It's legal to own a machine gun
 

Linky

I'm planning on looking up the interstate commerce act to see what it has to do with machine guns.

He's a convicted felon, so he's not done with the Courts yet.

I thas been legal to own a machine gune for quite some time. There are just immense hoops to jump through to own them legally. The interstate commerce thing, from what I recall, was the justification for a number of regulations created around that time. In essence, it refers to the idea that Congress can pass any law dealing with interstate commerce as that is its' primary bailiwick, or at least somesuch tomfoolery. It was, from what I recall, a fairly loose justification, in my opinion.

Been a while since I read the history of the ban, so my advice it to read it yourself. I'm likely off.

Woah.

Is this an overturning or redefinition of the applicability of the 1934 law?

If so, it is significant and I know a lot of potential machine gun owners looking at setting up their own machine shops right now.

I've always wanted to own a gun. A machine gun would be an excellent place to start, I think.

Just kidding. I'd start off with a handgun.

start off with a 22 caliber long rifle. a handgun is something you should graduate to, not start with. just my $.02

22's are the shit. Cheap ammo, decent firepower for just tinkering around. for like 500 rounds of 22R its something around 15-20 bucks depending on the brand and where you live in the US to get ammo.

I would guess that he made/modified the sear at home. From what I recall, the sear is really the only part of a "machine gun" that ATF cares about (and any sort of multi-round burst mechanisms if the weapon has such equipment). If the sear did not cross state lines, everything else may very well have been legally transported.

I am thinking that this is not the sweeping reform gun rights folks might be thinking. I'm wondering if this individual portion was taken from a larger context for effect. I simply do not see an appeals court overturning the MG Ban, even if some of their language weakens it.

I remember reading something in my youth about plans for a .22 gatling gun. Sounded neat, but haven't seen it advertised recently.

Gatling style designs are a bit of a grey area. They don't actually fire more than one bullet per pull of the trigger, the primary (and extremely basic) definition of a machine-gun. They are more akin to putting a cam assembly in your existing autoloader and spinning it quickly to activate the trigger in rapid succession. I do believe those items were made illegal later, so Gatlings may be illegal by proxy.

I cannot see why the govt would make normal machine guns illegal without somehow including Gatlings though, so I could be off with the "grey area" comment.

I've owned handguns but never a long rifle. Given that experience, would you recomment I get a .22 as well? I have been toying around with getting a M1. I'd like to get a rifle when I move somewhere less populous.

Really liked the M1 Garand I had. Sold it to a friend that pestered me for years to let him buy it. I miss that gun. One of the best shooters I've ever owned in any caliber, and tough as a rock.

A friend of mine had an M1 Carbine converted to full auto. I have shot a Garand and loved it. The carbine he had jammed a lot and threw lead everywhere. For what it's worth.

I too have an M1 Carbine. While I've gotten mine tuned to the point where it doesn't jam (using Winchester ammo, can't speak for anything else), it is about innaccurate. Can't say that I'm impressed with the littlest M1. It is a fun gun to go waste money with, but that's it really.

I guess I should have been more specific...I want to buy a M1 Garand, but for now that is wishful thinking.

Thanks for the feedback on both though. Interesting about the carbine jamming.

Not just jamming though. I've got a buddy that spent a chunk of money on a very well-kept paratrooper's model M1 Carbine, with the original folding stock. Gun was pretty. We took it to the range, and on the second magazine fired to it the bolt popped out of the top of the receiver! Damned thing would not go back in either. We had to tear the gun down and essentially field strip it to replace the bolt. Didn't take but another magazine and a half for it to happen again. Poor guy.

It has always been legal to manufacture your own guns IF they are for your personal use and not to be sold. Manufacturing for selling requires a class II FFL.

In this particular case, I believe the defendent had true machining knowledge and basically milled his own receiver. I'm sure this will never be extended to just making your own DIAS or lightning link.

For anyone looking at Garands, please look to the CMP first--one of the few things done right in this country regarding guns.
http://www.odcmp.com/

I keep meaning to go do a CMP course/shoot.

Yeah, me too. I have always wanted an M1 and a Springfield 1903, and the best way to get them is through the CMP. One of these days...

I bought my dad a M-1 Garand for father's day a few years back and I would agree that the fucker is damn near indestructable.

For a first hand gun I would suggest the Browning Buckmark .22 if you want a auto.
Or a Ruger .22 revolver

I also love the fact that here in Georgia you can buy a fully auto-matic assault rifle with a supressor and there is no waiting period...just a phone call.

Being that what types of arms are not stipulated, and shall not be infringed is specifically stated regarding the people's right to bear arms (as well as providing for the people's right to form a militia) in the US, there is constitutional proof maliciously ignored in an attempt to disarm the populace. The NFA merely set up 'regulations' (or infringements, if you like) regarding transfer and sale of machineguns to civilians. The law is pretty much unenforceable. If you never tell the government you have the machinery, you never tell them you made it, and you never tell them you sold it, you never pay the NFA taxes. The NFA transfer tax stamp in 1934 was set at 200 dollars for machineguns. That was in an age where 3 pound bags of marijuana could be had for a few dollars and cocaine could still be prescribed, not to mention that Thompson Submachineguns only cost about 400 dollars themselves, and that usually included the FBI style deluxe model (which could be sold to civilians in 1929) which came with 1 empty 100 round drum and 2 50 round drums, as well as several (4 I think) 30 round box magazines. All in all, it was a damn fine deal. Clearly, 450 was a hell of a lot of money in 1934, more than sharecroppers earned in a year. Suddenly, 600 dollars and criminal background checks and waiting periods for something like that is so impractical that most ordinary citizens won't even consider it out of sheer expense. The act has accomplished its purpose.

guns are a mechanical tool.whether for hunting,range practice,or just collecting..however due to some wacko's out there, it has become an instrument of death.i dont know how to we stop them from buying guns.but the rest of us should'nt cop the flak cos we are responcible gun owners/users...the government here in australia has taken measures to make it harder to own a gun... so the rest of us suffer while orgnanized crime do as they please. the government offerd a buy back scheme. but it didnt stop the illegal guns from being used in various crimes..i dont have the answers ! but there must be a better way to control who has guns & who does'nt.....guns dont kill people, people kill people.....

To much thread jacking going on so it's closed