Odd and interesting caveat, which I understand does not apply to someone in AZ, or most of the US:
Did you know that in Connecticut it is lawful to own a full-auto firearm, but NOT one that fires in burst mode? Their assault weapons law prohibits that specifically.
Weird, huh? So, I guess to make this relevant (barely) I'll advise that if you do that just be aware that your gun would not be lawful there.
(1) “Assault weapon” means:
(A) (i) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: ...
Not to hijack the thread but it would be interesting to know if a burst only gun would be CT legal.You may be right, though I'm not sure how it is applied in practice. The law says:
(1) “Assault weapon” means:
(A) (i) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: ...
You can't have both. You may be able to have burst instead of full-auto.
The daft thing is that reading that sentence it could mean almost anything. Is it only an illegal assault weapon if it is capable of full auto, semi-auto, AND burst? Well, sure, that would fit.
But the word "or" seems to preclude any combination of two firing modes. And I think that's how they apply it. (Because heaven knows we're safer if our full auto machine guns can't also be fired in semi-auto mode... )
The sentence could have been written a little more clearly and with an extra word or two removed any uncertainty.