Full auto & .gov website

[jedi]

I know we have a wonderful FAQ on this site located here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...6185-ingunowners_faqs_sticky.html#post1761124

But if there a .gov website that gives us a short summary than indeed full autos are LEGAL for US citizens (non-LEOs & active duty) to own.

Today I meant a work contractor who works in Detroit, MI and lives in southern MI. Found out that she is an avid hunter and has been around firearms since the age of 7. We got to talking about what firearms we have owned and shot and was telling her about how INGO does an annual full-auto day and how down in KY they also have a full-auto 3 day event. She did not believe me that civilians could own full-auto weapons. I tried to explain the federal registery and the 1986 law that ban any new full autos from civilian hands but she did not believe me and mentioned the story of the guy in MI or WI that had a semi-auto AR that misfired and how the .gov went after him. We end the conversation on the agreement that I could not convience her I was not lying but she being an engineer said she wanted to see the facts about this.


Thus I'm looking for a .gov website or was even thinking about pointing her to the Indiana IC to show her that indeed full autos are legal.

Help would be appreciated.

 

[japartridge]

Try this out...


ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - National Firearms Act (NFA) - Machine Guns


or even better:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

 

[Scutter01]

Indiana Code: (note, it's a little confusing because it actually says it's illegal, but gives an exemption for legally-owned MG's):

IC 35-47-5-8
Machine gun
Sec. 8. A person who owns or possesses a machine gun commits a Class C felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.3; P.L.123-2002, SEC.43.
IC 35-47-5-9
Operating loaded machine gun
Sec. 9. A person who operates a loaded machine gun commits a Class B felony.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.4; P.L.123-2002, SEC.44.

IC 35-47-5-10
Applicability of statutes relating to machine guns
Sec. 10. The provisions of section 8 or 9 of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to any of the following:
(1) Members of the military or naval forces of the United States, National Guard of Indiana, or Indiana State Guard, when on duty or practicing.
(2) Machine guns kept for display as relics and which are rendered harmless and not usable.
(3) Any of the law enforcement officers of this state or the United States while acting in the furtherance of their duties.
(4) Persons lawfully engaged in the display, testing, or use of fireworks.
(5) Agencies of state government.
(6) Persons permitted by law to engage in the business of manufacturing, assembling, conducting research on, or testing machine guns, airplanes, tanks, armored vehicles, or ordnance equipment or supplies while acting within the scope of such business.
(7) Persons possessing, or having applied to possess, machine guns under applicable United States statutes. Such machine guns must be transferred as provided in this article.
(8) Persons lawfully engaged in the manufacture, transportation, distribution, use or possession of any material, substance, or device for the sole purpose of industrial, agricultural, mining, construction, educational, or any other lawful use.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32. Amended by P.L.104-2000, SEC.5; P.L.123-2002, SEC.45.

 

[Bill of Rights]

She's referring to David Olofsen (sp?) who had an AR with a "hammer follow" malfunction. That it was a mechanical malfunction does not change the fact that a weapon that fires more than one round by a single function of the trigger is classified as a machine gun, which would not be a problem if it was registered as such prior to 1986. His was not.

Here's something for you to use:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-6.pdf

Blessings,
Bill

 

[japartridge]

Scutter01

 

[ryknoll3]

She's referring to David Olofsen (sp?) who had an AR with a "hammer follow" malfunction. That it was a mechanical malfunction does not change the fact that a weapon that fires more than one round by a single function of the trigger is classified as a machine gun, which would not be a problem if it was registered as such prior to 1986. His was not.

Here's something for you to use:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-6.pdf

Blessings,
Bill

What messed him up was that he had M16 FCG parts in his rifle. Though they didn't contribute to the malfunction (auto) fire, that's how they hang you. It's pretty hard to prove that a rifle's malfunction is an un-registered machinegun, but once you have M16 parts, that malfunction magically turns into criminal intent.

Moral of the story, the busybody at the range that turned him in was an idiot, and don't put M16 FCG parts in a semi-auto gun.

