I know a guy

[NWSharpshooter]

Back before 86 and 36 you could be American and just do that

Ahh the good ol days


So your Uzi is closed bolt?

 

[sovietak474u]

Ahh the good ol days


So your Uzi is closed bolt?

Nah . My auto uzi is open bolt .

 

[SafeCracka]

Nah . My auto uzi is open bolt .

Same here.

 

[gh1950]

I don't believe that simply owning parts is a crime.

Wrong.

BATF respectfully disagrees with you, and at the end of the day, we know whose opinion counts

 

[Radar363]

Wrong.

BATF respectfully disagrees with you, and at the end of the day, we know whose opinion counts

So if someone who doesn't own an AR buys an M16 lower parts kit from Brownells for example he is breaking what law, exactly?
An lpk is not a registered NFA part. A drop in auto sear is because it can be used in most AR lower receivers, but the lower parts kit isn't going to make a PSA lower a 'machine gun', not readily or easily, however the ATF words it.

 

[gh1950]

So if someone who doesn't own an AR buys an M16 lower parts kit from Brownells for example he is breaking what law, exactly?
An lpk is not a registered NFA part. A drop in auto sear is because it can be used in most AR lower receivers, but the lower parts kit isn't going to make a PSA lower a 'machine gun', not readily or easily, however the ATF words it.

Feel free to take the matter up with BATF, as it seems to have a different read on the law.. I'm sure it will value your input.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are...nvert-firearm-machinegun-subject-registration

Are parts or kits which would convert a firearm into a machinegun subject to registration?
Yes.

[26 U.S.C. 5845(b); 27 CFR 479.11]

I suggest you review this.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01...ert-semi-automatic-weapons-into-machine-guns/

Under federal law, the making of parts that turns a gun into a machine gun is equal to making a machine gun....

Bishop then presented a defense that his product was for educational and informational purposes only, and that the instructions mailed out with the kit specifically outline what not to do — complete the fourth bend on the piece of aluminum — in order to keep the firearm legal.

And then there is this:

26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions

(b) Machinegun


The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

 

[Radar363]

Feel free to take the matter up with BATF, as it seems to have a different read on the law.. I'm sure it will value your input.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are...nvert-firearm-machinegun-subject-registration



I suggest you review this.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01...ert-semi-automatic-weapons-into-machine-guns/



And then there is this:

Are you reading what you are copying and pasting? Conversion is the key phrase. And 'making' parts for conversion.

All my AR bcg's have auto carriers but that doesn't make then machine guns.

In that case you refer to in Utah the man was selling drop in kits that he modified, so yes that was illegal but an M16 lpk isn't going to make an AR full auto because it won't fit without modifying the receiver, which is the illegal part.

Show me a case where someone was prosecuted for owning a full auto sear they received in a surplus parts kit.

 

[gh1950]

Are you reading what you are copying and pasting? Conversion is the key phrase. And 'making' parts for conversion.

All my AR bcg's have auto carriers but that doesn't make then machine guns.

In that case you refer to in Utah the man was selling drop in kits that he modified, so yes that was illegal but an M16 lpk isn't going to make an AR full auto because it won't fit without modifying the receiver, which is the illegal part.

Show me a case where someone was prosecuted for owning a full auto sear they received in a surplus parts kit.

That's fine.

I posted the official BATF response to "parts".

As I said, feel free to debate the fine points with BATF.

Carry on with whatever it is you are doing, and keep on keeping us apprised at to how you are pushing the limits of the law.

I'm out of here.

 

[Radar363]

That's fine.

I posted the official BATF response to "parts".

As I said, feel free to debate the fine points with BATF.

Carry on with whatever it is you are doing, and keep on keeping us apprised at to how you are pushing the limits of the law.

I'm out of here.

The BATF responses change all the time depending on the specifics of each case, that's well known.
Again, show me an example of a case of someone being prosecuted for having less than all the parts required to build a machine gun.

Personally, I don't have to look over my shoulder or hide my dog because I know that owning a full auto bolt carrier group isn't a crime.

 

[gh1950]

Again, show me an example of a case of someone being prosecuted for having less than all the parts required to build a machine gun.

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/pensacola-man-convicted-unlawfully-selling-unregistered-machineguns

In the case United States v. Was, 684 F. Supp. 350 (D.Conn.
1988), affirmed, 869 F.2d 34 (CA2 1989), cert. denied, 490 U.S.
1068, a United States District Court refused to dismiss charges of
transferring three drop-in auto sears without complying with the
National Firearms Act. While there was no contention the sears at
issue were made before November, 1981, the defendants argued that
since the sears could not convert the AR-15 by themselves, they
were not a combination of parts for converting a gun into a machine
gun (under the pre-1986 definition of "machinegun", which applied
to their case). The court disagreed, saying the law also covered
a set of parts that was not complete enough to convert a firearm
into a machine gun, but was meant for converting a gun into a
machine gun. Since the drop-in sear physically consists of
multiple parts in the assembly, the Court ruled the drop-in sear
could fall within the NFA, as it then read, whether or not these
particular sears did was left for a trial. The defendants later
pled guilty.


In the case of United States v. Bradley, 892 F.2d 637 (CA7
1990), the defendant argued that a set of parts he was charged with
selling without complying with the NFA, consisting of an M-16
hammer, selector, disconnector, trigger and a pre-81 drop-in AR-15
auto sear, was not a set of parts to convert a gun into a machine
gun, because he did not also sell the M-16 bolt carrier, also
needed for the conversion, at the same time as he sold the other 5
parts. He sold the carrier two weeks after selling the other
parts. The court rejected the argument. Bradley also argued that
the sear was grandfathered under ATF Ruling 81-4, and therefore he
could not be prosecuted for selling it.

