bear "small arms."
This includes the M2 Browning
It takes the one on the far left
Is this a reasonable upper limit? |
I'm not comfortable defining a reasonable upper limit on legal ownership. Except for weapons such as shotguns and big game guns that have a sporting purpose as recognized by the attorney general, a gun with a larger bore than the .50BMG must be registered under the NFA as a destructive device, and the buyer must pass a comprehensive background check, be fingerprinted, pay a tax in addition to the price of the gun, and notify the ATF if they plan to take it out of state. It appears that NFA restrictions on machine guns, destructive devices, short rifles, short shotguns, and AOWs have been effective in preventing individuals from using legally owned title II weapons in crimes. I oppose the 1984 closing of the machine gun registry, and I support maintaining the NFA as a reasonable and effective way to limit the availability of machine guns and the like to criminals. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop Norinco from shipping automatic rifles, rocket launchers, and tanks to the US with the intent of selling them to gang members, but that's a discussion for another thread.
The M2 is an automatic weapon and subject to NFA restrictions, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
And is a tank considered arms or ordinance? According to some here they should be able to own a tank. To me there isn't much difference between owning a bomb and owning a tank. Especially when you consider a tank basically fires explosives.
Now I am not arguing that all weapons should be confiscated. Instead i'm arguing that a line of what is reasonable exists. The true debate comes at where is that line. One can argue that such a line does not exist but they are likely a fool or just trying to argue for the sake of argument.
|
A tank is prohibitively expensive for criminal use and I believe US military regulations prevent the sale of such surplus vehicles unless the mounted weapons have been removed or rendered permanently inoperable. I argue that it is unlikely that anyone but a collector would be willing to purchase one, and if this unlikely scenario were to occur, the gun would have to be registered as a destructive device requiring the aforementioned background check process and $200 tax stamp, as would each round of ammunition containing more than 1/4oz of explosive or 4oz of propellant.
A criminal who wanted a tank, Marvin Heemeyer for example, would be more likely to improvise a tank out of a bulldozer, concrete, and steel plating with a few cameras and guns poking through holes.