Arizona already has the most liberal "gun rights" in the USA

I strongly support gun ownership for law abiding citizens, but I can't imagine that legalizing sawed-off shotguns, silencers and nunchucks will benefit anyone but possibly...criminals.
On the other hand, I don't think that the AZ crime rate is going to be affected by this move; criminals never ponder the legalities of their actions beforehand.
 

Silencers, sawed-off-shotguns, and full automatic weapons (machine guns) and destructive devices, are all in a class regulated by the NFA (National Firearms Act) of 1933.

Most people think you cannot own machine guns, or silencers, etc. Not true. You go through an FBI background check, and pay a $200 tax on the weapon, and you can legally own machine guns, etc.

To my knowledge there has never (or very few, if any) been a crime comitted with a legally owned machine gun, since 1933.

My brother was an NFA, class 3 dealer for years. He had machine gun shoots at our farm cause we had a very long field with a rock bluff at the end to shoot at. My brother owned a Nazi MP-40 and an M-60 belt fed machine gun. We never even robbed a liquor store in spite of having this fire power.

Gene
 
Not sure what federal law has to do with but let's review some holes and bring you up to date

nunchucks are included as an exemption because they are used in ancient weapons classes at martial arts studios and they teach coordination so unless you want to waste law enforcement time arresting a bunch of 8 year olds----

silencers are there to reduce the noise damage to the hearing

sawed off off shotguns are already legal if it has a pistol grip on it. Are you going to waste law enforcement time on people who have a pistol who likes to put a rifle stock on it? It's the federal law that is moot. And to waste more effort on legality is really asinine.

I'll bet you did't even know that an at-15 pistol was legal. Arizona is one of the few constitutional carry states which puts it the forefront of the antis targeted states.
 
W
A new poll shows that Gabby Giffords’ home state of Arizona is abandoning gun control, partly because fears of imported jihadism are growing.
According to the Arizona Daily Star, the poll was conducted by the Behavior Research Center (BRC), which found that a large portion of the 48 percent of Arizonans who supported more gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook have now changed their position, with only 33 percent favoring more gun control.
Forty-eight percent of Arizonans “think the current level of gun control is just fine.” That figure represents a 10-percent increase from the poll taken after Sandy Hook.
BRC found that support for gun control “dropped among all political and age groups.”
Pollster Earl de Berge said he believes the change, in part, is due to concerns spawned by Muslims immigrating to the U.S. after September 11 and the rise of ISIS, citing fears of “Islamic terrorist extremists…in our midst.” He believes this outweighs memories of the attack on Giffords in Tucson four years ago, or the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary over two years ago.
The news of waning support for gun control comes less than two months after the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and other members of the gun control lobby floated Arizona as a possible state in which to pursue a ballot initiative for more gun control.
 
GeneMO said:
Most people think you cannot own machine guns, or silencers, etc. Not true. You go through an FBI background check, and pay a $200 tax on the weapon, and you can legally own machine guns, etc.

We never even robbed a liquor store in spite of having this fire power.
Click to expand...

I didn't think that machine guns were illegal at all, but they did put a limit on the magazine size in Colorado, I think their looking to overturn that decision. I'm not really into guns, although we own a few. Neither of us are into anything but some target practice out in the backwoods, and protection, of course. Neither of us have a concealed carry, but if we feel the need for it in the future, we will be doing that too.

I thought that silencers were illegal, but I know that people can make their own if they really want to. We have never used our firearms for any illegal activity, and thankfully have never had to use them for self defense either. But I'd rather have them and not need them, than not have them and need them. I do understand the people who choose not to own guns at all, and who are against them, that's their choice and I respect it.
 
I own three guns, a .22 rifle, a 38 snubby and a 12 Ga shotgun. Mostly for tin can shooting, I am not a hunter of anything. My 38 is for home protection. I see no realistic need for silencers or sawed off shotguns however.
 
We don't have any silencers, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a sawed off shotgun, except on TV. We don't hunt either, but would if we ever needed the meat for food.
 
SeaBreeze said:
We don't have any silencers, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone with a sawed off shotgun, except on TV. We don't hunt either, but would if we ever needed the meat for food.
Click to expand...
Yes, one does what one needs to do to survive. Should it eventuality become necessary I too would hunt to live and provide for my own.
 
