TexasCHLforum.com

http://myfox8.com/2012/10/22/va-has-mos ... uns-in-us/

Federal figures show there were 30,220 registered fully automatic machine guns in Virginia as of March. Florida had the second-highest total with 29,128, followed by California with 28,774.

Texas isn't even in the top three, but California is? I'm truly disappointed.

California has almost 10% of the U.S. population. It has more of just about everything.

Those numbers don't distinguish between non-LEO civilians and police. I'm willing to be far more are owned by police agencies. Machine guns are expensive to own. I literally don't know anyone who owns one, except one de-milled AK-47 Vietnam trophy.

It seems like Kentucky and Indiana have more machine-gun shooting than anywhere else. Most ranges won't let you shoot one. It upsets the chickens.

- Jim

It's not that I don't feel the appeal of a fully automatic. But I'm just too cheap. Forget the cost of the rifle, and license. I just don't think I'd ever get to the range with a gun that could burn $8. worth of ammo every second.

Although I wouldn't mind a select fire MP5.

I'd like to do it once, but I think the thrill would wear off soon.

A lot of hobbies are expensive on a per-minute basis. I'll bet skydiving is right up there. The cost of deer hunting in Texas is obscene. But I don't want to get off-topic.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:California has almost 10% of the U.S. population. It has more of just about everything.

Those numbers don't distinguish between non-LEO civilians and police. I'm willing to be far more are owned by police agencies. Machine guns are expensive to own. I literally don't know anyone who owns one, except one de-milled AK-47 Vietnam trophy.

It seems like Kentucky and Indiana have more machine-gun shooting than anywhere else. Most ranges won't let you shoot one. It upsets the chickens.

- Jim

I suspect the the majority of CA's fully automatics are owned by police. As I recall, the autos owned by the people are grandfathered in and new permits are not given. The majority of the privately held machine guns are probably owned by movie stars.

Californians own more automatics than Texans

How many Texans do they own?

WildBill wrote:As I recall, the autos owned by the people are grandfathered in and new permits are not given. The majority of the privately held machine guns are probably owned by movie stars.

There are a lot of rich people in California other than movie stars, and money talks. If I understand the process, either a city chief of police or county sheriff can sign off a class III license.

I know the Galveston County sheriff has signed off "silencers" and short-barrel rifles. I specifically asked him if he would sign off a silencer, and he said yes. I just never got around to it.

The problem with machine guns is finding one that is for sale and legal for a civilian. The pool of weapons that can be sold legally has been nearly fixed since 1986.

- Jim

RPB wrote:
Californians own more automatics than Texans

How many Texans do they own?

LOL that absolutely made my day. Well played.

seamusTX wrote:

WildBill wrote:As I recall, the autos owned by the people are grandfathered in and new permits are not given. The majority of the privately held machine guns are probably owned by movie stars.

There are a lot of rich people in California other than movie stars, and money talks.

The problem with machine guns is finding one that is for sale and legal for a civilian. The pool of weapons that can be sold legally has been nearly fixed since 1986. - Jim

I was just make a "dig" at the mostly anti-gun actors, but you never know. There are plenty of wealthy Californians who make most "movie stars" look like paupers.

ShepherdTX wrote:Texas isn't even in the top three, but California is? I'm truly disappointed.

"Californians own more automatics ..." That's cuz they never learned how to use a clutch.

WildBill wrote:I was just make a "dig" at the mostly anti-gun actors, but you never know. There are plenty of wealthy Californians who make most "movie stars" look like paupers.

A lot of these "anti-gun" people are only opposed to rednecks and colored people owning weapons. If they don't own a bunch of expensive hardware, they have armed bodyguards.

Actors tend to spend every dollar they take in, and don't keep good track of their finances. (Athletes are even worse in that regard.) I was thinking of Silicon Valley billionaires and people who got into real estate at the right time and place.

- Jim

WildBill wrote:

seamusTX wrote:California has almost 10% of the U.S. population. It has more of just about everything.

Those numbers don't distinguish between non-LEO civilians and police. I'm willing to be far more are owned by police agencies. Machine guns are expensive to own. I literally don't know anyone who owns one, except one de-milled AK-47 Vietnam trophy.

It seems like Kentucky and Indiana have more machine-gun shooting than anywhere else. Most ranges won't let you shoot one. It upsets the chickens.

- Jim

I suspect the the majority of CA's fully automatics are owned by police.

I think most are probably owned by businesses associated with the film and TV industry, as props.

Happily Ever After wrote:I think most are probably owned by businesses associated with the film and TV industry, as props.

Why do you think that?

-Jim

Personal experience. Why do you think what you do?