 

[Dead Duck]

Today I meant a work contractor who works in Detroit, MI and lives in southern MI. Found out that she is an avid hunter and has been around firearms since the age of 7. We got to talking about what firearms we have owned and shot and was telling her about how INGO does an annual full-auto day and how down in KY they also have a full-auto 3 day event. She did not believe me that civilians could own full-auto weapons. I tried to explain the federal registery and the 1986 law that ban any new full autos from civilian hands but she did not believe me and mentioned the story of the guy in MI or WI that had a semi-auto AR that misfired and how the .gov went after him. We end the conversation on the agreement that I could not convience her I was not lying but she being an engineer said she wanted to see the facts about this.

OK - But was she Cute? Any Pictures?

 

[jedi]

Thanks all especially japartridge and bill of rights for the pdf/html files.

OK - But was she Cute? Any Pictures?

Sry no pics she did take lots of picks of our electrical panels in our closets in the bldg. We are doing a re-wiring of our electrical and LAN cables and she is the engineer we have hired to help do the drawings for this project.

 

[lovemywoods]

Engineers are a special breed...(I've worked around them all my life!)

Anyway, have her look at some videos and pics from last year's NFA Alumni Day:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-aar_2010_ingo_nfa_alumni_day_sun_9_19_a.html

Either these items are all legal to own (and they are) or we had a range full of law-breakers (including members of law enforcement! )

 

[jedi]

Engineers are a special breed...(I've worked around them all my life!)

Oh I know was 1 myself a long time ago before me got smart and got out. Now a days I just "use" them to get the work done.

 

[japartridge]

Not a problem, glad I could assist... it's nice being one that can actually give good information, instead of just taking it! 'course usually I miss out because I am too late to post!

 

[Scutter01]

Hey, I pointed to the exact IC that said they were legal.

 

[jedi]

Hey, I pointed to the exact IC that said they were legal.

But nobody loves you scutter01.
Plus we can't rep you since you have a black mark against you.

But here are some special cookies just for you.

If you would have given me the Indiana and Michicagn ICs wyou would have gotten a better prize.

 

[Scutter01]

But nobody loves you scutter01.

Sure they do. It just costs me $200, an hour at a time.

Plus we can't rep you since you have a black mark against you.

Sure you can; it's just not displayed. I'm not paying you $200 for it, though.

But here are some special cookies just for you.

If you would have given me the Indiana and Michicagn ICs wyou would have gotten a better prize.

What prize could possibly be better than Obamacakes?!

 

[jedi]

Sure they do. It just costs me $200, an hour at a time.

What prize could possibly be better than Obamacakes?!

Provide the MI IC & you can find out.

 

[Scutter01]

Provide the MI IC & you can find out.

Well, it wouldn't be an IC because that stands for "Indiana Code", but the MCL (Michigan Compiled Law) that allows machine gun ownership is:

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931

750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "muffler" or "silencer" defined.Sec. 224.
(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of the following:
(a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
(b) A muffler or silencer.
(c) A bomb or bombshell.
(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag, or bludgeon.
(e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to render a person temporarily or permanently disabled by the ejection, release, or emission of a gas or other substance.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A self-defense spray or foam device as defined in section 224d.
(b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United States.
(c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).
(4) As used in this chapter, "muffler" or "silencer" means 1 or more of the following:
(a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.
(b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.
(c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.


History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.224 ;-- Am. 1959, Act 175, Eff. Mar. 19, 1960 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 564, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1978 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 346, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 33, Imd. Eff. June 10, 1991 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 401, Eff. Dec. 28, 2006
Constitutionality: The Michigan supreme court held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant in People v Lynch, 410 Mich 343; 301 NW2d 796 (1981).
Former Law: See section 3 of Act 372 of 1927, being CL 1929, § 16751; and Act 206 of 1929.

 

[japartridge]

Hey, I pointed to the exact IC that said they were legal.

wah, Scutter, ahhhhh! and I still beat you to the punch anyway

Wow, $200/hour... you pay for the high class girls!

btw, just messin' with ya!

 

[Scutter01]

wah, Scutter, ahhhhh! and I still beat you to the punch anyway

No you didn't. I posted the requested links to the state statutes. You just posted the FAQ link for the ATF.

Wow, $200/hour... you pay for the high class girls!

It's $20 + $180 for the penicillin.