Gun Hub Forums banner

You have to see it to believe it! (RE: Class 3)

1232 Views 10 Replies 7 Participants Last post by  Dean Speir
This is from another fourm.

There's so much wrong here it's SAD.

"There is a lot of misinformation here regarding full-auto ownership in the U.S.

First off you do not necessarily need a Class III FFL to own a machine gun. Laws vary from state to state, so check your local laws. A couple of states allow only holders of a Class III license to own a full-auto weapon. There are several others who do not allow full auto ownership at all. Most states however are MG friendly. If you are lucky enough to live in one that is, here is what you must do.

1.) Locate a "transferable" full auto weapon which you wish to buy. Or have a licensed Class III dealer do it for you.

2.) Fill out the proper ATF paperwork, have this paperwork signed by the Chief Law Enforcement Official for the jurisdiction in which you live. (This is normally your local County Sheriff. There are others though who can also sign.)

3.) Send in your paperwork to ATF along with fingerprint cards, passport style photos of yourself, and a check for $200.00

4.) Submit to a strict background check and wait for ATF to place a stamp on your paperwork and return it to you. (Anywhere from 4-6 weeks)

5.) once you have the approved paperwork in hand you may complete your purchase.

In most cases the only need for a Class III dealer is to complete the transfer for you. The main drawback to owning a full auto weapon is cost. Figure around $3500 for something like a Reising 50 SMG, up to around $8,000 for a Thompson SMG, or $18,000 for a 1918a2 BAR (last time I checked pricing on those was 2 years ago).

Most people are very suprised to find out just how easy it is to legally own an machine gun."

OMFG, where to start?!

People might actually believe this guy... and that is very bad.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
What forum? Can you post the url?
So, what exactly is incorrect?
It's from

What's wrong? Where to start... basically everything, that'll do it.
Rob West said:
What's wrong? Where to start... basically everything, that'll do it.
Sorry, Rob, this isn't gonna cut it.

You brought this to the dance and now you're gonna have to waltz it around the floor a couple of times.

For openers, if you think a post on another Forum is so egregious, take the guy on head-to-head and offer corrective information… on that Forum. Here you're just talkin' behind his back, #1, and, #2, I think we'd all like to see the stuff you quoted (not even using this Forum's "quote" code or common quotation marks).

So, step up and say your piece… you've been twice challenged now, and haven't even posted a direct URL to the material with which you're taking issue. You're the one whose not looking too good here!
What the crap? I'm not taking this guy on, I don't post there anymore. I got tired of all the idiocy. It's basically a bunch of Europeans telling Americans what's best for them. A few friends still try but their "victories" are few and far between. They're usually muted out by the hordes of screeching bliss ninnies.

I fail to see how I'm looking bad here? Make whatever you will of it, it's just a post. :roll:

I don't know why you're being hostile. ... ge=3&pp=25

To be honest your attitude is pissing me off, I'd appreciate it if you backed off.
Rob West said:
It's from

What's wrong? Where to start... basically everything, that'll do it.
Sorry, Rob, but that won't do it. If you are going to repost somebody else's comments and say they're incorrect, you really should state why you believe so. At least one person in this thread has already asked you to state what is incorrect.

If you're not prepared to explain what it is you believe is wrong, then your post is little more than a "drive by" and serves more to irritate than to illuminate.

I am not trying to push you out of the forum. But since you asked why you're "looking bad here," I figured I'd take a shot at telling you why.
Besides, I'm curious as to what's wrong with the initial post. I'm no expert that's for sure but it sounds about right to me.

I think Rob West's attitude is starting to PO people...

Like Ed, I don't see a major error. Would Mr. West care to tell us?
Hmm, actually, dang, I can't believe I didn't notice that.

The dude edited his post and I just copied and pasted it... D'OH!

My bad, is there a completely embarrassed emoticon here? Oh yeah... :oops:

Before he edited that he said you didn't even need a Class-III to own a fully automatic weapon or semi auto evil weapon, and that the federal ban in 1934 had absolutely nothing to do with owning an MG.

Now that I actually read what I posted my face is beet red. Whoouuups.

Er, sorry about this one guys.

/me learns to read before hitting "post"
See less See more
Apologies accepted, Rob West… but I hope there's an object lesson there for you and perhaps others:
  1. If someone asks for specifics, don't blow it off with a general, non-responsive answer. (i.e., ixnay on the "Well, everybody knows…" kinda crap!)[/*:30k38l7w]
  2. Don't cut 'n' paste from other Forums, especially something that seems to be populated exclusively by MwaMs.®[/*:30k38l7w]
  3. The "Drive-By Post," an especially egregious form of Forum message pretty much perfected by one Internet gadfly and gunzine aficionado named Michael Orick who, mercifully, appears ready to graduate from that "12-Step Program," having been repeatedly instructed in the error of his ways, is met here with open disdain and well-rounded objurgation.[/*:30k38l7w]
  4. If you absolutely must cite another Forum's content, deep link directly to the operative thread and specify the post and/or poster.[/*:30k38l7w]
  5. Upon further review, refer to #2 above.[/*:30k38l7w]
O, and one other thing, there was no "federal ban in 1934" pertaining to "full-auto" weapons.

There was, however, a taxation act which we've come to short form as NFA'34.
See less See more
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.