Faust said:
This contradicts what I formally believed to be the law. Just FYI, I am not trying to argue here, I am just wanting to get some clarification / double check.
I was under the impression that the Class III NFA license, needed to own a short-barreled rifle/shotgun, was the same license needed to own a fully automatic weapon. I thought that my local gun store could sell the fully-automatic weapons it has to civilians, after going through the whole process outlined in detail for purchasing an SBR. Was I ill-informed?
The process of purchasing an MG is similar to that of purchasing an SBR, and the same forms are used. A license is not required order to own either, in many cases, but the tax must (generally) be paid.
The difference is that an SBR is an SBR is an SBR but the rules are not the same (or consistent) for MGs. The law changed in 1986 in a way that prohibited non-licensees from owning MGs that weren't already on the books 18 USC 922(o)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html :
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Post-86 dealer samples came about as a regulatory ruling to support the practicalities of 922(o)(2)(A) and apply only to licensed SOTs and only if they can demonstrate the need for the sample (generally via a request for a demonstration from a department or agency.)
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/nfa_handbook/ is also a good resource.