Would it be legal full auto?


PDA






saltydog
December 26, 2005, 10:05 PM
We all know that it is illegal to make a full auto firearm that fires more than 1 round per "pull" of the trigger as the law pertains. My question is => would it be legal to build a full auto weapon that would fire more than 1 round with a single "push" of the trigger? I can't find that in the law. Can somebody else point this out?:uhoh:

From what the law reads is that it can only be a machine gun if it fires from a single pull of the trigger. What kind of weapon would it be if it fires from a single push of the trigger?

Any Law Wizzard Guru's out there?:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Would it be legal full auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Legion1776
December 26, 2005, 10:41 PM
What kind of weapon would it be if it fires from a single push of the trigger?

The technical branch morons would probably argue that if you turned the weapon backwards shooting behind you that your "push" would then become a "pull". Who wants to be the test case?

Car Knocker
December 26, 2005, 11:56 PM
We all know that it is illegal to make a full auto firearm that fires more than 1 round per "pull" of the trigger as the law pertains.

No, we don't ALL know that. :D

26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines a machine gun as "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."

Note the use of the term "function", not "pull".

mbs357
December 27, 2005, 12:16 AM
So I guess you'd have to make something other than the trigger fire it. =p

Jadecristal
December 27, 2005, 02:15 AM
the trigger could be something that didn't operate by a single "function?" I'm too lazy to look now, but if the law doesn't pretty explicitly define "function," one might be able to take them for a ride on that. I don't know - a couple triggers? Something that must be held down while another part of the trigger is pressed? (I'm thinking minigun there - multiple buttons to start the motor or something).

Not that I'm willing to be the test case, see.

vynx
December 27, 2005, 02:40 AM
Have you ever seen the gattling gund kits for ruger 10/22's? That is more than one function of the trigger and they are legal but they are not fully automatic because you have to crank the handle to fire them.

zahc
December 27, 2005, 02:52 AM
One loophole that I thought of, would be electronically or mechanically storing trigger pulls. The law doesn't say 'within 20ms'.

By the letter you could have a ratchet system, pull the trigger 19 times, insert a 20 round magazine and dump it. One round per trigger pull.

Or have an electronic firing system, and just sit on the couch and rack up like 20,000 trigger pulls.

Janitor
December 27, 2005, 09:34 AM
Have you ever seen the gattling gund kits for ruger 10/22's? That is more than one function of the trigger and they are legal but they are not fully automatic because you have to crank the handle to fire them.
The BATF doesn't care how many times you can make the trigger function in a given period of time. They only care how many rounds fire for each one. In the gattling gun kits, it's one round for each pull of the trigger.
-

Janitor
December 27, 2005, 09:35 AM
One loophole that I thought of, would be electronically or mechanically storing trigger pulls. The law doesn't say 'within 20ms'.

By the letter you could have a ratchet system, pull the trigger 19 times, insert a 20 round magazine and dump it. One round per trigger pull.

Or have an electronic firing system, and just sit on the couch and rack up like 20,000 trigger pulls.
Yea. That'd be great!

I could pull the trigger now, and then later on see what I hit (or don't) when it fires! Neat! :D

Reality is, that your trigger will be whatever it is that you pull/push/twist/lick that causes all those stored up "trigger functions" to be used. You'll be activating one switch/actuator/trigger one time to get all 20 rounds to go. One function & multiple rounds means a talking to from the alphabet guys.
-

The Drew
December 27, 2005, 09:58 AM
There is a court case going on right now that is against a guy who built from scratch a machinegun.

THe argument is that since the parts never were involved in interstate commerce, the feds have no jurisdiction to make it illegal for him to build and own.

So if you have a machine shop and design and build your own machinegun, pending the outcome of this case, it may be legal.

Shadowpballer
December 27, 2005, 10:47 PM
No, we don't ALL know that. :D

26 U.S.C. 5845(b) defines a machine gun as "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."

Note the use of the term "function", not "pull".
to bad "keeping the trigger held down" dosent count...

Car Knocker
December 27, 2005, 11:11 PM
There is a court case going on right now that is against a guy who built from scratch a machinegun.

THe argument is that since the parts never were involved in interstate commerce, the feds have no jurisdiction to make it illegal for him to build and own.

So if you have a machine shop and design and build your own machinegun, pending the outcome of this case, it may be legal.