I have a Ruger .357 and a Winchester 12ga. pump-action as my home defense options. My Mini 14 is for the apocalypse....

Anyone coming at me with nunchucks gets spanked.
 
rt3 said:
Not sure what federal law has to do with but let's review some holes and bring you up to date

nunchucks are included as an exemption because they are used in ancient weapons classes at martial arts studios and they teach coordination so unless you want to waste law enforcement time arresting a bunch of 8 year olds----

silencers are there to reduce the noise damage to the hearing

sawed off off shotguns are already legal if it has a pistol grip on it. Are you going to waste law enforcement time on people who have a pistol who likes to put a rifle stock on it? It's the federal law that is moot. And to waste more effort on legality is really asinine.

I'll bet you did't even know that an at-15 pistol was legal. Arizona is one of the few constitutional carry states which puts it the forefront of the antis targeted states.
Click to expand...


A sawed off shotgun has nothing to do with a pistol grip. It is the barrel length. You can put a pistol grip on any legal shotgun, no problem. But you had better have a barrel longer than 18"

AR-15 pistol? Length here is not the issue. It is the fact that the barrel is rifled. Many pistols have short barrels. Magazine capacity might come into play in some states, but that is not a federal issue.

True silencers are illegal, again, under federal law. They could care less about your hearing.

And if you think Federal Firearms laws have "nothing to do with it" you may be in for a hot time with the BATFE. You do not know your Federal Firearms laws. You need to do a google search on "NFA class 3 weapons"

Hope you have a good lawyer.


Gene
 
SeaBreeze said:
I didn't think that machine guns were illegal at all, but they did put a limit on the magazine size in Colorado, I think their looking to overturn that decision. I'm not really into guns, although we own a few. Neither of us are into anything but some target practice out in the backwoods, and protection, of course. Neither of us have a concealed carry, but if we feel the need for it in the future, we will be doing that too.

I thought that silencers were illegal, but I know that people can make their own if they really want to. We have never used our firearms for any illegal activity, and thankfully have never had to use them for self defense either. But I'd rather have them and not need them, than not have them and need them. I do understand the people who choose not to own guns at all, and who are against them, that's their choice and I respect it.
Click to expand...

That is correct, machine guns have never been illegal. You just have to have an FFL class 3 Federal Firearms permit, go through an FBI background check, and pay a $200 tax per gun.

But the same is true with silencers. FFL, Background check, and $200 TAX.

You cannot legally "make" a silencer. It is a felony.

And AZ Jim is right, Federal law will trump state laws.

Gene
 
I didn't think making a silencer was legal, but those who need one likely don't care, they're probably criminals. We use ear plugs when we shoot.
 
A silencer is not to protect the shooters hearing. It keeps those being shot at from knowing where the bullets are coming from.
You got 4 guys standing under a street lamp, someone with a silencer can pop one of em out of the group and the first any of the group knows anything is amiss, is when bubba falls to the ground with a bullet in his head.

The military use them to take out guard dogs, and sentries.

On a semi-auto, you can hear the sound of the action working, but on a bolt gun or single shot it is dead quiet.

So no, silencers were not developed by OSHA. And I am not 100% correct in saying they were illegal, you just need to have the NFA permit, etc.

Gene
 
Neither silencers or select Fire weapons are illegal. "Machine guns" are easily transferred with a tax stamp and there manufacturing is illegal. Thus with a limited supply they are very expensive, usually starting at $6000 for a basic Uzi. Silencers require a tax stamp, and registration for $200. Silencers reduce the noise impulse from 130 db to about 60 db or normal conversation. An observer at a distance, however can hear the bullet break the sound barrier as it goes by.

In the military the help to hide the shooters location. Civilian use for them is extensive regardless of any need supposed by readers of this forum. They are used to protect the shooters hearing, during hunting, as ear protection is rarely used, and at shooting ranges were the close proximity of the next shooter can cause hearing loss. Currently many states are changing their laws to allow silencers in hunting.
 
