The constitutional open carry bill would be a law and go into effect this year. The constitutional carry one would go to a vote of the people to see about changing the state constitution. If that passed I imagine it would be another year before the permit stuff could be removed from state law.
I'm all for "constitutional," no-permit carry and I do agree that a fee of $20 a year paid in $100 or $200 installments could preclude some people from seeking a license. But do you really think the state makes that much on these after considering the costs to process and maintain the licenses? I think $100 per applicant is about what we end up paying people (after considering their salary and benefits and mailing and paper and ink, etc...) to push the paper at the government desks. So how much of it is profit versus simply breaking even?
Again, no permits would eliminate the expenses of the program and thus no fees would need to be collected and I am all for that. But is really a huge money maker?
So I could buy a MIO lower receiver only, and assemble it with full auto components without regard to NFA regulations, right? Since the "firearm" was made in OK, regardless of where the rest of my kit came originated?
I mean theoretically, presuming SB10 passes and the ATF and/or other DOJ lackeys don't try to unconstitutionally overstep into intrastate affairs.
You maybe right about this now that I think of it.
I mean, you work for/with the government, right? So I am glad you get it
To be clear, I am not supporting "shall issue" more than abolishing the carry permits; but a permit system requires operational expenses, and if we have permits I am not sure I support general tax revenue funds to be allocated to OSBI and subsidizing my permit over levying fees on the permits to be paid by the applicant. Now if I am wrong on my speculation and they're collecting $20 per annum when the expenses are say... $5, then we should reconsider the fees, no doubt. But I strongly doubt they are that efficient
[Government voice] By not taking part in interstate commerce you are affecting interstate commerce, therefore we can interfere in intrastate commerce. [/Government voice]
I haven't read this bill, but *typically* there is language in them that makes the MIO not apply to NFA stuff. So yeah, you could assemble a MIO lower and sell it from your FFL without doing paperwork (in theory), but not a suppressor.
Again, I haven't read this one and this one (please please please) may apply to NFA items as well.
Look, of Colorado can blatantly ignore federal drug laws, why can't Oklahoma blatantly ignore federal firearm laws?
Why not a supressor, if it was stamped MIO as well?
That would be nice! Registration is the reason I am not going to get anything NFA. I figure I have enough exposure with SDA license, lifetime hunting license and my browser history
Well, I presume both machine guns and suppressors would be allowable under the OK FFA if passed and they are MIO. Though as alluded to previously, the Montana Act has not been regulated favorably by both the BATFE and the Federal courts. I have no idea as far as rulings and current status/production/licensing of "NFA"intrastate weapons (a paradox, I know) in states with similar FFA laws, like Tennessee.
To clarify, my question specifically was about how an unassembled lower receiver would apply under the OK FFA and federal laws if assembled as a machine gun by the private purchaser, versus purchase of (for example) a preassembled rifle sold as a fully automatic machine gun. I can't imagine self-assembly with a machine gun sear on a MIO receiver would be any different than an assembled fully automatic rifle or pistol... but weirder things have been legislated.
Also note, I am using machine gun in the specific legal context of the NFA meaning any fully automatic weapon. I understand that, as a class of weapon in casual conversation, it takes on a different meaning.
Similar threads
