Skip to comments.
Relic poses dilemma for sheriff: What do you do with a WWI machine gun? (IL)
Belleville News-Democrat ^
| 3/23/10
| Staff
Posted on 03/26/2010 9:30:21 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: married21
To: rickomatic
Not so fast. That would be considered a DEWAT gun, which had to be done prior to 1968. And even then they still had to be registered. That is NOT the same as a "parts kit" where the receiver is actually torch cut into separate pieces. No new DEWAT guns can be made or transferred. There are consequences to stupid laws. According to 1983 feel good legislation that gun falls into a catch 22. It never was registered, and cannot now be registered. Only previously registered existing machine guns (prior to 1983), or newly manufactured class III guns can be transferred. Thanks a lot feds. The article said the gun didn't work. On further inspection, the Sheriff might find that this is because it was already welded, presumably prior to 1968. Ahem.
22
posted on
03/26/2010 10:19:19 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: rickomatic
THanks for the info.
I don’t even play a gun dealer on TV, nor have I ever stayed at a Holiday Inn.....
23
posted on
03/26/2010 10:46:07 PM PDT
by
ASOC
(In case of attack, tune to 640 kilocycles or 1240 kilocycles on your AM dial.)
To: calex59
"...They used a lot of them on the bi-planes in WWI.
The Lewis gun was well known..." In the South Pacific, the Navy used them in WW2.
24
posted on
03/26/2010 11:03:40 PM PDT
by
Does so
(ObamaCare...I pay for medical-marijuana claims by millions of Americans? 'Guess I do.)
To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Or they could mount it on the hood of a patrol car and give new meaning to the term “Traffic Stop”.
25
posted on
03/26/2010 11:07:08 PM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: rickomatic
All (+1934) should be unconstitutional.
26
posted on
03/26/2010 11:10:51 PM PDT
by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
To: Does so
In the South Pacific, the Navy used them in WW2. They were invented BEFORE WWI and yes they were also used, somewhat, in WWII but the browning .30 cal in the water cooled and air cooled versions were used much more extensively. The Lewis gun was far better known in WWI than it ever was in WWII. Plus the article states it was a WWI relic. Some people just like to argue I think.
27
posted on
03/26/2010 11:17:38 PM PDT
by
calex59
To: ButThreeLeftsDo
If they lived in a country where the foundational law states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, they could raffle it off at $10 a ticket and make enough for a new building or three.
Oh, wait, they do.
But the law-makers and law-enforcers have become law-breakers.
See tag.
28
posted on
03/27/2010 4:56:34 AM PDT
by
ExGeeEye
(When law-makers and law enforcers become law-breakers, the citizens feel free to join in.)
To: Grizzled Bear
Anyone who advocates the destruction either in whole or part of a weapon like this needs to be deported to homo island!
29
posted on
03/27/2010 7:26:44 AM PDT
by
Eaker
(Where I'm from, "Gang Colors" is Realtree and Mossy Oak. You know what I'm saying hoss. Rule.308.)
To: ButThreeLeftsDo
What do you do? dumb question
30
posted on
03/27/2010 7:27:57 AM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(great thing about being a cynic: you can enjoy being proved wrong.)
To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Read the posts. And I’m the first to call “Dibs!!!”
31
posted on
03/27/2010 9:32:28 AM PDT
by
gundog
(Outrage is anger taken by surprise. Nothing these people do surprises me anymore.)
To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Not really either .303 british or 30-06.
32
posted on
03/27/2010 9:54:38 AM PDT
by
Nebr FAL owner
(.308 reach out & thump someone .50 cal.Browning Machine gun reach out & crush someone)
To: ButThreeLeftsDo
why cant they just register it then give it to the smithsonian?
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
All (+1934) should be IS unconstitutional.
There....I fixed it. :)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson