legal auto firearm = federal tax stamp???

rp85

hello;

Just trying to confirm, if I want to legally own a automatic firearm I must have a federal tax stamp for that firarm?

thanks.

rp

HooverTactical

Yes but it's more complex than that

what exactly do you want to do

rp85

hello;

just want to respond to bill o'rielly on fox. he just said the feds don't know if you own a machine gun.

not 100% certain but i was alway under the impression a person needed a federal tax stamp to own a full auto firearm.

just trying to get my ducks in a row before i contact his web site.

thanks.

rp

nmyers

You are correct.

But, if you plan to contact anyone, it would be best to look it up in ATF P5300.4 & cut-and-paste the appropriate paragraph.

Neal

HooverTactical

quote:Originally posted by rp85
hello;

just want to respond to bill o'rielly on fox. he just said the feds don't know if you own a machine gun.

not 100% certain but i was alway under the impression a person needed a federal tax stamp to own a full auto firearm.

just trying to get my ducks in a row before i contact his web site.

thanks.

rp


bill f'ed up hugely on that one, a federal tax stamp and background check has been federal law since 1934 on machine guns.

he pretty much could not be more wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Categories_of_firearms_regulated

duckhunter

I am usually wrong but just because you have a tax stamp does not mean you own a full auto weapon??

HooverTactical

quote:Originally posted by duckhunter
I am usually wrong but just because you have a tax stamp does not mean you own a full auto weapon??


you can't get the stamp without the weapon

you decide you want the weapon, you apply for the stamp and include the serial number, you wait the better part of a year after submitting photos and fingerprints, the feds then allow or disallow you the privilege of paying the tax to get the stamp for that single serial number (weapon or registered sear)

it's not a license to own machine guns, it's allowing you to pay a tax to possess that single firearm

JohnStimson

The ATF does know where the legally registered machine guns are through the registration and /or transfer and the tax stamp. That may not include all machine guns in the US. All may not be legally registered.

Having a stamp does not imply machine gun ownership. My father had the various ATF excise stamps in his stamp collection and never owned any kind of gun.

tsr1965

Moderators,

This needs to go into the GD forum, or the political forum.

Actually, if O'Rielly stated that the "feds don't know if anyone has a machinegun", he could be partly right, or all right, depending on the context you take it from. If he meant they don't know everyone who has a machinegun, then he is 100% right, as not all machine guns are registered(even though the feds require them to be), and there are, unfortunately many illegal machineguns in existance.

Take WACO, TX, for example, and the North Hollywood shootout, as a good example.

However, you are correct about, that law abiding folk are supposed to have a tax stamp, and have gone thru the right channels. Just dont discount the not so much law abiding clan.

Best

beantownshootah

quote:Originally posted by rp85
hello;

Just trying to confirm, if I want to legally own a automatic firearm I must have a federal tax stamp for that firarm?

thanks.

rp


As an individual, in the USA, yes, that's currently true, and has been for decades.

Obviously, rules differ outside the USA. There are places on the globe where its basically "anything goes" and there is no real controlling legal authority preventing any individual from owning any weapon they like.

I believe there is some specific legal provision for law enforcement dept ownership of full auto weapons, but I have to admit, I don't know what the Federal tax or other paperwork requirements are. They may be the same as for an individual.

In terms of the political context of O'Reilly's statement. Yes, in theory the Federal gov't knows who owns every single legal transferable full-auto weapon. These have all been registered and taxed for decades.

That doesn't mean they know exactly WHERE each gun is at any point in time, though. Guns can move around, they can get stolen, etc.

And obviously, there are plenty of NON-legal fully auto weapons out there. Creating them (illegaly) from ordinary legal semi-automatic guns can range from trivially easy to extremely difficult, depending on what gun you're trying to covert. Of course, its also possible to literally build them from scratch or nearly so, if you have access to the right tools and some basic parts (eg the famous WWII resistance "Sten" guns, which were typically built in bicycle workshops).

In practice, legal full auto guns are virtually NEVER used in crimes. The reason is that scarcity has made them damn expensive, and at this point, the guns themselves are mostly relegated to playthings of rich middle-aged men! Its sort of the same reason why bank robbers don't typically use Ferraris as "getaway" cars.

My understanding is that in the entire history of the republic, in the nearly 80 years that these guns have been taxed and registered, only ONE time has one of these guns ever been used in the commission of a crime, and in that particular case, the criminal in question was actually a law enforcement officer. Its literally true that more people have been stabbed to death with ball point pens in the USA than shot to death with registered full-auto guns.

jjmitchell60

I actually replied to Bill O'Reilly as to his misinformation on his talking points. I told him the facts that not all states allow ownership, that private ownership depends on if made before 1986, state laws, $200 Federal tax stamp, LOTS of paper work, finger printing, LEO sign off, only though class III dealer can be purchased or transferred, the difference between full auto and semi, and the cost of the weapon in itself. Also as to owning a fULLY functional bazooka and munitions for is. I corrected him as to there IS lots of Federal oversight in purchase of full auto as well a state over sight. I pointed out that "heavy" weapon difference and that " weapons are not available to private citizens. I have yet to hear back from him/them. I also stated his staff should do a LOT of fact checking before stating what he did less they become like ABC and other media outlets.

Bottom line is Fox is moving more and more to being an anti 2nd mews media outlet IMHO.