The way "Interstate Commerce" is being interpreted these days, the steel for the parts would have to be made instate with iron ore from instate using electricity generated instate and machined with equipment manufactured instate.

rem870
December 28, 2005, 02:42 AM
i have often thought about an electrical device that is attached to the trigger of the firearm that manipulates it rapidly. I don't know if that would constitute a machine gun because the unit I had dreamed up would have a trigger to activate the electrical device. Another idea I have daydreamed about is a trigger that is fired when it is pulled and then once again when it is released. The only problem I haven't worked out is how you would not make the gun fire if you desired to only fire one round.

Firethorn
December 28, 2005, 05:05 AM
i have often thought about an electrical device that is attached to the trigger of the firearm that manipulates it rapidly. I don't know if that would constitute a machine gun because the unit I had dreamed up would have a trigger to activate the electrical device
Like the string 'machine gun', the BATF has determined that the activator of any such electrical device is considered the new 'trigger', thus making it a machine gun.

Kinda like how you can have a crank fired gatling gun and it isn't considered a 'machine gun', but if you hook an electric drill up to it...
Another idea I have daydreamed about is a trigger that is fired when it is pulled and then once again when it is released. The only problem I haven't worked out is how you would not make the gun fire if you desired to only fire one round.

You might have a disconnect button to allow you to release the trigger. But as far as I know the BATF has determined this to be legal, because the gun fires on different operations of the trigger. The pulling is 1 op, the release is another.

Another option is to have a mechanical feature that kicks the trigger forward after firing, so you just keep pulling to have it keep firing.

Too Many Choices!?
December 28, 2005, 01:50 PM
If the firearm designed had 1 external trigger, but 3 internal,"sear faces and seperete diconnetor for each", you could make a 3 round burst-type semi kinda like the M-16A2. Let me try to clarify a little. The M-16 has that 3 toothed ratchet/sprocket inside that counts the rounds. Instead of that internal ratchet/sprocket in the FCG, add the 3 shot counter DIRECTLY TO THE EXTERNAL TRIGGER:). Pull the trigger and a shot fires, pull the trigger more and a second shot fires, pull still further and the final shot fires. You could,"time", the distance between each single trigger pull to be faster than human reaction, which would make it impossible for a person to pull the trigger too fast and jam the action. Meaning you could pull the 1 trigger 3 times in one stroke or simply fire the first shot and reset the trigger. Probably be the most gummy fleeling trigger in the world though, as I have no idea how you would handle the stacking of the trigger:confused:. My idea is similar to the gat-trigger to me, but activated by lateral motion as opposed to torquing a crank.What do you guys think BATFE would say about the trigger pull being continuous, but still having seperate trigger pulls within it.

I think I will send the BATFE a letter to get some clarification,hmmm;).
Wow, I think I just described a system better than full auto for most soldiers! I smell the next great break through in firearms technology,"responsive triggers".....

Third_Rail
December 28, 2005, 01:55 PM
Last I knew, that action would be classed as FA.

Too Many Choices!?
December 28, 2005, 02:15 PM
If every time the gun fires the trigger has to be pulled that is semi auto,so please explain the differnce to me,in detail or with example. Please don't just tell me ,"I think it is a MG". WHY? With each pull 1 shot, each shot 1 pul, thatl = semi auto:confused:. Every time you fired the gun, it would drop the hammer and fire the round to cycle the action, and then come to a point of,"bolt closed, hammer cocked under sear held by trigger". In order to get the next shot you have to PULL the TRIGGER AGAIN, or release the trigger back to the resting position of held by the (1st)primary sear engagement.... This happens in every semi auto, every trigger pull. Why would this be any different just because this design would reduce the trigger reset time to almost zero between shots 1-3?

Hkmp5sd
December 28, 2005, 07:54 PM
Another idea I have daydreamed about is a trigger that is fired when it is pulled and then once again when it is released. The only problem I haven't worked out is how you would not make the gun fire if you desired to only fire one round.
The 'Hellfire" trigger adapter for the Ruger 10/22 operates in this fashion. It fires one round when you pull the trigger and one round on the "release" motion of the trigger. It actually puts a "trigger" on both sides of your finger. As for the single round shot, they never figured it out. It's two shots or no shots.

