I thought the purchase of automatic weapons was legal if you paid that really high license? Or is that only for machine guns not rifles with the full auto?
I have no idea. When it comes to guns, I’m strictly an observer. Don’t own one.
It is a $200 tax. Unfortunately, back in 1986 an amendment (the Hughes Amendment) was added at the last minute (via a voice vote that failed, but the Democrat speaker of the house refused to allow a recorded vote and declared it passed anyway) to an otherwise good bill (McClure-Volkmer act). It said that only government could own fully automatic weapons manufactured after that date.
It is clearly unconstitutional, but it is enforced anyway. The result is that there are only a limited number of machine guns in circulation (those manufactured before passage of the bill) which can be owned by citizens.
Or is that only for machine guns not rifles with the full auto?
All firearms capable of fully automatic fire are treated the same under the law. If made before the bill, you can own them (just pay the $200 tax and do the transfer). If made after the bill, only government can own them.
“Owned by the Sheriff’s Department.” LEO’s can own all the full-auto weapons they want. There’s no legal difference between machine guns and full-auto rifles. This is some sort of attention-grabbing stunt by the BATF, maybe to distract from their SuprememCourt loss today.
Only if the weapon in question was registered/taxed, *before* 1986.
But the fact that these weapons were owned by the local sherrifs' office changes all that. They are the gooberment, and the law does not apply to them. They can own a 155 mm howitzer if they want. If they haven't all been melted down, the steel sold to China to make ChiCom tanks, artillery, etc, there should be a pot load of early models of the self propelled 155 mm M109 series sitting around somewhere just waiting to be refurbished and painted with the logo of your local sheriff or worse your local big city police chief.