I have a class 3 license and a class 10 license, so pleeeeeesssssse.
the barrel length requirement can easily be gotten around by using a shotgun pistol, and adding a rifle stock. this makes it a sawed off shotgun. Arizona is trying to simplify the law, as a lot of folks are doing this and it creates enormous law enforcement problems.

the manufacture of silencers without a transfer is legal in those state which have passed legislation allowing it. Federal law only comes into play if the device is transported across state lines.
 
An ar-15 pistol poses the same problem. If someone wants a really short barreled ar 15, they buy an ar pistol and put a rifle stock on it. For this reason BATFE says that device used to fix the stock to the forearm,as with the new Sig Saur models, is illegal. Really short shotguns, such as the smith govener revolver can attach a stock also. Shotguns can be equipped with a rifled barrel for shooting slugs at longer ranges for deer, and still use standard shotgun shells. Any 45 cal revolver can fire .410 shotgun shells if the cylinders are long enough.

simply trying to give an idea of the complexity of the situation from the law enforcement aspect here
 
Over the last 20 or so years the shooting sports have been divided, and the hunting group didn't pay much attention to the self defence bunch and as a result, the relentless anti gun groups have gotten bits a pieces of legislation through the various states. Ironically it took someone with his anti-constitutional stance, like Obama, to polarize the various groups, change the state politicians, and get some of the old laws of the books.
 
Just one of 5-6 in the last six months
Written by ASA on November 21, 2014 - Comments
Today, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission voted unanimously to repeal the 57 year old prohibition on the use of firearm suppressors for taking deer, gray squirrels, rabbits, wild turkeys, quail, and crows. Following the passage of the new regulation, the Commission then voted unanimously to authorize an Executive Order to allow the measure to take effect immediately. Minutes later, Executive Order # EO 14-32 was signed, making hunting with suppressors for all animals in the state legal, effective immediately.
The new regulation amends 68A-12.002 General Methods of Taking Game; Prohibitions by striking “silencer equipped” from the language.

Proposed Amendment to 68A-12.002 Now Enacted
​
With the enactment of the new regulation, Florida becomes the 33rd state to allow hunters to use legally possessed suppressors in the field for all game animals. Earlier this year, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana all enacted similar pro-suppressor hunting reform. Of the 34 states in which suppressor hunting is legal, Montana is now the only state which restricts their use to certain types of animals. For a full map of suppressor legalities, visit the ASA’s website.
ASA would like to thank everyone who worked on the issue, including the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, and the National Rifle Association. We would also like to thank the Commissioners of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for their unanimous support, and to their Executive Director for signing Executive Order # 14-32. Most importantly, we would like to thank all of the sportsmen and women in Florida who took the time to support this initiative. Because of your efforts, hunting in Florida has become a safer and more enjoyable experience.
The American Suppressor Association looks forward to continuing to work towards our goal of legalizing suppressor ownership and hunting in all 50 states. We would like to thank Florida for taking us all one step closer.
 
rt3 said:
An ar-15 pistol poses the same problem. If someone wants a really short barreled ar 15, they buy an ar pistol and put a rifle stock on it. For this reason BATFE says that device used to fix the stock to the forearm,as with the new Sig Saur models, is illegal. Really short shotguns, such as the smith govener revolver can attach a stock also. Shotguns can be equipped with a rifled barrel for shooting slugs at longer ranges for deer, and still use standard shotgun shells. Any 45 cal revolver can fire .410 shotgun shells if the cylinders are long enough.

simply trying to give an idea of the complexity of the situation from the law enforcement aspect here
Click to expand...

I had a Taurus Judge, and yes, it shot .410 shotgun shells. The barrel is rifled, so they dont consider that a sawed off shotgun.

But you are telling me, that I can take a remington 1100 lets say, saw the barrel off to about 10", and by putting a pistol grip on it it is legal? I dont think I buy that.

As for the AR-15 "pistols" I dont know of any problems with one of those. I can't see much use for one. The muzzle blast would be uncomfortable, and accuracy not very good.
 
rt3 said:
Please note the intent of the group is for all 50 states
Click to expand...

That is Florida game laws. So if all 50 states were to allow the use of silencers in hunting, that still has no effect on wether or not silencers are legal. The BATFE would still control the legality of owning a silencer would it not? All the Florida law means is that IF you own a legal silencer, you can use it to hunt.

Am I missing something?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top