I heard... True?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    197
    16
    Anderson
    I've either heard from reputable people, or possibly even read on here some NFA things I didn't know. I'm going to present this information and hopefully you guys can either confirm what I've heard, or clear them up for me.

    Recently I thought about purchasing an AR style rifle (like an AR-15, or M4Carbine variant) for multi-purpose use. These primarily revolve around home protection, not just from human invaders, but also coyotes. Because I live in the country, I anticipate primarily using it to kill coyotes that are getting too close to the livestock across the street, or too close to the houses in the neighborhood (I live on the edge of a neighborhood with farms across the street with various livestock). Because I live in a sub-division in close proximity to my neighbors, I've considered having the rifle silenced/suppressed to hopefully minimize any "annoyance" I might cause my neighbors shooting at coyotes on a possibly frequent basis.

    This brings me to my first rumor. I recall reading somewhere recently (I think it was on here) that it is illegal in this state to "hunt" animals with a silencer/suppressor. Since I would be protecting my pets, my neighbor's pets, and livestock, would it still be illegal?

    Another rumor I'd like cleared up is that I heard that even if you have multiple NFA modifications to one specific firearm, you only have to pay the tax one time per weapon, not per modification? If this were true, I think I may have the gun modified to shoot fully automatic... Which brings me to the last thing I heard from a little birdy.

    I also heard somewhere that no "new" guns are to be made or modified to fire full automatic. Only those weapons that were full automatic prior to the passing of some law 20+ years ago are legally allowed to be full automatic. True?

    If the last were true does that mean if I wanted to get a fully automatic, suppressed rifle that I'd have to purchase an old and/or used rifle?

    I know it's a lot, and I'm sure that most of this has been answered before, but it was actually keeping me awake tonight trying to remember what I had and hadn't heard.
     

    cositc

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    191
    16
    Martinsville
    I don't know about being able to hunt suppressed, but if you are right that the only full auto's that you can have had to of been built before may 19 1986. The cheapest full auto is a mac 10 @ $2500-$3500 plus a $200 tax.

    "you only have to pay the tax one time per weapon, not per modification?"

    Yes and no. It all depends on how you have the gun set up. If it is a full auto with a short barrel and a suppresser that has been permeanty attached then yes it would only be one tax stamp. the reason for this is that since the gun is full auto it trumps the short barrel rifle and since the suppresser is permeanty attached It can only be used on that one gun so you would not have to pay a tax stamp on it.

    But I don't think that you can use a full auto to hunt with in indiana, plus at some $15000 or $16000 for a full auto m-16, I just would not use it to hunt with.

    One last note you can find M-16's that have never been used and are still in the box, But they are going to bring a high price tag.
     

    sparky241

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 18, 2008
    1,488
    36
    no suppressors in indiana for hunting

    no civilian weapon can be made full auto legally thanks to the gun control act of 1986
    what was made before that is all that there is.

    depends on the mods. if you have a full auto and a suppressor then both need to be papered
     

    w_ADAM_d88

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Apr 10, 2009
    3,616
    83
    Greenfield
    Where do you get your info ???
    My DNR book says "NO Firearms restrictions" for coyote hunting:dunno:

    Ind. Code § 14-22-6-11 : Indiana Code - Section 14-22-6-11: Silencers prohibited

    (a) This section does not apply to an employee of the department or an employee of a federal wildlife management agency who:
    (1) is acting in the performance of the employee's duties; and
    (2) has received the express written consent of the director for the employee's action.
    (b) A person may not:
    (1) use or possess an apparatus designed for use with or on a firearm commonly called a silencer; or
    (2) use or possess a device used as a silencer;
    in Indiana while in the act of hunting.
    As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.13-2007, SEC.2.


    IC 14-8-2
    Chapter 2. Definitions

    IC 14-8-2-39
    "Chase"
    Sec. 39. "Chase", for purposes of IC 14-22, means following wildlife without the intent to take.
    As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.1.

    IC 14-8-2-128
    "Hunt"
    Sec. 128. "Hunt", for purposes of IC 14-22, means to take a wild animal except by trapping.
    As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.1.

    IC 14-8-2-278
    "Take"
    Sec. 278. "Take" has the following meaning:
    (1) For purposes of IC 14-22, except as provided in subdivision (2):
    (A) to kill, shoot, spear, gig, catch, trap, harm, harass, or pursue a wild animal; or
    (B) to attempt to engage in such conduct.
    (2) For purposes of IC 14-22-34, the meaning set forth in IC 14-22-34-5.
    As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.1.
     

    CountryBoy19

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 91.7%
    11   1   0
    Nov 10, 2008
    8,412
    63
    Bedford, IN
    Where do you get your info ???
    My DNR book says "NO Firearms restrictions" for coyote hunting:dunno:
    That's what the DNR says, but IC says that you cannot kill any animal with a suppressor.


    I don't know about being able to hunt suppressed, but if you are right that the only full auto's that you can have had to of been built before may 19 1986. The cheapest full auto is a mac 10 @ $2500-$3500 plus a $200 tax.

    "you only have to pay the tax one time per weapon, not per modification?"

