Is this legal to own

[JDS556762]

Just don’t pop that third hole and it’s the same as having all the full-auto small parts that come with most de-milled kits you buy surplus. I have received many many parts kits with the FA parts it’s not a huge deal.

You pop a third hole for your auto sear and you’re in that intent world

 

[Deleted member 79987]

Isn't it crazy, all the little nitpicky things about a chunk of metal shaped a certain way, or a little hole here & there. But that's how they interpret the law I guess.

 

[emptyMAGS]

https://www.deltateamtactical.com/B...nd-Burst-First-Parts-Set-M16-M-16_p_4513.html

Got an email today. Email says it’s legal to own, but I’m pretty sure it’s a bad idea.

 

[JDS556762]

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

So what the answer is, basically, is that just like ATF says a firearm receiver isn't really a receiver unless it's more than 80% complete, a full auto parts kit (including parts that are only for use in a full auto weapon and have no role to play in a semi-auto-only gun) is OK to have as long as the guns you own in which those parts might fit is not READY to accept those parts, and a certain amount of drilling and other metal work must remain to be done before they'll fit.

Therefore, would it be fair to say that there's a certain "PERCENTAGE RULE" for full auto parts combined with gun ownership? Is it also an 80% rule?
A 90% rule?
What is the greatest % of the work needed to allow that firearm receiver to accept those full auto parts that can be completed before you're into NFA territory?

As I understand ATF's prior letter-based rulings sent to various importers and manufacturers and collectors, they focus on the "third hole" for the pin on which the automatic-fire sear pivots. But, that's easy to drill!
What would be difficult to do is machine-out the metal in the receiver to make room for those other full auto parts.

BUT... you don't have to! You can still buy used 1960s to late 1980's production AR15 receivers, registered by their manufacturers with ATF as Title I sporting firearms, that have the same internal dimensions in the lower receiver as M16 receivers. They have a deep pocket, no shelf or a low shelf, and otherwise more metal removed from the factory. The kind of metal removal that we consumers can't do without some pretty expensive machine shop power tools that most of us don't own.

So, what sense does that make? If you own a 1970s vintage Colt SP-1 lower receiver, and you buy an M16 fire control parts kit for it, and if you built your upper with an M16 bolt carrier (which has MORE metal in it, and the semi-auto-only versions have had sections cut away), then you'd literally have a 1-minute job of drilling a hole less than 1.5" long through aluminum. That would be 99% complete toward being a machine gun, right? And still legal, if not drilled out for an auto sear and not having a 3-position safety/ selector. True?

 

[spencer60]

Just don’t pop that third hole and it’s the same as having all the full-auto small parts that come with most de-milled kits you buy surplus. I have received many many parts kits with the FA parts it’s not a huge deal.

You pop a third hole for your auto sear and you’re in that intent world

You drill that 3rd hole you got more than 'intent'... you just actually created a machine gun.

again...

...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.

This is the actual US law, and it's pretty clear. Being in possession of any parts that are solely used in creating a machine gun is the same as making a machine gun.

While the ATF may not actually prosecute on trigger parts, that's simply at their discretion. There's nothing stopping them from saying that having an AR and these parts and a drill bot constituted 'intent'.

They could technically claim that full-auto BCGs are solely for use in machine guns (true enough) and prosecute anyone who had one. Just because they choose not to do so doesn't make them exempt from the law, the ATF simply decided to focus on trigger components.

 

[Grunk]

You drill that 3rd hole you got more than 'intent'... you just actually created a machine gun.

again...

...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.

This is the actual US law, and it's pretty clear. Being in possession of any parts that are solely used in creating a machine gun is the same as making a machine gun.

While the ATF may not actually prosecute on trigger parts, that's simply at their discretion. There's nothing stopping them from saying that having an AR and these parts and a drill bot constituted 'intent'.

They could technically claim that full-auto BCGs are solely for use in machine guns (true enough) and prosecute anyone who had one. Just because they choose not to do so doesn't make them exempt from the law, the ATF simply decided to focus on trigger components.

I think this sets up the key problems. You're buying chips in a game betting on the ATF's interpretations & discretion. The initial buy-in for a seat at the table may not be that expensive, BUT the ATF can declare you all-in whenever they feel like it. And them even if you 'win', you lose a lot financially. It's the ultimate rigged, house makes the rules however and whenever they want kind of game.

 

[boomdad]

I remember when you could order a tri-burst contraption out of the back of Guns and Ammo years ago.

 

[Alaskan]

Even with that kit it would work, you'd need mill the inside of the receiver.

 

[Mr.Glock]