SB1071 (WV) Post '86 MG Transfers

[Cavalry]

An interesting take on legal fuckery. Probably not going anywhere, but pretty cool. I am curious why they chose VW as the test bed?

SB 1071 Text

Bill Status - Bill Text

www.wvlegislature.gov

 

[FP1201]

Didn't one of the Western States like Wyoming or Montana do something like this?

 

[Cavalry]

Didn't one of the Western States like Wyoming or Montana do something like this?

I believe Montana has no law restricting MGs used for lawful purposes. I suppose as long as the Fed is not involved one could do what they want as far as building/possessing

 

[Zerex]

In any of the free states, you can legally own a MG, but it has to be registered with ATF.

Otherwise, you would be hearing about thousands of new built MG's in those states.

 

[FP1201]

I believe Montana has no law restricting MGs used for lawful purposes. I suppose as long as the Fed is not involved one could do what they want as far as building/possessing

I was thinking what they passed was anything manufactured in and used within the State wasn't subject the the NFA...they were the or among the first to challenge the Act, which caused a lot of angst with the Feds....it's been a while and being in a non Class III State I didn't delve that far into it.

 

[FP1201]

In any of the free states, you can legally own a MG, but it has to be registered with ATF.

Otherwise, you would be hearing about thousands of new built MG's in those states.

The Premise is the new (non BATFE Registered) manufacturer of MG's within and for use by State Residents without Federal oversight or approval.

 

[dsdmmat]

Texas is/was doing this with suppressors. The started a few years ago, not sure where it sits in the courts or in practice. The entire argument was Congress has the powers for regulating interstate commerce not intrastate commerce. So the NFA did not apply to suppressors made in the state bought by state residents and used in the state boundaries.

 

[FP1201]

Texas is/was doing this with suppressors. The started a few years ago, not sure where it sits in the courts or in practice. The entire argument was Congress has the powers for regulating interstate commerce not intrastate commerce. So the NFA did not apply to suppressors made in the state bought by state residents and used in the state boundaries.

I believe that's the same angle that was used with which ever State(s) had gone this route.

 

[thughes]

KY Rep just introduced a similar MG bill in the Bluegrass....HB 749:

"The structure of HB 749 is elegant, efficient, and maximally freedom-oriented. It creates the Office of Public Defense inside the Department of Kentucky State Police, empowering the director to procure machine guns “of like kind” to those issued to law enforcement and the U.S. Armed Forces. Purchases will prioritize in-state manufacturers wherever possible, boosting Kentucky’s firearms industry and keeping tax dollars circulating locally. Qualified persons, any adult not prohibited from owning firearms under state or federal law, can buy these weapons at State Police facilities after a clean NICS check. Upon transfer, buyers receive an official state-issued certificate confirming the firearm was acquired “by” the Commonwealth, providing ironclad protection under the federal exemption."