    Yes and no. It all depends on how you have the gun set up. If it is a full auto with a short barrel and a suppresser that has been permeanty attached then yes it would only be one tax stamp. the reason for this is that since the gun is full auto it trumps the short barrel rifle and since the suppresser is permeanty attached It can only be used on that one gun so you would not have to pay a tax stamp on it.

    Just a point of clarification on this, I don't think you could do it with an M16. The reason is because the lower receiver is the MG, and the upper could be removed and put on another gun. I've actually never heard before that you can permanently attach a suppressor to an MG and not have to pay a tax stamp. I'm skeptical, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. The reason I'm skeptical is because a suppressor alone is a firearm even if it's permanently attached to another gun.

    To answer the OPs question, in most cases outside of MGs, each NFA item needs to have a tax stamp.

    Some exceptions would be permanently attaching a suppressor to an SBR. In that case, the barrel is no longer "short" so it's really not an SBR at all. That is why you can get away with just a stamp for the suppressor.

    Because MG's are a category all of their own, there really isn't such a thing as short-barreled MG, it's not illegal. So you only need the stamp for the MG itself and that will cover the short barrels.
     

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,959
    113
    Arcadia
    since the suppresser is permeanty attached It can only be used on that one gun so you would not have to pay a tax stamp on it.

    I do not believe this is correct. Any suppressor will have to have a stamp whether it is permanently attached to a weapon or not.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,063
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    My DNR book says "NO Firearms restrictions" for coyote hunting

    And your DNR book is correct. Use your .270, your .38-55, your M1 Garand, or, better yet, borrow rhino's guns and shoot coyotes.

    However, as the IC controls, leave your suppressor at home while shooting coyotes.

    I recall reading somewhere recently (I think it was on here) that it is illegal in this state to "hunt" animals with a silencer/suppressor.

    Correct, one may not use a suppressor in the act of hunting. You can use any firearm you wish (I suggest rhino's guns), but leave the suppressor off it.

    I also heard somewhere that no "new" guns are to be made or modified to fire full automatic. Only those weapons that were full automatic prior to the passing of some law 20+ years ago are legally allowed to be full automatic. True?

    True, the date is May 19, 1986 pursuant to the "Hughes Amendment" to the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
     

    CountryBoy19

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 91.7%
    11   1   0
    Nov 10, 2008
    8,412
    63
    Bedford, IN
    And your DNR book is correct. Use your .270, your .38-55, your M1 Garand, or, better yet, borrow rhino's guns and shoot coyotes.

    However, as the IC controls, leave your suppressor at home while shooting coyotes.



    Correct, one may not use a suppressor in the act of hunting. You can use any firearm you wish (I suggest rhino's guns), but leave the suppressor off it.



    True, the date is May 19, 1986 pursuant to the "Hughes Amendment" to the Firearm Owners Protection Act.
    I think the confusion stems from the fact that a suppressor IS a firearm all by itself.. So technically, the DNR contradicts the IC. But, as always, follow the actual IC and not what XYZ agency says.
     

    VUPDblue

    Silencers Have NEVER Been Illegal !
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   1
    Mar 20, 2008
    12,885
    83
    Franklin Township
    a full auto with a short barrel and a suppresser that has been permeanty attached then yes it would only be one tax stamp. the reason for this is that since the gun is full auto it trumps the short barrel rifle and since the suppresser is permeanty attached It can only be used on that one gun so you would not have to pay a tax stamp on it.

    I do not believe this is correct. Any suppressor will have to have a stamp whether it is permanently attached to a weapon or not.


    Phylodog is correct. A suppressor is a suppressor and MUST be registered, no matter what firearm it is on...even a machinegun.
     
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    197
    16
    Anderson
    Okay. You guys have done great at answering my questions... for the most part.

    Just to clarify. The only reasons I would be shooting a coyote would be to protect my property and/or my neighbors property (primarily being my pets, and his livestock). My interpretation is more along the lines of "I'm shooting a threat to my property." The threat just happens to be an animal... Is that still considered "hunting" by IC? Reading the IC posted by w_ADAM_d88 it certainly sounds like it could be, but it also sounds like a bit of a grey area I may want to contact my state rep to clear up. If I were to shoot a person with a silenced weapon who was posing a threat/imminent danger to my property, I don't think there would be near the confusion.

    And secondly, I would have to pay for a $200 tax stamp for a fully auto weapon (machine gun). That much we already know. Based on what I'm hearing here, I would have to pay an additional $200 tax stamp to have that machine gun silenced? Even if it were permanently attached?

    This last part may warrant a new thread entirely. After some research on the "Hughes Amendment"... Frankly this doesn't sound difficult to get repealed... So I ask, has a repeal of this amendment been attempted? When? How many times?
     

    VUPDblue

    Silencers Have NEVER Been Illegal !
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   1
    Mar 20, 2008
    12,885
    83
    Franklin Township
    And secondly, I would have to pay for a $200 tax stamp for a fully auto weapon (machine gun). That much we already know. Based on what I'm hearing here, I would have to pay an additional $200 tax stamp to have that machine gun silenced? Even if it were permanently attached?


