From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EJT's message reminds me of the situation regarding full-auto licences in the USA. Haven't heard anything of this for some time, but I understand that such licences had to be granted by the Feds, and that they "froze" the number by administrative decree , the current number being around 129,000 - or are they not issuing any more at all, waiting for licenced full-auto owners to die off? Was any legislation actually passed, or was it purely administrative, like our own Home Office simply deciding that it would forbid the issuing of FACs for self-defence? -- They're not licensed technically, you have to pay a transfer tax and complete various other requirements to legally acquire one. Thus they become registered with the NFA branch of the BATF, part of the Dept. of the Treasury (together with the IRS). The idea was back in 1934 that banning guns was probably unconstitutional, so they banned them by taxing them to death. The transfer tax is $200, and in 1934 hardly anyone could afford $200 (several months salary in a good job) so effectively machineguns were banned. In 1986, 18 USC 922(o) prohibited the registration of machineguns, which effectively froze the number in circulation, but pre-86 guns can still be transferred. The problem in my experience is that of the 200,000 or so registered MGs that are "fully transferable", at least half are junk, being registered components like badly made auto sears that with some difficulty you can use to assemble a machinegun with. Machineguns were classed as "non-sporting" in 1969, so they could no longer be imported for sale to private individuals, so most of the registered guns are converted semi-autos or US made guns. Some of them are okay, a lot of them are not. There are companies that specialise in getting them to work. The legal situation with machineguns in the US is a complete minefield, to put it mildly. Thick books have been written on the subject. Go to http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm for more info. A lot of the stuff in the FAQ is bogus IMO, it gives a very vague explanation that favours a more restrictive interpretation of the law than is in fact the case. Also go to the GPO website and have a look at 27 CFR 179. There is a huge typo, I think in 27 CFR 179.11 as it is identical to the following section except for one word. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
