United States | News & Politics

7209 readers

321 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

149

US appeals court keeps California assault weapons ban in force (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You forgot to also add that I am dumb and don't know what I'm talking about

[–] flying_monkies@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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