Posted on 02/22/2017 10:57:48 AM PST by nickcarraway
Yes it is possible. They are known as Class III weapons. For example:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx
They are heavily regulated and taxed. Lots of time, $$ and paperwork, but yes, it is possible.
Pretty much every firearm meets their made up definition
Pretzel logic
The 1994 Crime Bill defined what an “assault weapon” is. At the heart of that definition is an SA rifle, not an “assault rifle” which is full auto.
Whether one removes offending cosmetic features is immaterial, as we have seen in California law which eventually made the clarification that it is not cosmetic but functionality: magazine fed SAs.
NFA 1993 covers automatic weapons, not “assault weapons”.
An “assault weapon” is an artificial creation of law.
Ten Judges agreed with the Decision.
There were only four Dissents.
The problem isn’t just one rogue Judge.
“Assault Weapons” bans are a classic example of government over-reach and law based on fear-mongering that has no basis in reality.
They are moronic on their face and the facts do not show that they reduce crime or mass killings in any meaningful way.
The chickens are out of the coop on that.
United States:
10 USC 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=militia&f=treesort&fq=true&num=5&hl=true&edition=prelim&granuleId=USC-prelim-title10-section311#
Florida:
The 2016 Florida Statutes
Title XVII
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND RELATED MATTERS
Chapter 250
MILITARY AFFAIRS
View Entire Chapter
250.02 Militia.—
(1) The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.
(2) The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.
(3) The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.
(4) Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0200-0299/0250/Sections/0250.02.html
Ohio:
Chapter 5923: ORGANIZED MILITIA
5923.01 State militia membership - limitation of troops.
(A) The Ohio organized militia consist of all citizens of the state who are not permanently handicapped, as handicapped is defined in section 4112.01 of the Revised Code, who are more than seventeen years, and not more than sixty-seven years, of age unless exempted as provided in section 5923.02 of the Revised Code, and who are members of one of the following:
(1) The Ohio national guard;
(2) The Ohio naval militia;
(3) The Ohio military reserve.
(B) The Ohio national guard, including both the Ohio air national guard and the Ohio army national guard, the Ohio naval militia, and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the Ohio organized militia.
(C) The Ohio naval militia and the Ohio military reserve are known collectively as the state defense forces.
(D) The unorganized militia consists of those citizens of the state as described in division (A) of this section who are not members of the Ohio organized militia.
(E) No troops shall be maintained in time of peace other than as authorized and prescribed under the "Act of August 10, 1956," 70A Stat. 596, 32 U.S.C.A. 101 to 716. This limitation does not affect the right of the state to the use of its organized militia within its borders in time of peace as prescribed by the laws of this state. This section does not prevent the organization and maintenance of police.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5923
"If legislation makes the NG the organized militia, then other legislation can make it NOT the militia."
What would you call it then?
Respectfully, you are missing my point.
By including ANY reference to Militia in the Amendment, the Framers created a situation where those who would attack the right of EVERY citizen to keep and bear arms can do so by saying some people are not members of any Militia. For example, by 10 USC 311, I am NOT a member of the Militia as I over 45 years of age.
Under Florida law, does my age of 73 make me not eligible for military service under Federal law and therefore not a Militia member in Florida?
What do we do if a future Dem president and Congress decides to modify 10 UCS to state that “All persons over the age of 45, [or any other condition] are not to be considered members of the Militia” and therefore we lose 2d Amendment Protections?
Old legal saw, the fewer words in a law, the better.
Had our Framers simply said “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” we would not have this problem.
I understand that the crime bill expired in 2004. The definition reappears with modifications in many state laws. We are arguing over trifles.
You are correct that pistols (and shotguns) also fall within this artificial definition. Connecticut’s even covers select fire weapons, which I did not know. It is the exception. But the common features are SAs accepting detachable magazines. Usually such bans also include high capacity magazine bans, with possible grandfathering. Now in California grandfathered mags are also banned and must be surrendered or leave the state.
California AWB laws drove me out of my home state in 1995. The Caliif Supreme Court in 2000(?) effectively amended the law to ban weapons by function/feature and not simply by name (Roberti-Roos), bringing it into agreement with much of the federal crime bill. It saddens me greatly to see what Californian gun owners must go through to own a SA rifle which accepts detachable magazines. There is no functional difference between an AR15 and a Ruger Mini 14 (barring the gas systems). It is only a matter of time before Califirnia bans the Mini 30, Mini 14 and M1A altogether. They don’t have pistol grips, but they can accept a detachable magazines and are effectively “ Weapons of War.”.
This rationale for the ban is the most terrifying aspect of the 4th Circuit’s ruling. It’s an overly broad category that endangers many more weapons than those which fall within the assault weapons fluid and evolving definition.
There are many weapons definitions which precede any arttempt to define them in law. Revolver, semi-automatic. Etc. They were not created with the express purpose of casting a wide net to cover a broad class of weapons in a ban, as is the case with “assault weapon”. This term first appeared in the mid-80s in CA in an effort to vilify and ban SA rifles which could accept detachable magazines. (My knowledge of the history of such bans colors my perspective. I know what they’re really after.)
The first ban succeeded with the Roberti-Roos ban of 1989. With the passage of Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135 in June 2016, the state’s assault weapon ban has been expanded to include all semi-automatic center-fire rifles and shotguns capable of accepting a detachable magazine. The sale or transfer of such weapons will be prohibited, effective January 1, 2017.
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.