3 ms·
> reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc. That's wrong. IIRC, the NFA only require
by ardy42 6y ago
> reversing the National Firearms Act that restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons, legalizing silencers, etc.
That's wrong. IIRC, the NFA only requires that machine guns and silencers be registered and taxed. See this Forgotten Weapons episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po715YGEzTY. It's for a fully automatic M-16 with a device that makes it sound like an AK-47 that's regulated as a silencer. It was up for auction, but the winner would have to pay double the tax because it's a "two stamp" gun.
- JKCalhoun 6y agoI know, that's why I used "restricted".
- ardy42 6y ago> I know, that's why I used "restricted". Well, I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. restricts ownership to people who can pay the $200 tax and fill out some forms), but I wouldn't describe that as a meaningful "restrict[ion on] ownership," which I think would be things like bans or hard-to-get licensing requirements.
- wl 6y agoWith the Hughes amendment closing the machinegun registry, it effectively restricts machinegun ownership to those who can afford to pay $5,000 for a low quality item and $20,000 or more for something for something decent.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoYou can't register new full-auto weapons since the 1986 Hughes Amendment.