Legal Ownership of Full Auto Firearms in America: A Debate Renewed

The debate over full auto firearms is an enduring one, often centered on the interpretation of constitutional rights and public safety concerns. While the Second Amendment unequivocally guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, the specifics of this right have been hotly contested, especially regarding semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms.

Understanding Full Auto Firearms

There are only a handful of fully automatic assault weapons currently in production and legal for use in the United States. Prominent examples include the Heckler Koch HK CAWS and AAI CAWS, which were prototypes that did not see adoption prior to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. These weapons were designed for selective firing and used high-pressure, full-brass cased belted 12 gauge shells, capable of firing either light armor-piercing or tungsten-alloy rounds, with potential modifications for small explosive or incendiary rounds.

Other similar weapons exist, but they are classified as machine guns and destructive devices. This classification typically limits their ownership to government entities and individuals with substantial financial means. The legal framework for owning such weapons is stringent, involving extensive background checks, registration, and a significant cost barrier.

The M202 FLASH: A Special Case

One notable exception is the M202 FLASH, a launch system that would be classified as a destructive device. Its rockets can be legally owned if one can find a seller willing to part with both the launcher and the rockets. However, there are substantial barriers to obtaining these items, including a $200 transfer tax per rocket and the launcher. Furthermore, the M202 is a flamethrower replacement, meaning it could pose significant safety and environmental concerns, particularly in areas prone to wildfires. While theoretically legal, it may not be the most practical choice for responsible home defense.

The Myths Surrounding Full Auto Firearms

The term 'assault weapon' is often used as a misleading descriptor, aimed at inciting fear and opposition. In reality, firearms are inanimate objects incapable of 'assaulting' anyone or anything on their own. The debate should focus on the functionality, safety, and regulatory aspects of these weapons.

Regarding full auto firearms, many proponents argue that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to own such weapons, akin to owning any other type of firearm. They believe that purchasing and using a full auto firearm should be no different from any other gun purchase, with standard background checks and proper handling and storage. This perspective sees no significant difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms in terms of their intended use or inherent risks.

Others, however, argue that the instant availability of fully automatic firearms poses unnecessary risks to public safety. They believe that additional regulations and social norms should be in place to govern the ownership and use of these weapons.

A Balanced Perspective

Given the potential risks, it is crucial to strike a balance between individual rights and public safety. Efforts to educate the public about the risks and responsibilities associated with owning full auto firearms could play a significant role in mitigating potential negative outcomes. Additionally, ongoing discussions about legislative frameworks that ensure responsible ownership and use are essential.

Ultimately, the debate over the legal ownership of full auto firearms in America is complex and multifaceted. It requires a nuanced understanding of constitutional rights, public safety, and responsible firearm ownership. As the discussion evolves, it is essential to consider both the historical context and the current realities of firearm ownership in the United States.