    Yep, $200 transfer tax and stamp on the suppressor. Permanently attached means absolutely nothing, it's still a suppressor and must be registered as such and have the tax paid.
     
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    197
    16
    Anderson
    Yep, $200 transfer tax and stamp on the suppressor. Permanently attached means absolutely nothing, it's still a suppressor and must be registered as such and have the tax paid.

    Well... if nothing else I'm glad to have that cleared up. So... since I would have to pay for the tax stamp anyway, couldn't I just get one that I could take on and off as I please for additional options?

    Also, the Hughes Amendment appears to prohibit civilians from possessing full-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. What about having a semi-auto firearm modified by a gun smith to fire full-auto?
     

    VUPDblue

    Silencers Have NEVER Been Illegal !
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   1
    Mar 20, 2008
    12,885
    83
    Franklin Township
    Thread-on or "muzzle cans" are the most versatile and thus the most common.

    You may not have any gun modified by ANYONE, including a gunsmith, to be a machinegun. If it wasn't a machinegun AND registered as such before May of 1986, it can NEVER legally be a machinegun.
     

    Bigdee06

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 1, 2010
    232
    18
    Warrick Co.
    Not to be a "smarty pants" or anything like that but he could legally have his semi-auto modified by a gunsmith to fire full-auto:ar15:. All he would have to do is purchase a lightning link or a DIAS and he would be good to go.
    icon10.gif
    I think they are only $15,000 or so.:laugh::laugh:
     

    CountryBoy19

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 91.7%
    11   1   0
    Nov 10, 2008
    8,412
    63
    Bedford, IN
    Just to clarify. The only reasons I would be shooting a coyote would be to protect my property and/or my neighbors property (primarily being my pets, and his livestock). My interpretation is more along the lines of "I'm shooting a threat to my property." The threat just happens to be an animal... Is that still considered "hunting" by IC? Reading the IC posted by w_ADAM_d88 it certainly sounds like it could be, but it also sounds like a bit of a grey area I may want to contact my state rep to clear up. If I were to shoot a person with a silenced weapon who was posing a threat/imminent danger to my property, I don't think there would be near the confusion.
    If you read the definition of "hunt" it is to "take" any wild animal. Is the coyote domesticated? No, it's a wild animal. If you take/harvest that animal you're hunting, even if it's not under a defined "hunting season". And it is illegal to "hunt" with a suppressor.

    Btw, this aspect is already being worked by a few state reps. But it can't hurt to contact your state rep and let him/her know what you think about this. Personally, I think it's BS that we can't use suppressor to take nuisance animals. I live in a populated area, but typically get coyotes in the field directly behind my house at night. I would like to rid the neighborhood of those quietly without waking the whole neighborhood. But I can't, DNR's recommendation was to trap them... like that's going to work with the neighbor's dogs and my dogs around. :xmad:



    Not to be a "smarty pants" or anything like that but he could legally have his semi-auto modified by a gunsmith to fire full-auto:ar15:. All he would have to do is purchase a lightning link or a DIAS and he would be good to go.
    icon10.gif
    I think they are only $15,000 or so.:laugh::laugh:
    Actually, just to clarify, that wouldn't be modifying his AR15, he would be inserting a legal machine gun into the firearm. "Modify" implies making a change to the firearm, and making changes to the firearm to allow it to fire FA would be creating a post-sample MG. Using a registered machine-gun in conjunction with his firearm to allow it to fire FA would be perfectly fine.
     
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    197
    16
    Anderson
    If you read the definition of "hunt" it is to "take" any wild animal. Is the coyote domesticated? No, it's a wild animal. If you take/harvest that animal you're hunting, even if it's not under a defined "hunting season". And it is illegal to "hunt" with a suppressor.

    Btw, this aspect is already being worked by a few state reps. But it can't hurt to contact your state rep and let him/her know what you think about this. Personally, I think it's BS that we can't use suppressor to take nuisance animals. I live in a populated area, but typically get coyotes in the field directly behind my house at night. I would like to rid the neighborhood of those quietly without waking the whole neighborhood. But I can't, DNR's recommendation was to trap them... like that's going to work with the neighbor's dogs and my dogs around.

    That's exactly the answer I was looking for. Not the answer I wanted to hear, but I least I can understand it. Trapping wouldn't be an option here either because of all of the domesticated dogs in the area (including my own), but I guess I'll just have to wake the neighbors. It's unfortunate that the "best" option is an illegal one, but that's what happens when things get all bureaucratic.

    Actually, just to clarify, that wouldn't be modifying his AR15, he would be inserting a legal machine gun into the firearm. "Modify" implies making a change to the firearm, and making changes to the firearm to allow it to fire FA would be creating a post-sample MG. Using a registered machine-gun in conjunction with his firearm to allow it to fire FA would be perfectly fine.

    This is all foreign to me. Is a "post-sample" MG legal with a stamp? This is beginning to sound ridiculously complicated and expensive... to the point that I'll probably just stick with a semi-auto until I can quietly convince the politicians to repeal the gun control laws pointing out that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
     
    Top Bottom