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/ar_15_auto_sear_faq.tx

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William CASH and Michael Croyle, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 97-3748, 97-3749.
Decided: July 23, 1998
Before ESCHBACH, EASTERBROOK, and MANION, Circuit Judges.Haywood E. McDuffie (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Criminal Appellate Division, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Sara L. Ellis (argued), Office of the Federal Defender Program, Steven Shobat, Chicago, IL, for William Cash. Terence MacCarthy, Sara L. Ellis (argued), Office of the Federal Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Michael Croyle.

William Cash and Michael Croyle sold 30 auto sears to undercover agents and agreed to sell another 37, plus a silencer and two AR-15 semi-automatic rifles (with kits to make them fully automatic).   Auto sears enable semi-automatic weapons to be used as fully automatic weapons, which means that auto sears themselves are defined as “machineguns” by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).   The devices defendants sold lacked serial numbers and were unregistered.   As part of a plea bargain, Cash and Croyle pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and transfer the silencer, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861, and therefore, derivatively, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (the general conspiracy statute).   Cash was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment and Croyle to 37 months, terms calculated on the assumption that the sale of auto sears was relevant (unlawful) conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines.   See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b).   Both defendants contend that the auto sears should not have been treated as firearms and therefore should not have increased their sentences.

Held:  The auto sear known by various names including “AR15 Auto Sear,” “Drop In Auto Sear,” and “Auto Sear II,” is a combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.   Consequently, the auto sear is a machinegun as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120222b23
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. George Arthur Dodson, III, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

February 21, 2012.

On October 21, 2011, a federal grand jury returned a 151-count superseding indictment charging Dodson with various firearm-related crimes. The indictment is accurately summarized by the government as follows:

• Counts 1-2 allege the unlawful transfer of a DIAS to an undercover law enforcement officer (this was the subject of the original indictment); • Count 3 alleges the unlawful transfer of a DIAS; • Counts 4-7 allege manufacturing and dealing in machineguns (the DIASs) and failing to register and pay the associated taxes necessary to manufacture and deal in firearms; • Counts 8-127 allege three counts for 40 different DIASs possessed by Dodson; for each DIAS, there is an associated count for possessing a machinegun, failing to register the machinegun as required, and possessing a machinegun without a serial number; • Counts 128-149 allege a variety of counts related to eight (8) other suspected machineguns found in Dodson's collection; • Counts 150-151 allege one count for possession of an unregistered silencer and one count for possession of a silencer without a serial number.
...
Dodson attacks every other possible definition of machinegun under the statute, but fails to address this most applicable definition of "machinegun" under § 5845. The statute does not state that a DIAS, alone, must be able to convert a semi-automatic weapon to a fully-automatic weapon. Rather, the statute states that the term "machinegun" includes any "combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun." 27 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (emphasis added). Based upon the plain, unambiguous language of the statute, a DIAS is a combination of parts designed and is intended for use in converting a semi-automatic firearm to a fully-automatic firearm. See United States v. Cash, 149 F.3d 706, 706-07 (7th Cir. 1998) ("Auto sears enable semi-automatic weapons to be used as fully automatic weapons, which means that auto sears themselves are defined as `machineguns' by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)."); See also United States v. Was, 869 F.2d 34 (2nd Cir. 1989) (rejecting defendants' arguments that drop in auto sears cannot be deemed machineguns within the meaning of 27 U.S.C. § 5845(b)). The fact that certain M-16 parts were needed to convert an AR-15 rifle into a fully-automatic firearm is irrelevant to this particular definition of "machinegun" under § 5845(b). In fact, in Part II of Dodson's brief, he concedes that "the auto sear is a machinegun as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)." (Def's Br. at 10). Accordingly, Dodson's first argument fails.
...
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment (D.E. No. 32) is DENIED.

Prior to trial, the Court will re-visit the issue of whether the government is required to prove the date of manufacture of the DIASs as an element of any of the alleged crimes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ATF Cracks Down on Retro Builders using 80% Receivers

In an entirely unexpected turn of events, ATF has reclassified completed and even so-called “80% lowers” with a fake auto sear marking as machine guns, depending on who makes them. Here’s an image of one such receiver the Bureau has taken custody of and ordered destroyed.



The problem is that fake sear hole. Marking such a receiver with a small, engraved ring has been one detail adopted by detail-obsessed retro builders for years. The receiver above is a typical example of this detail obsession. It began as a so-called 80% blank, and has been completed to firearm stage. But it also has been engraved with Colt markings and extensively machined to change its profile from the current reinforced lower to the M16A1 vintage shape, especially in the vicinity of the pivot pin bosses and the buffer tower. Internally, the receiver remains AR-15 semi-auto profile only, and cannot accept M16 full-automatic parts.

Under this novel, stretching interpretation, this 80% receiver blank, too, is probably a machine gun, even though it is not completed. No trigger group machining has been done, and it cannot accept machine gun (or any) trigger group parts.

The owner of the receiver in the first illustration above decided to sign the ATF letter and let his “machine gun” be destroyed

Well there's 5 examples. One of which was for possessing ONE part that couldn't even be made into a machine gun.

I have to go to lunch now, but if you need some more let me know.