FireTower, (edited ) TLDR: There’s a court case in CA regarding the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban and this ruling was that during the course of the case that the law should remain enforced as it had previously been.
This particular ruling isn’t a final ruling on the matter.
BaroqueInMind, Civilians do not need automatic weapons. So this ruling makes sense.
SKS_Hynix, Automatic weapons were banned federally in 1934
flying_monkies, (edited ) They weren't banned.
They required a $200 tax stamp at the time.
Now, they require a federal form (NFA Form 4), the $200 tax stamp and a metric ass ton of money since the public cannot purchase a full auto weapon manufactured after 1986 (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986).
edit: Changed the tax amount, actually looked it up.
BaroqueInMind, (edited ) You forgot to also add that I am dumb and don't know what I'm talking about
flying_monkies, You forgot to also add that regular people cannot do all that because they also need to be a FFL
No, I didn't, because, no they don't.
If they're manufacturing automatic weapons or wish to purchase an automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 to law enforcement, THEN you need a class 3 FFL license. If they're manufacturing, then they also need to file a form 1.
Private individuals can purchase a machine gun without an FFL, assuming your state law allows it via form 4. An FFL makes the process easier, but it's not a requirement
BaroqueInMind, Yes. They are what are defined federally as "assault weapons" this entire discussion here is about.
So this headline and story are literally pointless and designed to instigate arguments.
I am pro gun and own several, however fuck automatic weapons no one needs those except the military and cops. Also fuck cops.
nooneescapesthelaw, Why do cops need automatic weapons?
PowerCrazy, Why do cops need weapons at all? They are the most likely to misuse them and you are more likely to die from a cop then you are to die by an automatic weapon, or an “assault rifle.”
FireTower, This court case isn’t about automatic firearms it’s about semiautomatic firearms that exhibit listed features.
This particular rulling also is only about if the law should be enforced while a the trial regarding it’s constitutionality ensues.
BaroqueInMind, Then the headline is wrong because semi-auto firearms are not federally defined as assault weapons.
mintyfrog, It’s federal courts ruling on constitutionality of state laws
FireTower, They’re operating off of the CA definition in the headline.
To the best of my knowledge the only federal definition of the phrase ‘assault weapon’ came from the 1994 ban which ceased in 2004. And that targeted semiautomatic guns too as it was based off of California’s.
BaroqueInMind, Thank you for the correction. I am dumb
FireTower, No problem, we all have our moments.
PsychedSy, They just like fucking with definitions.
sugar_in_your_tea, Most “assault weapons” are just scary-looking semi-auto rifles.
mintyfrog, This case has nothing to do with automatic weapons besides demonstrating people’s ignorance of the law.
deegeese, Thank god we don’t have to rely on thoughts and prayers.
aBundleOfFerrets, Odd thing to thank god for
Machindo, That’s the joke 😝
Add comment