I heard... True?

[kevinj110]

No you can't have a post sample. Just cough up the 3k-4k and get a entry level MG and then go from there since the list of registered MGs isn't getting longer the value will continue to climb. Also good luck getting the Hughes thing repealed I don't think we will see that happening anytime soon.

 

[ryknoll3]

A post sample is a machine gun that was procurred by a dealer who deals in NFA weapons. The purpose of it is to be a demo for law enforcement. To get one you have to:

A) Be a dealer who is an SOT (Special Occupation Taxpayer). Basically this means you are licensed to deal in "Class 3" NFA items.

B) Get a demo letter from a head of law enforcement. Basically this is a letter that asks you to demo a certain MG for them. This allows you to procure up to 2 of each type of MG on the letter. You can hang on to these until your license expires, at which time they must be sold to another SOT or destroyed.

 

[Johnny C]

Since you can't kill animals with a suppressed firearm, I suppose using one on an intruding long pig would get you in big trouble?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think the confusion stems from the fact that a suppressor IS a firearm all by itself

A suppressor is not a firearm under Indiana law (which is controlling as we are talking about shooting a coyote).

Since you can't kill animals with a suppressed firearm, I suppose using one on an intruding long pig would get you in big trouble?

Maybe, it depends on the evidence, big difference between self-defense and Murder.

If you want to use a suppressor on a game animal or varmit, we need to organize and modify the statute. Other states have done it (just this legistative session), no reason we could not do it.

 

[grimor]

I anticipate primarily using it to kill coyotes that are getting too close to the livestock across the stree

surprised no one mentioned this, don't shoot across a street either.

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

surprised no one mentioned this, don't shoot across a street either.

Is this because of the obvious inherent dangers of shooting across a street such as pedestrians and vehicles? Or is there some law or other reason this should be avoided? I'd hate to tell my neighbor "Ya, I saw the coyote, but didn't shoot it because that would require me to shoot across the street which someone told me I shouldn't do. Sorry about your chickens."

I suppose I could cross the street and scare away the coyote, which would save his chickens. But a dead coyote won't come back to bother them another time. Besides, a dead coyote is just food for the hogs, or other less dangerous scavengers (since I can't "take" a coyote).

A suppressor is not a firearm under Indiana law (which is controlling as we are talking about shooting a coyote).

Correct me if I'm wrong guys. Under NFA law, a suppressor is a firearm and would require it's own tax stamp even if being added to a MG. So a suppressed MG would require two tax stamps, 1 for the MG, and the 2nd for the suppressor. The reason we need the distinction is let's say you have a SBR that is also a MG. A SBR is an NFA weapon and would require a tax stamp. A MG is an NFA weapon that would require a tax stamp. If you have a SBR that is also a MG, you only need the one tax stamp because it is one firearm.

However, Indiana Law says you can't use a suppressed weapon to "hunt" animals. I just don't want the two separate arguments on this thread to get lost in one another.

 

[grimor]

Is this because of the obvious inherent dangers of shooting across a street such as pedestrians and vehicles? Or is there some law or other reason this should be avoided? I'd hate to tell my neighbor "Ya, I saw the coyote, but didn't shoot it because that would require me to shoot across the street which someone told me I shouldn't do. Sorry about your chickens."

I suppose I could cross the street and scare away the coyote, which would save his chickens. But a dead coyote won't come back to bother them another time. Besides, a dead coyote is just food for the hogs, or other less dangerous scavengers (since I can't "take" a coyote).

However, Indiana Law says you can't use a suppressed weapon to "hunt" animals. I just don't want the two separate arguments on this thread to get lost in one another.

DNR: Hunting Guide & Regulations
they don't cite the IC but this is what it says.
-It is illegal to hunt, shoot at or kill any animal or to shoot at any object from within, into, upon or across any public road. It is illegal to shoot across a body of water except in the lawful pursuit of wildlife.
-It is illegal to possess a silencer while hunting.

 

[alfahornet]

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.

I agree with your reasoning. It is certainly the case when detachable. BUT I have seen in the past at least one (I think 2 actually) MP5SD SBR advertised on Sturm as a 1 stamp gun. How would that (have) work? Incorrect advertising or was there at some point (or still is) a 'loophole' when ATF allowed the registation of integrally suppressed SBRs using one stamp? I am curious. I thought that they used to allow it.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I agree with your reasoning. It is certainly the case when detachable. BUT I have seen in the past at least one (I think 2 actually) MP5SD SBR advertised on Sturm as a 1 stamp gun. How would that (have) work? Incorrect advertising or was there at some point (or still is) a 'loophole' when ATF allowed the registation of integrally suppressed SBRs using one stamp? I am curious. I thought that they used to allow it.

If it's not an MP5 MG we're talking about (it's a Semi-auto) then it's likely because the permanently attached suppressor brings the barrel length up to 16"+, and the single tax stamp is for the suppressor, not for the SBR.

 

[curraheeguns]

If it's not an MP5 MG we're talking about (it's a Semi-auto) then it's likely because the permanently attached suppressor brings the barrel length up to 16"+, and the single tax stamp is for the suppressor, not for the SBR.

+1

 

[alfahornet]

If it's not an MP5 MG we're talking about (it's a Semi-auto) then it's likely because the permanently attached suppressor brings the barrel length up to 16"+, and the single tax stamp is for the suppressor, not for the SBR.

No not a 16'' gun. I know the difference. I see 16''+ everytime in the bathroom . We're talking a semi-auto SBR MP5SD, advertised on Sturm about a year to year and half ago. I know because I was about to pull the trigger until I came across another MP5 SBR that was cheaper and I purchased. I will dig and see if I can find/still have old emails, I know the seller said his MP5SD SBR, I think it was an Urbach built (don't quote on latter please), was a one stamp gun. At the time, I didn't see anything wrong with it but this makes me curious. I could have sworn that I ran across an old letter or statement somewhere that said it 'used to be ok'.

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

I know we've already discussed that silencers are considered a firearm according to the NFA needing its own stamp. I heard an exception to this is if the suppressor is integrated into the gun. As in permanently a part of the gun (not permanently attached). Could this be the loophole alfahornet is looking for?

 

[CountryBoy19]

I know we've already discussed that silencers are considered a firearm according to the NFA needing its own stamp. I heard an exception to this is if the suppressor is integrated into the gun. As in permanently a part of the gun (not permanently attached). Could this be the loophole alfahornet is looking for?

Where did you hear that? The gunshop? I have NEVER heard any exceptions to the rule. A suppressor, or even a single part of a suppressor is always considered a firearm and must be registered. I've never heard of any legal suppressor without a tax stamp. Integral suppressors still require a tax stamp.

 

[VUPDblue]

There are at least a couple Automatic MP5SD transferables that made it onto the registry as one stamp guns... That was an oversight on ATF's part and hasn't happened since....that I know of...

 

[trinitrotoluene85]

Where did you hear that? The gunshop? I have NEVER heard any exceptions to the rule. A suppressor, or even a single part of a suppressor is always considered a firearm and must be registered. I've never heard of any legal suppressor without a tax stamp. Integral suppressors still require a tax stamp.

Yup, that was my fault. I misspoke. The situation that I meant was a machine gun with an integrated suppressor only needs one tax stamp... At least that is what I was told by an NRA class instructor. Based on what I've heard here, this wouldn't be the first time he's been misinformed.