TexasCHLforum.com

http://asset-auctions.assetnation.com/i ... ionID/3817" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only an FFL with proof of payment of class 3 special occupational tax can actually bid on the items. However, the FFL can then transfer these to anyone who goes through the normal NFA $200 tax stamp process. These are pre-'86 transferable M16A1's from the TN Dept of Corrections.

So if you want an M16, find yourself an FFL to bid on your behalf! If these are in good operational condition, market value is probably $15-17k each.

Based on a determination from the National Firearms Act office of the BATFE, these weapons are not subject to the restrictions stated in Public Law 99-308. Individuals may, upon proper approval by BATFE and in accordance with the State and local laws of their place of residence, possess these weapons.

I'm not interested until the time comes that I can buy them for that price with no restrictions.

If those are guns there getting for free for police use from the military from what I've read they are selling them illegally.

One eyed fatman is correct if the guns are from the military. But there are departments that did buy their own M16's with full auto capability back in the 70's and 80's. It was not as common as it is today, but it did happen. Then as now, the fear of terrorism was the motivating factor. The difference was the terrorist organizations. Back then it was the Weather Underground, the SLA, the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and other similar places instead of the al Qaeda and the like.

I would assume the dealer receiving the weapon would check to make sure the forms are legal and you can get the firearm. If not, you have committed no crime and might have a valid claim for the money (including the transfer fees and taxes) against the selling city. You might also have a claim against the dealer but I think the city would be the one most at fault.

At this point in time with the current attitude of our fantastic Justice Department toward firearms owners and dealers, I certainly wouldn't take a chance on any "iffy" deals on NFA weapons. I trust what srothstein says to be accurate information, of course, but I DON'T trust the BATFE to play by the rules...after all, THEY are the ones who interpret those rules. (The story of a National Guardsman getting ten years in Federal prison for a malfunctioning weapon ALWAYS comes back to me when ANYTHING machinegun related gets brought up...and if they can get a judge to do that, what can they NOT get a judge to do with an ACTUAL NFA weapon involved? Its NOT about keeping the public safe or even ensuring the laws are followed. Its about pushing an agenda and exerting power.)

They are clearly advertising them as legally transferable. Actually, they state they have a written opinion from the BATFE NFA branch. If their advertising is wrong, then they are liable for damages.

The guns will first be held by your SOT Class 3 FFL. You'll know they are legal when they are transferred to you. If they aren't transferable, I'd expect the seller to make good.

Jumping Frog wrote:They are clearly advertising them as legally transferable. Actually, they state they have a written opinion from the BATFE NFA branch. If their advertising is wrong, then they are liable for damages.

The guns will first be held by your SOT Class 3 FFL. You'll know they are legal when they are transferred to you. If they aren't transferable, I'd expect the seller to make good.

So the first step is that the weapons go to a intermediate in the deal? Does that put the SELLER on the hook if the BATFE later rescinds their written opinion? The prices seemed good on the rifles compared to others I have seen, and so they might be a good investment for those who can afford it. I simply don't trust the BATFE, that's all. They've done far too much that has left me with a sour opinion of them.

AEA wrote:I'm not interested until the time comes that I can buy them for that price with no restrictions.

If it wasn't for those unconstitutional infringements, the price would be about the same as their semiauto brothers.

If it wasn't for a Republican gun control law in 1986, you could pay the $200 unconstitutional tax and convert one yourself. Same as a SBR.

recaffeination wrote:

AEA wrote:I'm not interested until the time comes that I can buy them for that price with no restrictions.

If it wasn't for those unconstitutional infringements, the price would be about the same as their semiauto brothers.

If it wasn't for a Republican gun control law in 1986, you could pay the $200 unconstitutional tax and convert one yourself. Same as a SBR.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...the Democrat Party cares SO much about gun rights and respects the Second Amendment and blah, blah, blah. And its only the evil Republican Party that has passed gun control laws...except for the NFA, and the GCA and the AWB, and the 1990's war against FFLs under the Clintonian regime, so on and so forth...but hey, who's counting, huh? Give me a break.

SNIP

The fight seemed impossible, yet we won. FOPA, as it became known, didn’t just change the restrictive Gun Control Act of 1968, it overruled no fewer than six anti-gun Supreme Court decisions and about one-third of the hundreds of lower court rulings interpreting the Gun Control Act.

Rep. Volkmer has described FOPA as the measure that saved gun ownership as we know it. There is much to be said for this appraisal.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... 22&st=&ps=

Read about what the FOPA of 1986 did for yourself.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah...the Democrat Party cares SO much about gun rights and respects the Second Amendment and blah, blah, blah.

You sound hurt. Let me call...

recaffeination wrote:If it wasn't for a Republican gun control law in 1986, you could pay the $200 unconstitutional tax and convert one yourself. Same as a SBR.

You are obviously uninformed.

The Hughes Amendment was introduced by Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) in a House that was controlled by the Democrats (253 D, 182 R). When the Bill went to the Senate, the Republicans had to accept the House bill or be left entirely empty-handed.

This is basic politics. Obama begrudgingly accepted National Park Carry because it got attached to a larger bill that was more important to him. Similarly, Reagan had to accept the Hughes amendment because it was attached to many positive changes in the bill, including FOPA.

To say it is a "Republican gun control law" is either ignorant or willful deception, as it certainly isn't accurate.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah...the Democrat Party cares SO much about gun rights and respects the Second Amendment and blah, blah, blah.

You sound hurt. Let me call...

Despite your exceedingly cute little graphics, you sound like someone who doesn't like FACTS, but only whatever made-up narrative you can conjure for yourself. Its not my fault that you like to make fun of folks that can read. The bill/law is a matter of public record.