Firethorn
December 28, 2005, 08:06 PM
The 'Hellfire" trigger adapter for the Ruger 10/22 operates in this fashion. It fires one round when you pull the trigger and one round on the "release" motion of the trigger. It actually puts a "trigger" on both sides of your finger. As for the single round shot, they never figured it out. It's two shots or no shots.

Maybe hold the trigger down while removing the magazine and cycling the bolt?

Jax
December 28, 2005, 08:45 PM
The way "Interstate Commerce" is being interpreted these days, the steel for the parts would have to be made instate with iron ore from instate using electricity generated instate and machined with equipment manufactured instate.

Car Knocker,

It's not that simple... Even if you did all those things, you would still be subject to regulation under the commerce clause. Look into Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) :barf:, arguably one of the worst USSC decisions.

You see, if you *build* one then it reasonable to assume you are not going to *buy* one. And the fact that you are not going to buy one impacts interstate commerce - even if you couldn't legally do so... See how this works?

Wickard gives the federal goverment jurisdiction over *everything* (tangible and intangible) that can be bought, sold, traded, etc.

In order to rein in the government, Wickard needs to be overturned.

Jax

midi
January 4, 2006, 09:58 AM
SCOTUS said so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart

ScottsGT
January 4, 2006, 10:18 AM
If you really want to waste ammo that bad, send it to me and I'll enjoy it :D

Deavis
January 4, 2006, 10:26 PM
SCOTUS said so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart


The SC did not rule directly on Stewart. That article is incorrect in saying that they did, which is odd because they article states the issue correctly at the bottom.

Citing the results of the Gonzales v. Raich case (June 5th, 2005), the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case but rather to vacate the ruling below and remand it to court of appeals "in light of" Raich. The Ninth Circuit was thereby directed to reconsider Stewart and be guided in that reconsideration by Raich. Raich holds that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress can also criminalize possession of homemade machine guns.

The 9th Circuit can still let Stewart stand if they want or send it back up to the SCOTUS and say, "Hang your Raich decision, here you go, rule on this one."

So, take it how you want it, but Stewart has not been decided before the SCOTUS yes.

midi
January 5, 2006, 01:51 PM
IANAL, but if a person cannot grow marijuana for personal use because it affects interstate commerce, then the same can be said about building a MG. Actually the MG case is even easier to make, since a person probably can't buy marijuana at all (probably need to be a lab), while you can still buy a MG as a person.

I don't see how any court could argue that something that can be bought (MG) will affect interstate commerce less than something that cannot (marijuana).

BTW, I'm surprised how little RKBA press US v Stewart gets. I was looking for federalism cases when I found it.

Sheldon J
January 5, 2006, 03:49 PM
Over the years I have seen several doodads that insert in the area of the trigger and will make the gun fire like a full auto. Most have not survived the test of (law) time. However the hand cranked gatteling gunís are not considered full autos and can be found in kit form (very pricey) in fact one of the trigger modifications used this principle.:evil:

publius
January 6, 2006, 09:58 AM
The 9th Circuit can still let Stewart stand if they want or send it back up to the SCOTUS and say, "Hang your Raich decision, here you go, rule on this one."

So, take it how you want it, but Stewart has not been decided before the SCOTUS...
If they attempt to let it (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
) stand, the government will immediately appeal it to the SC, and rule on it they will. The reason it was remanded (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-617.htm) "in light of" Raich (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
) was because the Court agreed with the cert petition (http://www.mp5.net/info/wilson.pet.app.pdf) which concluded:

Raich and the instant case have several features in
common. Both cases involve commodities that are
typically acquired through commercial transactions.
Congress has sought to eliminate the commercial mar-
kets in both marijuana and machineguns by enacting a
categorical ban on private transfer and possession of
the relevant items, rather than mandating a case-by-
case inquiry into the interstate commerce nexus of
particular acts of possession. And in each case, the
Ninth Circuit held that the statutory possession ban is
unconstitutional as applied to a discrete class of pur-
portedly non-commercial possession.

I know some will point out that there is not a categorical ban on private possession of machine guns, but there is if we are talking about private possession without a license. Also, there is not exactly a categorical ban on private possession of cannabis, considering that the federal government actually supplies it to 7 or 8 people, while banning all the rest from using it. (Search for "Irvin Rosenfeld" for example).

If you enjoyed reading about "Would it be legal full auto?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!