Riddle me this, why can't I own full auto?

[usmcveteran]

So I was looking online to see what states allow you to own fully automatic firearms after watching a TV show.

So I saw this link https://www.quora.com/In-which-state...tomatic-weapon and allegedly only 8 states don't allow you to own fully automatic firearms?

So it got me thinking....... Constitutionally speaking if there is a law that says you can own something, in this case a fully automatic weapon, but ONLY if it was made before a certain date, can that law actually be constitutional?

Essentially you're banning something based on a manufacture date. Older ones have the same functionality as newer ones.

You can't argue either that this law was meant to phase out automatic firearms overtime because if that was the case there would be a end date to their legality.

[Norm Deguerre x2]

Well
you can own something, just don't get caught with it
Unless you have paid the $200 Fed Tax
And, of course, you do not reside in New York

[Norm Deguerre x2]

Ever heard of a Lightning Link ??

[thughes]

Apply for your 07 FFL and class 2 SOT, build your own!

[usmcveteran]

You're proving my point...... What your saying is like asking me to have to show ID to vote LOL, it's to big of a process and effectively denying me my right lol

[Norm Deguerre x2]

BTW
you may own a full auto Lower
Just do not have in close possession an Upper
Or
It's not good

[thughes]

sovereign citizen can own one....

[thughes]

although.......isn't the term "sovereign citizen" an oxymoron?

[Norm Deguerre x2]

Yes, thug.
i prefer sovereign man.

[WARFAB]

You're proving my point...... What your saying is like asking me to have to show ID to vote LOL, it's to big of a process and effectively denying me my right lol

Except with the class 3 weapons, the hassle and expense IS in fact denying the right to a huge portion of the population. Unlike voting, where you basically have to have an ID that would be valid for voting in order to be a functioning member of society and nobody can actually find a legit example of someone who hasn't been able to vote because of an ID requirement.

[usmcveteran]

Sounds like arbitrary and capricious to me. If they were so dangerous to society we would see a ton of crimes with them and they would be illegal across the board. But that's not the case. Essentially you have to have money to give the government and do lots of paperwork in addition to having a clean record.

Having money should not be factor in exercising a right (poll taxes are illegal for voting because some people couldn't afford it and hence their right was violated) and unnecessary complication and paperwork again can't be constitutional. If it's so complicated that the average person can't or won't go through the process then I would say it could fit the deprivation of rights under colour of law. I mean look at Texas and any state trying to change voter laws. The democrats don't want anything to make it more difficult and say it would violate the constitution. By that logic all this paper work to own a full auto is 10000000000% unconstitutional.